Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
11 August 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 20 August 2015 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 10 September 2015.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so, must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 23
July 2015
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0762 - Demolition of bungalow and outbuildings and
erection of a two-storey dwelling and detached three car garage; Three Owls
Farm, Saxlingham Road for Mrs Cargill
Page 1
(Appendix 1 – page 98)
(2)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0467 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling;
Green Farm, Holt Road for Executors of Estates of E W J Watts and Y U Watts
Page 16
(3)
FAKENHAM - PO/14/1212 - Residential development for a maximum of 78
dwellings, extension to existing allotments, public open space, surface water
attenuation pond and foul sewage pumping station; Brick Kiln Farm, Rudham
Stile Lane for Mr Picken
Page 23
(Appendix 2 – page 101; Appendix 3 – page 103; Appendix 4 – page 106; Appendix
5 – page 115; Appendix 6 – page 119)
(4)
RUNTON - PF/15/0315 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension and
raise roof to provide habitable accommodation, insertion of first floor balcony
and installation of cladding; Apple Tree Cottage, Rosebery Road, West Runton
for Mr B Cottam
Page 46
(5)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0721 - Erection of a detached single-storey building to
provide 2 self-contained annexes; Dalmeny House, 2 The Boulevard for
Dalmeny House Limited
Page 49
(6)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0114 - Erection of 52 dwellings, access, roads,
open space, parking areas and associated works; Land off Holway Road/Butts
Lane for Norfolk Homes Ltd
Page 53
(7)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0936 - Development of ground mounted solar voltaic
panels and associated works.; Land at Bunn's Hill, North Walsham for
Solarcentury
Page 61
(Appendix 7 – page 122)
(8)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0938 - Proposed development of ground mounted solar
photovoltaic panels and associated works; Land at Frog's Loke, North
Walsham for Frog's Loke Solar Ltd
Page 72
(Appendix 7 – page 122)
(9)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Page 84
(10)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 84
(11)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 93
(12)
NEW APPEALS
Page 93
(13)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 94
(14)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 94
(15)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 94
(16)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 97
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 20 AUGUST 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0762 - Demolition of bungalow and outbuildings and
erection of a two-storey dwelling and detached three car garage; Three Owls
Farm, Saxlingham Road for Mrs Cargill
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 August 2015
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0828 PF - Erection of two and a half storey replacement dwelling Withdrawn by Applicant 19/09/2013
PF/14/0785 PF
Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two and a half storey replacement
dwelling
Refused 04/09/2014 - Appeal Dismissed 16/04/2015
PF/14/1566 PF
Demolition of dwelling, barns and outbuildings and erection of two and a half storey
dwelling
Refused 27/04/2015
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of a 1950’s bungalow, associated outbuildings and barn and the
erection of a vernacular style one and half storey dwelling.
The proposed dwelling which would be “L” shaped in form would partially overlap the
footprint of the existing bungalow, being set at an angle with the Saxlingham Road and
would have a footprint of some 197 sq. metres. It is envisaged that the dwelling, which
would comprise 4 bedrooms, would have a total habitable floor area of 311 sq. metres
over two floors with the upper floor being contained within the roof space and served
by rooflights to the eastern and western roof slopes, with windows to the gable ends. In
addition there would be a separate three bay, pitched roof garage having a floor area
Development Committee
1
20 August 2015
of 60 sq. metres, giving a total floor area of 371 sq. metres.
It is envisaged that the externally the walls would be primarily of flint with a soft Norfolk
red brick plinth and window surrounds. Whilst the east and west elevations would have
an overhanging eaves supported on oak posts, with oak also being used for the doors
and window frames. It is proposed that the roof of the dwelling and garage would be of
weathered red Norfolk clay pantiles.
As proposed the development would utilise the existing accesses to the site.
As part of the scheme the applicant is proposing to remove a row of poplar trees and
some pollarded conifers, which are considered to be an alien feature in the landscape.
It is proposed that the three existing holiday cottages, which have a ridge height of
some 4.5 metres, adjacent to the northern boundary of the site would be retained.
The application is supported by plans showing the proposed dwelling, a Planning
Statement containing a Design and Access Statement and Heritage Statement, and a
Protected Species Scoping Survey (incorporating a Bat Survey).
An amended site plan has been received which illustrates the locations of the buildings
that will be removed (poly tunnel, bungalow, two barns, shed and summer house) and
the location of the proposed buildings (dwelling and garage) together with existing
vegetation (to be retained) and trees shown to be removed (group of poplars).
All trees on the site are protected as they are within the Glaven Valley Conservation
Area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning given the sensitive nature of the site within the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
PARISH COUNCIL Wiveton Parish Council – Considers that the proposal in much
more appropriate than the two schemes previously proposed for the site, however their
support for the development is subject to it conforming precisely to planning policies
HO8, EN1 and EN2 and Sections 66 (1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires special attention to be paid to the
desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings and the character and
appearance of Conservation Area, in the particular case the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area of which its churches are a key feature.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eleven letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns,
(summarised):1. The application is woefully short of details e.g. landscaping and materials.
2. Whilst the current proposal appears to keep to the footprint of the existing structure
and is not so badly out of scale with the surrounding landscape the current
application lacks detail and supporting documentation, including landscape
proposals and ecological survey to determine the extent of damage by the
intensive development of this site.
3. It is important that the impact on such a highly sensitive landscape, designated
area and heritage assets are independently assessed. In the absence of such as
assessment and full consultation it is impossible to determine that “no material
harm” would be caused – therefore the application must be refused.
Development Committee
2
20 August 2015
4. We believe that the integrity of the AONB and Conservation Area would be
destroyed by the inappropriate development repeatedly proposed by the applicant
and that would include the woefully inadequate application at present under
consideration.
5. No Councillor could possibly be expected to make a responsible decision on this
sensitive site based on the application as presented.
6. Applicants should be required to make a well-argued case for demolishing older
“ordinary” structures, as opposed to adapting them in a sympathetic manner for
present day use.
7. In the event of permission being granted it is vital that permitted development rights
are removed.
8. The remainder of the site, partially outlined in blue, has been ignored but was
subject to some very damaging buildings and landscape proposal in previous
applications.
9. The site forms part of a rather rare habitat of unimproved grassland which has not
be cultivated for over 20 years and previous owners received grants under the
Countryside Stewardship Scheme to maintain its interest. A full ecological survey
is therefore needed to establish what is actually now present on this site.
10. The design of the new house and garage are poor with no architectural merit but
seem to be nearer the more appropriate size for the site.
11. The important row of conifers should be retained as they provide much need cover
for wildlife - a bat and owl corridor. They will also serve to screen the new property
from the road.
12. The poplar trees are particularly fine and very much in keeping with the landscape.
13. Although unprofessional as it is this application could form the basis of a negotiated
development which conforms with planning policies applicable to the AONB and
Conservation Area.
14. The Council should demand a proper and professional application which can be
considered carefully and presented to the planning committee.
15. This is not “nimbyism” as we all have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the
AONB against wanton development for future generations as well as our own.
A letter has been received from solicitors acting on behalf of the Glaven Valley
Protection Group and the Friends of North Norfolk, which welcomes the fact that it is
proposed that the new building would be linked to the footprint of the existing primary
dwelling and that as far as it goes this represents the basis for an acceptable
development. However the letter goes on to suggest that given the sensitive nature of
the site they would expect a more comprehensive application to enable a full
assessment of the proposed development as the supporting drawings and statements
do not provide the necessary quality of information to allow a far reaching decision.
Once the application can be fully understood the proposal may well be unsatisfactory
and warrant refusal, however if not a number of conditions are suggested which should
be applied to any approval. A full copy of the letter is reproduced at Appendix 1.
A letter has also been received from the Council for the Protection of Rural England,
Norfolk, who, although welcoming the fact that the proposed dwelling would be placed
over the footprint of the bungalow to be demolished and also the significant reduction
in its bulk and scale, object to the application on the following grounds (summarised):1. Whilst the application form states that four buildings are affected, we see no
statement identifying the buildings. There is no information on how the site will be
landscaped following the demolitions.
2. There is no information on the treatment of trees and hedgerow on the perimeter of
the site, and whether any of this might be removed.
3. There is no assessment of the replacement dwelling in relationship to the
Development Committee
3
20 August 2015
topographical features of the landscape around and its character.
4. Related to this, the design drawings are less than adequate to make this
assessment.
5. Core Strategy Policy HO 8 requires that the proposal ‘would not materially increase
the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside’. A
lack of the necessary information makes it impossible to determine the application.
As the dwelling is not just in the Countryside, but in the AONB and Glaven Valley
Conservation Area this deficiency is all the more critical.
CONSULTATIONS
Blakeney Parish Council – No objection.
Norfolk Coast Partnership – Considers that due of the lack of information relating to
this application it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the potential impact of the
building on the surrounding landscape. It cannot be assumed that because this
proposed replacement dwelling is in a different location and somewhat reduced size
from previous applications that it will not have significant impacts. The proposed
replacement dwelling is still a significantly larger building than the existing bungalow.
From the elevations drawings the height of the proposed dwelling would appear to be
8.2m, although this is not explicitly stated, compared with the existing bungalow at
5.2m. Other dimensions are not provided.
The comparison of areas provided in the Planning (etc) Statement still appears to rely
on the acceptance of the existing barn as part of the existing ‘dwelling’, which I regard
as dubious. Overall, this still appears to represent a significant increase in scale. In the
Planning Statement, the size, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling is compared
to traditional agricultural buildings (barns) whereas in terms of policy HO8 this should
be compared to the size and scale of the existing dwelling.
To enable proper assessment of what this application would involve, its potential
impacts and acceptability in policy terms, further information is required which
includes:



full information on the proposed new buildings / structures (dimensions, materials,
design details etc)
information on what is proposed for the other buildings / structures and landscape
features on the site
a landscape and visual impact assessment including visualisations from a number
of viewpoints (both when newly constructed and after any landscaping has
developed)
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Although the
application has not been supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
(LVIA) it was not considered reasonable to request such a document given the
extensive knowledge and information of the site gained from the previous two
applications and the location, size and design of the new proposals put forward in the
current application. Views of the proposed building will be predominantly from the
public highway, from the east across the valley and through existing hedgerows.
The plan illustrates that the northern access into the site is retained and will serve the
existing Holiday Lets with a route behind the proposed garage. It is clear that the
gable end of the proposed garage will be visible from the Saxlingham Road. The
Development Committee
4
20 August 2015
height to eaves of the garage is 2.5m and height to ridge is just over 5.5m and is 6m in
width. The end gable has no fenestration and is predominantly flint with brick edge
detailing. The view of the garage will only be glimpsed through the access by
receptors in cars when travelling along the road therefore there is little concern over
this view of the garage. The bulk of the three-bay garage (10m in length) will be visible
in part from the Saxlingham Road when travelling north along the road because of the
gaps in the vegetation along the northern boundary. The garage has no detailing in
the rear (northern) elevation, being a simple flint wall, and would therefore appear quite
large (although it is recognised that a larger steel and asbestos barn is being removed
from a similar footprint and the Holiday Lets are visible within the same
view). However, the views into the site from the north would certainly benefit from the
addition of planting along the northern boundary. This could be secured via a
condition of planning and would reduce the impact of the garage when viewed from the
north.
On a similar point, partial views of the northern elevation of the proposed dwelling will
be visible behind the garage when travelling along the Saxlingham Road. The height
of the building to the ridge is just over 8m and is 12m in width on the northern
elevation. It is not considered that this elevation is significantly large, or lacking in
design interest to have a detrimental impact on the landscape character or visual
receptors, and is generally acceptable in terms of a residential dwelling. This
elevation of the building will not been seen in isolation but in the context of existing
vegetation, the Holiday Lets and the garage. As mentioned previously the addition of
vegetation along the northern boundary will further soften the impact of the proposed
dwelling from this northern perspective.
Views of the proposed dwelling will also be seen through the southern access,
although these will be mainly glimpsed views depending on the speed of the
receptor. The angle of the proposed dwelling is set more directly on a north-south axis
whereas the existing bungalow is parallel with the Saxlingham Road (which runs
south-west/north-east). This results in the more visible part of the proposed building
being set further back in the plot (when viewed from the road through the southern
access). The ridge height of the proposed building is approximately 3m higher than
the existing bungalow resulting in a ridge height of 8m. It is not considered that this
increase in ridge height will have a detrimental visual impact for users of the
Saxlingham Road, given that the views of the building will be gained through the
existing accesses.
Previous concerns about a replacement dwelling on the site centred on the size and
location of the replacement dwelling and its impact on the AONB, landscape character
and the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Views of the site are gained from the east
across the valley, therefore the relationship between the dwelling and surrounding land
when viewed from the east is critical in determining whether the proposal is acceptable
or not (with respect to policies EN1, EN2 and EN4). As indicated the proposed
dwelling is 3m higher to the ridge than the existing dwelling, and with a large roof area,
so the proposed dwelling will be more visible within the landscape. However, it is
considered that from the main viewpoints (as determined from the previous
applications) the proposed building will be seen against a backdrop of hedgerows and
woodland situated on The Downs on or just above the horizon. The resulting visual
impact is likely to be minor adverse, given the large scale of the surrounding landscape
and the relative insignificance of the building within it and distance viewing. The
impact on landscape character and the AONB is also likely to negligible to minor
adverse as the replacement dwelling is on a similar footprint to the existing and is not
significantly larger in scale, and not sufficient to warrant and objection under these
policies.
Development Committee
5
20 August 2015
The Landscape section does however consider that an opportunity has been lost with
the current application because the landscape restoration and enhancement
proposals offered as part of the previous two applications have not been submitted as
part of the this application. Although some landscape improvements to the site can be
sought via a landscape scheme and with the removal of the poplar trees, this
enhancement will not extend into the wider landscape and will merely enhance the
proposed dwelling. This is unfortunate.
A Protected Species Scoping Survey incorporating comprehensive bat surveys was
also submitted; this was prepared by Torc Ecology and dated 14th July 2013. The
survey was prepared in accordance with recognised procedures and guidelines and by
Suitably Qualified Ecologists, the results and conclusions of the report are deemed
sound. The survey time frame is within those deemed acceptable according to
recognised guidelines.
The survey did not reveal any roosting bats within the buildings on site although a
number of bats of different species were seen to be foraging around and commuting
through the site. The barns on the site supported nesting birds however three owl
boxes within the buildings did not reveal any signs of nesting barn owls. The
grassland around the site had the potential to support reptiles.
Recommendations have been made in the report to safeguard protected species
during the development and to enhance the site post development. Subject to the
implementation of the recommendations, the development will have a neutral to
beneficial impact on biodiversity in accordance with Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy. I
would recommend that a condition is placed on any permission given requiring the
development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations.
To conclude, based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposals will
preserve the special qualities of the AONB, the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and
the landscape character of the Rolling Heath and Arable Landscape Character Type
and is therefore compliant with policies EN1, EN2 and EN4. Supplementary planting
is requested through the provision of a Landscape Scheme, and consideration should
be given to enhancing the landscape and ecology through a Landscape and Ecological
Management Plan. Mitigation and enhancement in accordance with the Protected
Species Survey is also requested.
Notwithstanding other policy considerations, the Landscape Section does not object to
the above application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions:
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - (Conservation and Design) Following on from the previous refusals, this new proposal amends the siting of the
proposed dwelling and adopts a more restrained design approach.
In respect of the former, moving the building closer to the site of the existing bungalow
would avoid any undue incursion into the wider landscape. This has to be welcomed.
As regards the building itself, the inspiration for its elevations has seemingly come
from the farmsteads and barns which populate rural North Norfolk. In principle this is
an acceptable approach given the rural location of the site. Also acceptable is the scale
of the building which has been significantly reduced from its bulkier predecessors.
In terms of design, it is acknowledged that the elevations include agrarian references –
i.e. the long ridgeline, the large glazed opening and the support posts. Despite these,
Development Committee
6
20 August 2015
however, the building is far from being a faithful or accurate representation of a barn or
a cartshed. Instead it is something of a hybrid which sends out rather mixed messages.
For example, when viewed from the north and south, the building offers proportions
and detailing which are perhaps more reminiscent of a chalet bungalow. From the east
and west, meanwhile, the off centre position of the two-storey porch and the solid
masonry infill behind the support posts are both without real vernacular precedent. So
too are what look to be stone parapets.
Despite these rather purist concerns, however, the new build has nothing which
particularly jars on the eye. Instead it would be a relatively mild-mannered structure
which would not impose itself unduly within the landscape. Therefore, whilst it is
arguably a missed opportunity in design terms, it is not considered that it would
actually harm the appearance and character of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area
or the setting of any of the listed buildings in the surrounding locality. With the garage
block similarly inoffensive visually, there can be no sustainable Conservation & Design
objections to this latest application.
In the event of committee approving the application, there would need to be a series of
materials conditions imposed to compensate for the outline nature of the submitted
plans. These would cover bricks, tiles, parapet copings, joinery, rooflights and
eaves/verge detailing.
Historic England - During the period between the previous and the current applications
we have been involved in pre-application discussions with the applicant and your
council. The current proposals arise from these discussions. The proposed dwelling
has been reduced in height by 1.0m, the amendments also include a recessed roof
with a shallower pitch and roof lights which sit back within the roof form. The original
scheme had a very steep roof and large boxed elements on the first floor and roof
space which added to the roof’s bulky appearance and gave it the appearance of a
three storey building. Lowering the building's height as now proposed would reduce its
prominence in the landscape. The amendments to the dormer windows have also
simplified the roof form and helped to reduce its massing, improving the relationship
between the roof and the dormer windows that we were concerned about.
The NPPF paragraph 132 requires planning authorities to place great weight on the
conservation of designated heritage assets, and states that the more important the
asset the greater the weight should be. This paragraph also recognises that “any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification”. It is also recognised in the
NPPF (paragraph 134) that 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. The NPPF (Paragraph 137)
highlights the opportunity for Local planning authorities to look for new development
within the setting of heritage assets that will enhance or better reveal their significance.
Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution
to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favorably.
This application raises issues about the opportunities and challenges presented by
new development in the countryside. There are times when contemporary design can
enhance the character and appearance of landscape. In this case we feel on balance
that the revisions have helped to assimilate the building more successfully in its
setting. As a result we no longer have objections to the proposals' impact on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area, but would recommend conditions
are placed on any consent to ensure a high quality of external materials and detailing.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions.
Development Committee
7
20 August 2015
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Policy considerations.
Principle of development.
Landscape Impact (including impact on AONB).
Design.
Impact on heritage assets.
APPRAISAL
Policy considerations
The site is situated in the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy and is also within the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where Policies
Development Committee
8
20 August 2015
SS2, HO8, EN1, EN2, EN4, and EN8 are applicable.
Policy SS2 relates to development in the Countryside where development requires a
rural location and is for one of a number of types of development, including
replacement dwellings.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the area
designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal:


would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling, and
would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
In determining what constitutes a ‘disproportionately large increase’ account will be
taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been
extended or could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing
character of the area.
For the purposes of this policy ‘original dwelling’ means the house as it was built, or as
existed on the 1st July 1948, whichever is the later.
Policy EN1 states that the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect,
on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed.
Development will be permitted where it;
 is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or
is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
 does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
 seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken
as they arise.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities
of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals 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.
Development Committee
9
20 August 2015
Policy EN4 requires that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly
encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve
or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable.
Development proposals, extensions and alterations to existing buildings and
structures will be expected to:










Have regard to the North Norfolk Design Guide;
Incorporate sustainable construction principles contained in policy EN6;
Make efficient use of land while respecting the density, character, landscape and
biodiversity of the surrounding area;
Be suitably designed for the context within which they are set;
Retain existing important landscaping and natural features and include landscape
enhancement schemes that are compatible with the Landscape Character
Assessment and ecological network mapping;
Ensure that the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the
surrounding area;
Make a clear distinction between public and private spaces and enhance the public
realm;
Incorporate footpaths, green links and networks to the surrounding area;
Ensure that any car parking is discreet and accessible; and
Where appropriate, contain a variety and mix of uses, buildings and landscaping.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of designated assets, (in this case the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area), and 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.
Furthermore, the character and appearance of Conservation Areas will be preserved,
and where possible enhanced, and, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, area
appraisals and management plans will be prepared and used to assist this aim and to
encourage the highest quality building design, townscape creation and landscaping in
keeping with the defined areas.
In addition, the following paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework,
(March 2012) are considered to be relevant.
Paragraph 60 - Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose
architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality
or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development
forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local
distinctiveness.
Paragraph 115 - Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic
beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which
have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The
conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these
areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.
Development Committee
10
20 August 2015
Paragraph 132 - 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 134 - 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.
Paragraph 137 - Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the
setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that
preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better
reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.
Principle of development
At the present time the site is occupied by a bungalow, which has an overall footprint of
some 160 sq. metres, including the conservatory and is situated close to the entrance
off the Saxlingham Road. Under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 2008 a single storey extension of 72 sq. metres (18 metres x 4
metres) could be added to the rear of this property which would give a total footprint of
some 232 sq. metres. Whilst adjacent to the northern entrance to the site is a single
storey rectangular barn of asbestos and steel sheeting which is used for
garaging/storage which has a footprint of 142 sq. metres, giving a total potential
domestic footprint of 374 sq. metres, which equates to approximately 311 sq. metres of
floor area (taking into account the thickness of the walls).
Further east along the north boundary are three holiday cottages, which are to be
retained, beyond which is a more modern open fronted barn of asbestos and steel
cladding which has a footprint of 246 sq. metres. In addition, there are other buildings
within the site including a summer house, and Polly tunnels and greenhouses, which
along with the barn would be removed as part of the scheme.
In contrast the proposed dwelling would have a footprint of some 197 sq. metres with
an internal habitable floor area of 311 sq. metres spread over a ground and first floor.
In addition, a separate three bay garage having a floor area of 59 sq. metres is
proposed, giving a total floor area of 370 sq. metres.
As far as Policy HO8 is concerned this makes no reference to the need for the
replacement dwelling to either be on the same footprint as the existing property or for it
to be in close proximity or indeed within the immediate curtilage. Instead, the policy
concentrates on whether the replacement would result in a disproportionately large
increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling, and whether it would materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
In addition, the Policy makes allowances for the fact that the existing dwelling could be
extended under Permitted Development Rights.
Development Committee
11
20 August 2015
In terms of the increase in scale of the proposed dwelling, based solely on the net
increase in floor area of some 58.68 sq. metres, on balance this is not considered to be
excessive and would not provide grounds to refuse the application.
In respect of the height of the proposed dwelling, the ridge height of the main body of
the building at 8.2 metres would be approximately 3.1 metres above that of the existing
bungalow with the overall length of the ridge being 1.5 metres longer. In addition the
eaves would be set at 3.4 metres compared to 2.61 metres giving a roof pitch of 45
degrees.
Whilst it is accepted that the overall height of the proposed dwelling would be greater
than that of the bungalow, when viewed from outside the site the appearance would be
primarily of the roof, which it is intended would be finished in traditional red clay Norfolk
pantile. In addition, unlike the existing bungalow the dwelling would be set at an angle
of some 30 degrees to the Saxlingham Road thereby reducing the apparent scale and
massing of the building when viewed from that vantage point. Similarly when viewed
from the north along the Saxlingham Road the principle view would be of the northern
gable end. Whilst longer views from the east across open fields, the nearest point
being some 500 metres to the south east from the Langham Road, the impact would
be negligible being seen against the backdrop of rising ground beyond.
Therefore in terms of Policy HO8 it is considered that on balance the proposal would
not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling or materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
Landscape Impact (including impact on AONB)
Although the site itself does not have a particularly significant inherent value it is
recognised that it is located within a highly distinctive and sensitive landscape, of
exceptional visual and ecological value. The combination of elevated land, long
seaward views and the mosaic of a heathland landscape makes the site and
surrounding landscape one of the feature landscapes of the AONB.
Compared to the previous schemes it is proposed that the dwelling would be partially
on the footprint of the existing bungalow, which would result in the building having less
impact on the wider landscape character.
In general views are limited to those from the public highway and some rights of way,
mainly through gaps in hedgerows and field accesses. The majority of views of the
proposed building would be seen from some distance from the site and be seen
against the backdrop of land. Whilst closer to the site it is intended to enhance the
immediate surroundings of the dwelling through the removal of the row of poplar trees
and pollarded conifers to the northern boundary and also the provision of additional
landscaping and planting which the Design and Access statement suggests could be
agreed by way of a condition of a permission.
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy stipulates that development will be permitted where it
does not detract from the special qualities of the AONB and seeks to facilitate delivery
of the Norfolk Coast AONB Management Plan. Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy is
influenced by both the North Norfolk District Council Landscape Character
Assessment and the AONB Integrated Landscape Character Guidance, and
development proposals should demonstrate that they will protect, conserve and where
possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. The
Integrated Landscape Character Guidance produced by the AONB Partnership
Development Committee
12
20 August 2015
provides guidance on how to manage change (development) to achieve the overall
vision for the AONB.
Having assessed the proposed development the Landscape Section are satisfied that
the current proposal does not warrant the submission of a Landscape and Visual
Impact Appraisal and that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions in respect
of landscaping, which should include the retention of the frontage hedgerow to the
Saxlingham Road consider that the proposed dwelling would not have an adverse
impact on the landscape character of the area or AONB. As such the development can
be seen to accord with Policies EN1 and EN2.
Design
As far as the design of the dwelling is concerned, the inspiration for its elevations
seemingly comes from the traditional farm buildings, outbuildings and cart sheds which
populate rural North Norfolk, which are predominantly of flint construction with red
brick dressing under Norfolk clay roofs. Although such an approach could be
questioned in the absence of an accompanying farmhouse, it is a built form which is
familiar within the District and is acceptable in principle. This said, in this particular
case the building would have an overtly domestic feel with the number of window
openings and roof lights. Despite this, the combination of the buildings angled siting,
and the distances it would generally be viewed from would largely negate these
features and to all intents and purposes the building would have a vernacular
appearance retaining an agricultural outline within the landscape and therefore would
not look incongruous. This view has been supported by the Council’s Conservation
and Design Section who have indicated that they have no issue with the building’s
design.
Impact on heritage assets
In terms of the potential impact on heritage assets, in addition to the site being within
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, the other principle assets in the area are the
Parish Churches of, Blakeney, Wiveton and Cley-next-the-Sea, which are grade I
listed buildings. St. Nicholas Church, Blakeney is situated on higher ground some 1.0
km to the north east and the upper half of the tower is visible from the site above trees
at Howe Hill. Whilst St Mary’s Church, Wiveton and St. Margaret's Church,
Cley-next-the-Sea are set in the valley bottom north north-east of the site
approximately 1.35 km and 1.9 km away respectively.
In considering the application, the Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to
pay "special attention" to the "desirability of preserving" the setting of listed buildings,
and the character and appearance of conservation areas. This means that the
desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings and the character and
appearance of conservation areas are not mere material considerations to which any
weight can be attached. When a local authority finds that a proposed development
would harm the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a
conservation area, it must give that harm considerable importance and weight.
When approaching the site from the east along Bridgefoot Lane the village of Wiveton
and the parish church are seen in the foreground with the site itself some 2.5 km
beyond being seen against the backdrop of rising ground and the tree line beyond.
Whist the upper half of the tower of Blakeney church is visible in above trees some
distance to the northwest. From this direction given the distance involved, together
with intervening features and the recessive nature of the proposed materials it is not
Development Committee
13
20 August 2015
considered that the proposed dwelling would have a significantly harmful impact on
either of the setting of these churches or indeed the wider Glaven Valley Conservation
Area. Whilst in respect of the view from Church Lane, Cley-next-the-Sea, some 2.3
km from the site, although the site would be seen in the context of both the Parish
Churches of Wiveton and Cley-next-the-Sea, given the distance involved and the fact
that the dwelling would be seen against rising ground it is not considered that the
proposal would affect these listed buildings or their setting. Whilst closer to the site
from the Wiveton Road, just to the south of The Old Rectory, some 700 metres from
the site, given the proposed position of the dwelling, views would be partially masked
by the existing holiday cottages which have a ridge height of some 4.5 metres.
It is therefore not considered that the proposal would not have a significantly adverse
impact on the setting of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and any harm has to be
weighed against the general site improvements. This view is shared by the Council’s
Conservation and Design Section who have indicated that they consider that the
development would result in no real harm being caused to the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, other heritage assets (including
Wiveton church) and the wider countryside and as such would accord with the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN4, EN8 and NPPF Paragraphs 132 and 134.
Heritage England have raised no objections.
Summary
Although the proposed dwelling would not be on exactly the same footprint as the
existing dwelling this is not a policy requirement providing the dwelling would not result
in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling and
materially increase its appearance on the surrounding countryside. When taking into
account the size of the existing dwelling, together with garaging and storage and the
level of additional accommodation which could be provided under Permitted
Development Rights it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would result in a
significant increase in scale. In terms of its overall height whilst it is accepted this would
be some 3.1 metres more than the dwelling it would replace, due to its proposed siting
and choice of materials on balance it is considered that the dwelling would not detract
from the special qualities of the AONB and would not harm the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area or other heritage assets.
The application has raised a number of concerns from objectors, who consider that
there is a lack of detail and supporting documentation. However officers are satisfied
that the level of information is sufficient to make a judgment as to the impact of the
proposal on the landscape and heritage assets and that any matters raised requiring
further details can be satisfactorily addressed by way of the imposition of appropriate
conditions as set out below.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
1.
The development to which this permission relates must not be begun later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Development Committee
14
20 August 2015
2.
This permission is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the
application, location plan and (drawing numbers) A3 - 01, A3 - 02 Rev 4, A3 - 03
Rev 1, and the amended plan (drawing numbers) A3 - 01 Rev 4 received by the
Local Planning Authority on 07 July 2015.
3.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or alteration
to the dwelling hereby permitted (including the insertion of any further window or
rooflight) shall be undertaken and no building, structure or means of enclosure
within the curtilage of the dwelling shall be erected unless planning permission
has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
4.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within two
months of the first occupation of the replacement dwelling the two existing
barns/outbuildings adjacent to the northern boundary of the site shall be
demolished and the site cleared to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5.
Prior to their first use on site precise details of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external walls and roofs of the dwelling and garage shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The
development shall be constructed in full accordance with the approved plans.
6.
Prior to its first use on site, precise details of the colour finishes to the external
joinery, including timber cladding, window frames and doors shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be
completed in accordance with the approved details.
7.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a landscape
scheme and ecological management plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The landscape scheme shall include:a) The species, number and size of new trees and shrubs at the time of their
planting.
b) A timetable for the removal of any trees identified to be removed in the
application plans or documents; the removal of these is not permitted until the
scheme has been approved.
c) Surface treatments of all car parking and manoeuvring areas, pedestrian
access routes, courtyards and walls and fences.
The landscape scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next
available planting season following the commencement of development or such
further period as the Local Planning Authority may allow.
The LEMP shall include:I) Description and evaluation of features to be managed.
II) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management.
III) Aims and objectives of management.
IV) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of
being rolled forward over a five-year period).
The approved LEMP shall be implemented in accordance with approved details.
Development Committee
15
20 August 2015
8.
No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated in the approved plan to be retained
shall be topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other was destroyed, within ten
years of the date of this permission, without the prior consent of the Local Planning
Authority.
9.
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with
the protected species mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in Torc
Ecology Protected Species Report dated 14 July 2013, unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation and
enhancement measures shall include the provision of at least three bat boxes,
three bird nest boxes/ledges, and the provision of two pole mounted or tree
mounted barn owl boxes. The specific details of all of the required mitigation
measures aforementioned, including the location type of boxes to be used, shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
commencement of development. The boxes shall then be erected according to
the approved details and thereafter maintained in a suitable condition to serve the
intended purpose.
10. Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be
installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
2.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0467 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling;
Green Farm, Holt Road for Executors of Estates of E W J Watts and Y U Watts
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 June 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Listed building
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks the conversion of a grade II listed barn of flint and red brick
construction under clay pantile roof to one residential three bedroom dwelling.
In addition, as part of the scheme it is proposed to remove the existing large lean-to
located on the eastern side of the main roof which would return the building to its
original form. A small amount of demolition is required to the south elevation, adjacent
to a shared access for the erection of a new flint and brick wall of 1.8 metres to provide
a private courtyard. A further brick and flint wall of approximately 1.5 metres is also
proposed adjacent to the shared access to provide boundary screening to a west
garden terrace.
Development Committee
16
20 August 2015
Access to the site is via Holt Road with car parking for the development contained
within the proposed residential curtilage.
An amended site plan has been received illustrating a change in landownership. The
property, ‘The Green’ is located to the east of the application site and has now been
sold off separately. A further amended plan has been received which reduces the
proposed first floor opening on the south elevation from a door to a window.
Additionally, an indicative plan has been received from the agent indicating potential
revisions to the scheme to satisfy the Highways Authority, which could involve the
widening of the access off Holt Road and the provision of a footpath along the frontage
of the site.
A separate application for Listed Building Consent for the internal and external
alterations to facilitate the conversion of the barn to a residential dwelling is being
sought under LA/15/046. This will be dealt with under delegated powers.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Young for the following planning reason:
The adequacy of the surrounding road network to serve the development.
Also deferred at the previous meeting for a committee site visit.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following
grounds:






Concern that the application was registered without a Protected Species
Survey.
Note that the building is not an agricultural building as the farm ceased working
in 1993 and is not used for storage of agricultural products or machinery. The
building is ancillary storage to the main house and therefore should not be
subject to consideration under the agricultural buildings policy within the Core
Strategy, LDF Documents or NPPF.
The principle access for the building is Church Lane with Holt Road as a
secondary access.
The LPA had resisted other private residential development accessed from Holt
Road (05/0873 & 12/0461) due to highway concerns and annex (ancillary)
accommodation was approved only.
The access point on to Holt Road is not considered wide enough to allow two
cars to pass in opposite directions and substandard visibility splays in either
direction.
The proposed opening within the south gable of the proposed scheme would
overlook an existing secluded garden to the east.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): (Original) The Highway Authority has an objection to the
proposal. I have serious reservations regarding the intensification of use of the
proposed access arrangements associated with the change of use from ancillary
storage associated with The Green, a property with its primary access on Church Lane,
to a new independent residential use. This proposal is considered to generate in the
region of an additional 6 daily movements (TRiCs Database) served by a shared
access onto C306 Holt Road, which is subject to a 30 mph speed limit.
Development Committee
17
20 August 2015
A pre-requisite requirement for the increased use of an access, is that the access
measures 4.5m wide for the first 5m, to enable two-way vehicle movements to prevent
the stopping, waiting or reversing of vehicles upon the public highway to allow
emerging vehicles to exit, to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and highway safety,
together with the provision of visibility splays, in accordance with current guidance
standards.
The listed walls flanking the access restrict the access width to 3.9m, which is
unsuitable for two-way vehicle movements and is therefore considered to be unsuitable
to cater for any additional development.
The 85%ile vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the site are considered to be @35-38mph.
The Highway Authority concludes that application of the visibility standards set out in
Table 7.1 of MfS is inappropriate since vehicle speeds are known to exceed the local
speed limit of 30mph. Given the potential 85%ile vehicle speeds, I consider that the
appropriate standard to be applied is that set out in TD42/95 Design Manual for Road
and Bridges (DMRB) i.e. 2.4m x 90m. The dimension of 90m makes allowance for
vehicles travelling in excess of the local speed limit.
To the north, in the trafficked direction, a visibility splay of a maximum 42m is
achievable to either side of the large frontage utilities pole, which is positioned within
the sightline from the 2.4m setback position and partially obstructs visibility.
Notwithstanding this momentary obstruction, the visibility splay available is less than
50% of the DMRB requirement and cannot be improved given the roadside building
and road alignment.
Without the provision of the above visibility splay in accordance with DMRB guidance
and a suitable width, the access cannot provide a safe means of access to the
development. Given the ancillary storage use of the building which is associated with
the adjacent property, The Green, there are no independent vehicle movements
associated with the ancillary storage building, I would be required to recommend
refusal on the grounds of intensification of use of a substandard access with
substandard levels of visibility. Previous applications (05/0873 and 12/0461) for
conversions of outbuildings served by this access onto C306 Holt Road, have been
restricted to ancillary use for the same reasons as set out above, to prevent any
increases in use, given the substandard access arrangements.
Further site assessment - 3 July 2015 – There is a possibility of a footpath that could go
in from the village side of the access (@95m) to improve pedestrian facilities and act as
a slight narrowing to the carriageway and may result in lower speeds. However, this
would be subject to a formal proposal for consideration and scrutiny by the Highways
Authority. It should be noted that this would not overcome the concern in respect to
the existing access for two way traffic due to the listed flanking walls adjacent to Holt
Road. Additionally, please note the potential for increases from the 3 annexes if the
ancillary uses are removed.
Environmental Health - No objections.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design): Support for the
actual conversion of the Grade II listed barn. Further comments are as follows in
respect to the two revisions to satisfy Highways Authority requirements:

Widening the access as described is considered to be acceptable in principle.
This is because the section of wall to be demolished is relatively recent,
Development Committee
18
20 August 2015

comparatively crude and structurally unsound. Given the loss of enclosure
would also be minimal, the gains to be had in terms of potentially facilitating the
reuse of the barn would outweigh the minimal harm involved. Therefore,
providing the materials to be used in reforming the widened opening can be
agreed, there need be no objections to this proposal.
By comparison, it is difficult to see how Conservation & Design can support the
proposal for the footpath along the frontage of the site (and beyond). As
existing, the verge comprises a simple strip of grass which helps to reaffirm the
transition out of the village into the countryside. To therefore replace this
traditional rural scene with an upstand kerb and footpath would introduce a
relatively engineered and suburban treatment to the detriment of the
appearance and character of the conservation area. The clear preference
would therefore be for this proposal to be deleted.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape): No objection subject to conditions.
Norfolk Heritage Environment Service: No objection subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where the
re use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
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
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
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 conversion
2. Impact on Listed Building and Conservation Area/Design
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
Development Committee
19
20 August 2015
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site having carried out a Committee site visit.
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy, a Conservation Area and the AONB. It
is also a Grade II listed building. Core Strategy Policies SS2, HO9, EN1, EN4, EN8,
CT5 and CT6 are considered to be relevant.
Principle of Conversion
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
Countryside for permanent residential where they are worthy of retention due to their
appearance, historic, landscape or architectural value. In addition, the policy makes
allowance for the residential conversion of Listed Buildings or building worth of local
listing where it is the optimum viable use and it can be demonstrated that a residential
use would be the best to secure the future of the building.
Green Farm Barn dates to 1715 and is grade II listed. The building has been used for
general storage for the property, ‘The Green’ which is located to the east of the
application site. Whilst ‘The Green’ has now been sold off separately the barn
remains nestled within a complex of buildings within a residential context. The
Conservation and Design Team leader has indicated that a residential use is probably
the only means of securing its long term future given the residential context and the
ongoing maintenance costs.
Given the listed nature and architectural qualities of the barn, it is considered that the
building is of considerable historic and architectural value. The structural report
submitted as part of the application concluded that the barn appears to be in a
reasonable condition and is structurally sound and suitable for conversion to a
residential use without substantial rebuilding or extension. It is therefore considered
that the scheme as proposed would accord with the requirements of Policy HO9 and
that the conversion of the building to a residential use would best secure its future.
Policy EN1 requires that development proposals do not detract from the special
qualities of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The barn is nested
within a complex of other buildings and is not considered to be particularly visible in the
wider landscape. It is therefore considered that the scheme would not detract from the
special qualities of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Impact on Listed Building and Conservation Area/Design
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness, and be suitably designed for the context within which they are set.
Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or enhance
the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. The policy also requires that
proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity
of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
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 Conservation Area and the Grade II listed building. Development that
would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not
be permitted. The re-use of Listed Buildings and buildings identified on a Local List will
be encouraged and the optimum viable use that is compatible with the fabric, interior
Development Committee
20
20 August 2015
and setting of the building will be permitted. Evidence supporting this should be
submitted with proposals. New uses which result in harm to their fabric, character,
appearance or setting will not be permitted.
In terms of the actual scheme of conversion, whilst fabric loss and new openings are
proposed, these are considered to be a necessary part of providing a sustainable
layout. The scheme utilises the existing openings where possible and as such retains
its overall authentic appearance when viewed from around the site and the wider
Conservation Area. Furthermore, the removal of the lean-to to reveal the original back
wall is considered to be a significant planning gain. The Conservation and Design
Team Leader advises that a condition be attached to any subsequent planning
approval to ensure that the setting of the Listed Building is not compromised by the
proposed garden terrace to the west due to its prominent location on the barn.
In respect to addressing concerns associated with highway safety, whilst the widening
of the access is considered acceptable, significant concern is raised to the proposed
pedestrian footpath, which would result in suburbanisation of this traditional rural street
scene and entrance into the village. As a result, it is considered that a pedestrian
footpath would be of detriment to the appearance and character of the Conservation
Area.
Impact on Neighbouring Properties
In respect to the impact upon residential amenity, the barn shares a boundary with
Green Barn to the west where the application site is located on higher ground. No
new openings are proposed within the barn which would overlook Green Barn or its
curtilage. Green Farm is located to the south/east of the application site where the
residential garden associated with the Green Farm is approximately 25 metres to the
south situated behind a 2 metre solid wooden gate. Amended plans have been
received which provides a window as opposed to a door within the second floor to the
southern gable of the application building which is considered will reduce the
perception of overlooking to that of Green Farm. The proposal is not considered to
give rise to significant impacts in relation to neighbouring amenity.
Highway Safety
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that there is safe access to the site and that there is
adequate car parking to meet the needs of the development.
As far as car parking is concerned, it is considered that there is adequate on-site
parking available for the proposed dwelling whilst retaining a generous amenity area
for the future occupiers of the barn. However, 2 significant concerns have been raised
relating to highway safety. The Highways Authority requires the access to measure
4.5 metres wide for the first 5 metres and the visibility splay at the site access is
considered inadequate. Given the existing vehicle speed along Holt Road, the
appropriate visibility splay should be 90 metres, however, to the north only 42 metres is
achievable resulting in a visibility splay less than 50%.
The Highways Authority has confirmed that the use of traffic mirrors as a means of
alleviating shortcomings in access visibility is not an acceptable solution to mitigate
against highway safety. However, a further site assessment from the Highways
Authority notes the lack of formal pedestrian provision to the site which could be
provided by extending the existing pedestrian provision from the site. This would
improve pedestrian facilities and result in lower vehicle speeds due to the creation of a
formal kerb line. This would reduce the traffic speeds and visibility splay required.
This would however be subject to a formal proposal with consideration and scrutiny
required from the Highway Authority.
Development Committee
21
20 August 2015
An indicative plan has been received from the agent indicating potential revisions to the
scheme to satisfy the Highways Authority, which could involve the widening of the
access off Holt Road and the provision of a footpath along the frontage of the site.
Further comments are awaited from the Highways Authority in respect to the proposal.
Clarification from the agent is also awaited in respect of the ownership of the walls.
Officer's consider that it is important to seek to achieve a use of this listed building
which will secure its long term future. If the access widening can be achieved this will
improve the situation for all users of the access without significant detriment to the
historic fabric and Conservation Area. The footpath works suggested, however,
would be unacceptable in respect of the impact on the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
It should also be noted that a formal determination of approval may result in
applications to change the use of existing annexes in other buildings within the
complex to dwellings with a resultant increase in traffic.
Other Matters
Policy EN9 requires development proposals to protect the biodiversity of land and
buildings and minimise fragmentation of habitats. As far the ecological implications of
the development are concerned, the Council’s Landscape Officer has indicated that
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the scheme is acceptable.
Conclusion
The proposal would result in the conversion of a Grade II listed barn to residential use.
The site is nestled within a complex of other residential buildings where it is considered
that a residential use is probably the only means of securing the buildings future given
the residential context and necessary maintenance for its long term conservation.
The barns appearance will remain relatively unaltered and furthermore enhanced due
to the removal of the lean-to on the east elevation. The site provides sufficient
amenity space and parking provision for future occupants and is not considered to
have a significant detrimental impact upon residential amenities of adjacent occupiers.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal will not harm the special architectural or
historic interest of the Listed Building, or setting of other heritage assets.
Whilst an indicative solution has been proposed which improves highway safety, it is
considered that a pedestrian footpath would result in visual harm to the appearance
and character of the Conservation Area by virtue of its over suburbanisation of this
traditional rural street scene and entrance into the village. It is therefore considered
that although the proposal would be contrary to Policy CT 6 of the North Norfolk
adopted Core Strategy in respect of the visibility splay requirement, with the inclusion
of the improvement to the access, the desire to secure a long term viable use for the
listed building, on balance, outweighs the outstanding highways concern.
In other respects the proposal complies with adopted Development Plan Policies.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal is therefore
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Delegated authority to approve subject to successful negotiation on improving the
access and conditions covering bricks, tiles, joinery, mortar mix, rainwater goods, flues,
treatment of the internal surfaces, details of the garden terrace to the west of the
building, removal of permitted development rights, lighting, historic recording brief and
ecology.
Development Committee
22
20 August 2015
3.
FAKENHAM - PO/14/1212 - Residential development for a maximum of 78
dwellings, extension to existing allotments, public open space, surface water
attenuation pond and foul sewage pumping station; Brick Kiln Farm, Rudham
Stile Lane for Mr Picken
Major Development
- Target Date: 16 December 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Mixed Use Allocation
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Contaminated Land Buffer
THE APPLICATION
This is an outline planning application on a 2.9 hectare (approx.) site. Access is the
only matter of detail being formally applied for at this stage, including off-site highway
improvements.
Amended plans have been submitted, primarily to address concerns raised around the
indicative layout, which have reduced the maximum number of dwellings from 84 to 78
and excluded an existing dwelling from the red line area.
An indicative plan submitted with the application indicates that the site layout would
include an attenuation basin to the north-east of the site, allotments to the west of the
site and an area of public open space. The Design and Access Statement also
indicates that dwellings would be a mix of terrace, semi-detached and detached
houses ranging from two to four bed, however, these elements are only indicative at
this stage.
Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Rudham Stile Lane to the south. It is
proposed that the site would remain as a cul-de-sac development and that the road
network would not connect to any development constructed on the wider allocated site.
Also included with the application are draft Heads of Terms for a Section 106
Obligation, which should be read in conjunction with the updates contained in the
Non-Technical Summary of the Viability Work document.
These include the following obligations:
 Affordable housing (a minimum of two affordable dwellings on the site, subject to
viability);
 on-site provision of public recreational open space
 off-site contribution towards children's equipped play space
 education contributions;
 library contributions;
 fire hydrant provision;
 on-site provision of other community facilities;
 landscaping of the site, and;
Development Committee
23
20 August 2015

contribution towards mitigating potential impacts on the North Norfolk Coast
Special Area of conservation and Special Protection Areas (SAC/SPA);
A scheme for off-site highway improvements in Rudham Stile Lane to address the
adverse highway safety effects from the proposed housing development has also been
agreed with County Council (Highways).
The application is also accompanied by the following documentation:
 Design and Access Statement;
 Landscape and Visual Assessment;
 Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Assessment;
 Transport Statement;
 Flood Risk Assessment (Amended);
 Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment;
 Planning and Economic Statement;
 Phase I Contamination Report;
 Phase II Contamination Report;
 Air Quality Assessment (Amended);
 Statement of Community Involvement;
 Non-Technical Summary of the Viability Work (included in Appendix 2), and;
 An amended supporting letter explaining the wider benefits to the F01 allocation
resulting from this development (included in Appendix 3).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE:
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the complex range of planning issues.
TOWN COUNCIL
Response to original plans: Supports the application. However, has serious concerns
for the traffic flow implications, including the dangers in the narrow section of Rudham
Stile Lane and also the junction with Thorpland Road and Greenway Lane. Concern
was raised concerning traffic on Rudham Stile Lane. The plans should also include 2
parking spaces per property and a condition should be made that the Town Council as
an adjoining land owner of the allotment sites should be liaised with. Suggestions of a
one-way system, developer to widen Rudham Stile Lane and the County Council
Highways to do a scheme assessment.
Further response received following the submission of revised plans: no objections to
the above planning application. Councillors are however disappointed to see that 2
parking spaces per property has not been provided. The Town Council has a serious
concern for traffic flow including the narrow section of Rudham Stile Lane and also the
junction of Thorpland Road and Greenway Lane. This road is particularly dangerous
at school times with heavy pedestrian and cycle traffic.
REPRESENTATIONS
14 objections received from 11 representees and 2 comments from 2 representees.
Objections summarised below:
 Proposal to have access to/from Rudham Stile Lane;
 increased traffic/congestion from development, including construction traffic;
 consultation meeting for wider development stated that there would be no access
onto Rudham Stile Lane;
 parking concerns;
 increased risk of accidents;
 highway concerns, relating in particular to highway safety on surrounding roads:
Development Committee
24
20 August 2015














 Rudham Stile Lane, part of which is narrow single-track and has a busy railway
bridge, dangerous junctions, a section with no footpath and blind spots;
 Rudham Stile Lane cannot currently cope with the volume of traffic;
 Rudham Stile Lane is not adequate to cope with the substantial increase of
traffic which would result from the proposed development with its direct access
to it;
 junctions at Water Moor Lane bridge, the junction with Thorpland Road and the
point where Thorpland Road meets Greenway Lane are very difficult and
dangerous;
 Thorpland Road where the old BP site was has become single-track as a result
of parked cars and has poor visibility onto Greenway Lane;
 previous bad planning not anticipating the number of cars per household;
 the NNC Highways signs direct traffic to the Clipbush Lane end of town rather
than via Wells Road access to the site will be via Thorpland Road and along
the narrowest part of Rudham Stile Lane. Traffic to Morrisons, Lidl, Norwich
and towns along the A148 would all pass via Thorpland Road rather than
Claypit Lane from the site. Anyone accessing town via Claypit Lane would
have to negotiate the small bridge and pinch point where Water Moor Lane
joins Rudham Stile which is on a bend with poor sight lines in Rudham Stile
Lane towards Trap Lane;
requirement from the NNDC Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party
minutes and report (23 July 2012) that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) be
carried out following serious concerns expressed during the consultation for the
Land at Rudham Stile Lane Development Brief. The application assumes that
access from the houses to the secondary routes will be available, but this seems to
ignore the reality of the Working Party recommendations and the possible (as yet
unknown) TIA;
concern over Highways decision;
previous planning decisions have resulted in increased traffic and parking;
Highway safety concerns. Rudham Stile Lane is very busy with school children,
parents and others walking and cycling along it, plus cars and buses etc;
possible solutions to access concerns put forward;
concern over the ability of the town to cope with additional vehicles;
there has been a failure to deal with local traffic problems. Not enough research at
the location has been undertaken;
concern that all 900 proposed dwellings will have direct access onto Rudham Stile
Lane unless the access to Rudham Stile Lane is blocked off;
building of the 84 houses should be delayed until the rest of the development is
complete when development could access the site from the A148 from a
roundabout or the other access near Morrisons;
contradiction between plan and text in Development Brief;
non-compliance with the NNDC Development Brief in August 2014, where it states
that there would be no direct access to Rudham Stile Lane from the site except for
the proposed dwellings benefiting from fronting the Lane;
NNDC development of 85 hectares of land Policy F01 has no inlet or outlets into
Rudham Stile Lane;
each time objectors have viewed masterplan at Cromer and Fakenham have
always been informed by Officers that there would be no access to Rudham Stile
Lane other than pedestrian walkways;
if the development goes ahead it would effectively provide a ‘leak’ for traffic from
the area covered by the Development Plan Brief 2014 to the schools and town
centre by way of Rudham Stile Lane and Claypit Lane/Queens Road. Solutions
proposed including blocking vehicular access once the east/west road proposed in
the Development Brief is completed, although access to the proposed allotments
could possibly remain from Rudham Stile Lane and make up the south end of the of
Development Committee
25
20 August 2015


















the northern section of Grove Lane to provide temporary vehicular access, again
blocking it to vehicular access once the east/west road proposed in the
Development Brief is completed;
reference made to a recent Road Traffic Collision on Claypit Lane;
reference made to the Hopkins Homes Development in Wells-next-the-Sea. The
objector is concerned that Hopkins Homes is intending to rescind on promises
made as they have not started required road improvement works on Burnt Street
and Market Lane;
wider concerns relating to the site allocation;
impact on environment and climate change;
increased pollution;
is there a housing need by local people?
social housing will go to families with the highest number of points which may not
benefit the local people;
very little employment in Fakenham, so this development could become a
commuter satellite estate. Price of properties would be too high for local residents
to get onto the housing ladder and if rented the rents will be far too high;
ability of services including water, sewage and electricity to cope;
ability of health service (in particular, Fakenham Medical Practice) to cope;
ability of schools to cope, which already appear to be fully subscribed;
unlikely that local business (apart from supermarkets) would gain anything from the
development;
whole scheme needs to be reviewed with a full public enquiry and a poll amongst
all local residents;
there should be consideration of alternative sites (examples given);
site too small for the proposed 84 dwellings;
overdevelopment;
terraced housing suggests social housing;
demolition concerns as existing buildings are made of very old brittle asbestos and
there will be dust particles in the air however much care is taken in demolition.
Comments summarised below:
 Will access onto Rudham Stile Lane be temporary and if so, for how long?
 How will construction vehicles and associated plant cope with the single track
sections of Rudham Stile Lane, and;
 if it is not closed off once Line tree Avenue is completed will it become a
replacement for the Water Moor Lane rat-run to the A148.
A copy of comments and the report by ASD Engineering submitted on behalf of Trinity
College Cambridge (the major landowner of the allocated F01 site), is attached in
Appendix 4.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health- No objection subject to conditions.
Conditions required in respect of disposal of surface water, sustainable surface water
drainage and contaminated land. Informative notes required in respect of connection
to the mains sewer for foul water disposal and asbestos.
Following the submission of the representation and made on behalf of Trinity College
Cambridge, Environmental Health have been re-consulted on the report completed by
ASD Engineering. Committee will be updated verbally on any response received
prior to the meeting.
County Council (Highways)- Objects.
Development Committee
26
20 August 2015
Discussions with the applicants highways advisors has led to the revised off-site
highway improvements shown on drawing 742/03/002 Rev A. It has been agreed that
this highways scheme of improvements in Rudham Stile Lane would address the
adverse effects of additional traffic from the proposed housing development. However
the holding highways objection dated 24/10/14 was based on more than just the need
for improvements in Rudham Stile Lane.
As this application site is part of a larger allocation the site should have been assessed
as part of the whole of the allocation site and a mitigation package agreed that made
an appropriate pro-rata contribution to the whole of the necessary transport mitigation
package of the allocation. Highways will need confirmation from the applicant that an
appropriate contribution to the necessary highway infrastructure has been agreed with
North Norfolk District Council officers or that NNDC officers agree that no contribution
is required as the loss of the highways contribution from this site does not
fundamentally impact on the ability of the rest of the allocation to deliver the necessary
highways improvements to allow the rest of the allocation to be granted permission in
the future.
For the above reasons the highway Authority holding highway objection remains.
An amended response has been received by County Council (Highways) providing
Conditions and Informative notes should Committee decide to approve the application.
Conditions required by County Council (Highways), relate to:









The future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the
development;
plans to illustrate:
i)
Roads, footways, cycleways, foul and on-site water drainage;
ii) Visibility splays;
iii) Access arrangements, and;
iv) Parking provision in accordance with adopted standard.
the length of driveways in front of garages;
the size of garages;
site parking for construction workers;
construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route, including incorporation
of adequate provision for addressing any abnormal wear and tear to the highway
together with proposals to control and manage construction traffic using the
'Construction Traffic Access Route' and to ensure no other local roads are used by
construction traffic;
wheel cleaning facilities;
detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement works and their completion,
and;
an Interim Travel Plan followed by a full travel plan and implementation of this plan.
As this site is part of a much larger allocation, proposed requirements include a Travel
Plan condition that would also require a Section 106 agreement to secure a Travel
Plan performance bond to the value of £500 per dwelling, with a request that the S106
be completed before any planning permission is granted.
In respect of surface water drainage, it is recommended that a condition is imposed on
any approval requiring the Applicant/developer to survey the system and model the
additional loading to ensure that the drainage system would continue to operate in a
satisfactory manner.
Development Committee
27
20 August 2015
Following the submission of the representation and made on behalf of Trinity College
Cambridge, County Council (Highways) have been re-consulted on the report
completed by ASD Engineering. Committee will be updated verbally on any response
received prior to the meeting.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - There is no
Conservation and Design objections to this particular proposal for the following two
reasons:
1) the site has already been identified for housing under the wider F01 allocation; and,
2) the application is in outline form only with access the only matter to be considered.
It is worth stating, however, that the illustrative layout with its regimented rows of thin,
deep-plan buildings should not be used to inform any future arrangement of buildings.
Instead we should ultimately look for the development to reflect the general principles
outlined in the draft Development Brief for the wider site.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape)- Conditions required.
Given that this site forms part of a larger scale mixed-use proposal allocated in the
current Local Development Framework, there can be no sustainable objections to the
principle of residential development in this location.
Detailed comments provided in respect of access, design, attenuation pond and
ecology.
A financial contribution of £50 per dwelling secured via a legal agreement should be
provided to mitigate against increased visitor pressure on the North Norfolk Coast
SAC/SPA and Ramsar sites.
Conditions required in respect of tree protection, hard and soft landscaping, further
reptile surveys and a Construction Environmental Management Plan. See copy of
consultation response in Appendix 5.
Strategic Housing- Comments made.
The applicants have submitted an amended viability assessment to support their view
that it is not viable to provide any on-site affordable housing on this site, the Strategic
Housing team have carefully considered the information submitted and have come to
the conclusion that it is viable to provide at least two affordable dwellings on the site. In
coming to this conclusion it was clear that the Strategic Housing team do not agree
with some of the inputs in the submitted viability and in particular the land value
attributed to the site and the proposed sizes of dwellings and the income they will
generate.
It should be noted that in coming to this conclusion the Strategic Housing team had to
treat the site as a standalone site which is not part of the Fakenham allocation as the
applicant has not provided any information as to how this site will contribute to the
wider allocated site or how the site will be contributed to by the wider allocation. It is
therefore not possible to identify whether some of the costs in the viability are only
being incurred because the site is coming forward separately.
Committee will be updated verbally following the submission of amended S.106
Obligation figures.
Anglian Water- Conditions required.
Assets affected
Development should not be located within 15 metres of the boundary of a sewage
Development Committee
28
20 August 2015
pumping station. Condition requested.
Wastewater Treatment
The Water Recycling Centre has available capacity for these flows.
Foul Sewerage Network
The Sewage system at present has available capacity for these flows.
Surface Water Disposal
The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning
application is not relevant to Anglian Water and therefore outside their jurisdiction for
comment and the Planning Authority will need to consider which is the appropriate
body to comment. Request that the agreed strategy is conditioned in the planning
approval.
Following the submission of the representation and made on behalf of Trinity College
Cambridge, Anglian Water have been re-consulted on the report completed by ASD
Engineering. Committee will be updated verbally on any response received prior to
the meeting.
Environment Agency- no objection to the amended Flood Risk Assessment.
Condition requiring the approval of surface water drainage scheme as part of any
Reserved Matters application.
Following the submission of the representation and made on behalf of Trinity College
Cambridge, the Environment Agency have been re-consulted on the report completed
by ASD Engineering. Committee will be updated verbally on any response received
prior to the meeting.
Head of Primary Care (East Anglia) NHS England- no response to date.
Planning Legal- A S.106 would be required on any approval and the production of an
appropriate S.106 would be dealt with by the Council's Legal team.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator)
Amended response.
Education- This site sits within the boundary of the strategic growth allocation at
Rudham Stile Lane and therefore NCC Children’s Services will consider this site as
part of the larger allocation. Children’s Services will be seeking a site in the region of
1ha to build a new 1FE (210 place) Primary phase school on the new development, the
cost of building this school will be around £4.3M. This site will generate around 20
Primary age children so on this basis the County Council will seek a pro-rata
contribution towards a new primary school as follows;
20 pupils/210 place school x £4.3M = £409,523.
No contributions will be sought for High School or 6th form.
As mentioned above, a new school site free of charge will be sought as part of the
larger strategic development. We would expect that this site should contribute in
proportion to the larger site towards this land transfer which needs to be considered
within the application.
Norfolk Fire Services have indicated that the proposed development will require 2
hydrants (on a minimum 90mm main) at a cost of £1,784 (£892 each).
Development Committee
29
20 August 2015
Library provision- On the basis of the 78 dwellings forming part of the 900 unit area
allocation and in order to cater for the additional usage as a result of the increased
population from the whole allocation, Norfolk Library and Information Service (NLIS)
would be looking to increase the size of the existing library in Fakenham or on a new
site with other community services within Fakenham, or provide a sub-library linked to
some other community facility within the new development, if there is such provision in
the development plan. This could be a community hall or even a doctor’s surgery for
instance.
Therefore NLIS would be seeking £233 per dwelling and a suitable site if located on
the new development. In the event that NLIS were unable to extend the existing
library or provide a new facility we would seek a fall back contribution of £60 per
dwelling to improve the existing facility.
Environment- As identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment
(2009), the landscape in which this site sits has a large and open field pattern. It is
recognised that this application falls within area F01 (Land North of Rudham Stile
Lane) of the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Site Allocations (2011), and
therefore will likely receive further development proposals in the future.
It is therefore important that any features which are present are enhanced, and not
compromised by this, or other development in the future. Features include field
boundaries and associated hedgerows and trees in the case of this site. The provision
of opportunities for this development to connect outward to future developments in the
surrounding area needs to accounted for, particularly in terms of pedestrian and cycle
mobility. The Development Brief for area F01 (2014, yet to be approved) identifies
existing Grove Lane as a pedestrian/cycle linear park or ‘greenway’, which will provide
a valuable public non-trafficked route. Thought will need to be given to access onto the
proposed foot/cycleway at these early stages as to prevent the potential future creation
of informal accesses which could cause damage to vegetation. Moreover, the site to
the north of this proposal has been identified for a new primary school facility, for which
Grove Lane will provide a safe walking route to school, therefore providing further
justification for the inclusion of formal access points from this development onto the
lane.
Equally, the development brief indicates this ‘greenway’ to be of a more significant
width, to provide a more open and welcoming character; the current indicative plan for
Brick Kiln Farm shows only the lane and associated verges retained. NCC GI Team
would support the principles displayed in the development brief (2014) in the case of
Grove Lane, to ensure that this route does not get enclosed upon by built
development, and is given the space and design required to achieve maximum GI
benefit and passive surveillance.
Surface improvements, provision of signage and markings, alongside any vegetative
mitigation such as gapping up of hedgerows will need to be considered in this area. It
may be necessary for a contribution to be made in order to facilitate these
improvements if not delivered through other mechanisms.
The provision of pedestrian/cycle paths and crossings to enable access across the
A148 can be incorporated into the design of the new road layouts proposed to the
north-west of the development alongside improvements, which may be required, to the
existing roundabout where the A1067 meets the A148. These works could be achieved
through Highway Section 278 agreements which are likely to come forward in light of
the development plan for the area; therefore no GI contributions will be sought for
these provisions through the Section 106 route.
Development Committee
30
20 August 2015
Natural England
Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection
This application is in close proximity to the River Wensum Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI). This SSSI forms part of the River Wensum Special Area of
Conservation (SAC).
Natural England advises that, if undertaken in strict accordance with the details
submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which
River Wensum SAC has been classified. Natural England therefore advises that the
Local Planning Authority (LPA) is not required to undertake an Appropriate
Assessment to assess the implications of this proposal on the site’s conservation
objectives.
In addition, Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried
out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not
damage or destroy the interest features for which the River Wensum SSSI has been
notified. The LPA is therefore recommended that this SSSI does not represent a
constraint in determining this application.
Protected species- LPA referred to standing advice.
Local sites- Advice provided.
Biodiversity enhancements- The LPA are reminded that the application may provide
opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife,
such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird
nest boxes. The LPA should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity
of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application.
Landscape enhancements- The LPA are reminded that the application may provide
opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding
natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring
benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and
access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape
assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for
planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a
positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the character and
functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.
Impact Risk Zones for Sites of Special Scientific Interest- Information and guidance
available on the Natural England website.
Following the submission of the representation and made on behalf of Trinity College
Cambridge, Natural England have been re-consulted on the report completed by ASD
Engineering. Committee will be updated verbally on any response received prior to
the meeting.
Countryside and Parks Manager
The methodology set out in the Council’s interim practice guide to open space
provision has been applied to this application in terms of the relationship between
additional population generated and the corresponding public open space needed.
The amended proposed development provides open-space which is below the
standard shown above.
It is noted that the land on which the infiltration basin is situated is not included in the
open space but is enclosed by hedging.
Development Committee
31
20 August 2015
On other schemes the infiltration basin forms part of the open space and this is
possible because such basins are only designed to hold water occasionally after heavy
rain, the rest of the time they are simply a shallow hollow in the ground. It may be that
on this development the basin could also form part of the open space in which case the
standard would be met.
The development creates the need for play facilities which cannot be properly catered
for on-site. The Countryside and Parks Manager therefore suggests that a
contribution be sought of £36,000 in respect of play to be used on open-space in future
phases of the overall development.
The Countryside and Parks Manager expects that Fakenham Town Council (FTC)
would adopt the additional allotments to be managed in conjunction with the existing
ones. The responsibility for the management of the existing trees on the western
boundary would therefore also fall within the remit of FTC.
This development forms part of a wider masterplan with potentially large areas of open
space.
The Countryside and Parks Manager would anticipate that North Norfolk District
Council (NNDC) would adopt most of the public open space and would therefore adopt
the open space relating to this development, excluding the allotments. It is anticipated
the commuted sum payable by the developer to be in the order of £32K but this will be
dependent on more detailed plans and an indication of whether the attenuation basin is
to form part of the open space.
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):
Land allocated for mixed use development in the Site Specific Allocations
Development Plan document adopted by the Council in February 2011.
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues)
Policy SS6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy EN2: 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 EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
Development Committee
32
20 August 2015
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN9: 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 CT2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Proposed Residential Use Allocation F01.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION









Principle of the development
Outline matters for consideration
Highway issues
Drainage
Landscaping and biodiversity
Impact on neighbouring amenities
Sustainable construction and energy efficiency
Contaminated land
Development Viability Implications and S.106 Planning Obligation
APPRAISAL
Principle of the development
The site is allocated as part of a wider site for a mixed use development in the Site
Allocations Development Plan Document, which was adopted in February 2011.
The Policy F01 states:
‘Land amounting to approximately 85 hectares is identified as a suitable location for an
urban expansion of Fakenham. Within this area land will be made available for a mixed
use development of approximately 800-900 dwellings, not less than 7 hectares of
employment land, primary school site reserve, public open space, and community
facilities. Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy
policies including on-site provision of the required proportion of affordable housing
(currently 45%) and contributions towards infrastructure, services, and other
community needs as required and:
a.
The prior approval of a Development Brief to address access and sustainable
transport, layout, landscaping, phasing, including the provision of serviced
employment land, and conceptual appearance;
b.
provision of significant internal open spaces and tree planting within the site
and a landscaped buffer to the A148;
c.
reservation of a suitable site for a primary school in accordance with the
requirements of the Education Authority;
d.
retention of the existing allotments in their current location;
e.
investigation and remediation of any land contamination;
f.
prior approval of a scheme to prevent the input of hazardous
substances to groundwater;
g.
archaeological investigation if required;
h.
demonstration that there is adequate capacity in sewage treatment works and
the foul sewerage network and that proposals have regard to Water
Development Committee
33
20 August 2015
i.
Framework Directive objectives; and
prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the
North Norfolk Coast SAC / SPA and Ramsar site arising as a result of
increased visitor pressure, and on-going monitoring of such measures.
Retail development, other than that serving the needs of the proposed development,
will not be permitted unless it has been demonstrated that there are no sequentially
preferable sites.’
The Development Brief for the allocation was approved by Cabinet on 9 March 2015.
Once the amendments agreed by the Cabinet have been incorporated into the Brief,
the document will become an adopted document to which the Development
Committee would need to afford appropriate weight when considering this application.
Through the allocation of the F01 site, the principle of development (including
residential) on the site is therefore established.
Outline matters for consideration
The only specific detail applied for at this stage relates to the principle of permitting a
maximum of 78 dwellings and associated infrastructure on the site, together with the
creation of a new access. Accordingly details relating to appearance, landscaping,
layout and scale would be the subject of a subsequent application for reserved matters
in the event of outline permission being granted.
Notwithstanding this, the application is supported by an illustrative site layout. Whilst it
is considered that the illustrative layout would be unacceptable should it be brought
forward at the Reserved Matters stage, it is considered that the extent of detail
included on the Site Parameters Plan (including the maximum density proposed) is
broadly acceptable as a general basis for informing any future application, should
outline planning permission for vehicular access be granted. In this respect, Officers
consider that 78 dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site, albeit that
this may require an alternative layout to the proposed illustrative layout.
The Committee should note that a Reserved Matters application will also need to
agree provision of pedestrian and cycle access to the surrounding allocation (including
to Grove Lane to the east of the site), to ensure that there is appropriate connectivity to
future development on the wider allocation, as only vehicular access has been
included in this application. This could be secured by a condition on any approval.
Highway issues
The submitted plans show that vehicular access to the site would be from a single point
on the 30mph Rudham Stile Lane. This new access would be designed to serve the
entire development of 78 dwellings, but would not connect to the wider allocated site.
Committee will note that a number of objections have been received concerning
Highway matters.
The Committee will also note that the Applicant has proposed a number of off-site
Highway improvement works to make the development acceptable to address the
adverse effects of additional traffic from the proposed development. These
improvements are indicated on Plan Number 03/002 Revision A and include:
 New pedestrian footways;
 Road widening, and;
 Work at the Rudham Stile Lane/Claypit Lane T-junction.
Development Committee
34
20 August 2015
The Development Brief for the F01 allocation recognises the potential for adverse
Highway conditions on Rudham Stile Lane, during and following construction of
development.
The Brief recognises that neither Rudham Stile Lane nor many of the adjacent roads
are suitable routes for significant increases in traffic and that limiting traffic using these
routes, as is proposed in the Brief, is a desirable objective. Officers consider that the
road network is unsuitable as a means of access for up to 900 dwellings and direct
vehicular connections between the new development and existing should be
minimised.
In recognition of this, the Brief states that vehicular access to and from the site, (other
than by public transport and direct access to any possible frontage development), via
the existing adjacent residential road network should be limited. Instead, vehicles
should use the A148 to the north of the allocation to access Fakenham and beyond, via
a more suitable road network. However, the Brief also recognises that there is
insufficient evidence at this stage to definitively rule out some vehicular access to
Rudham Stile Lane. The Committee therefore needs to satisfy itself that the proposed
access for up to 78 dwellings is acceptable in Highway terms.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority have not objected to the current
scheme on the grounds of highway safety, subject to the above mentioned off-site
highway improvements being undertaken on Rudham Stile Lane and the imposition of
appropriate conditions. The Highway Authority has, however, raised concerns about
the implications of the current application not contributing to the wider provision of
access infrastructure required as part of the wider F01 allocation.
In summary, given the Highway Authority response in relation to this current proposal
only, Officers consider that there would be insufficient grounds to refuse a
development of up to 78 dwellings on Highway Safety grounds alone, subject to
conditions securing the agreed off-site Highway works and the imposition of
appropriate conditions. The development would therefore accord with Policy CT 5 of
the adopted Core Strategy.
There does, however, remain the outstanding matter as to how this site for 78
dwellings should contribute towards the delivery of key infrastructure (including the
road network) relating to the wider F01 site allocation; the key concern being whether
approval of this development would adversely affect the viability and delivery of the
wider allocation. This is a concern shared by Trinity College Cambridge, the major F01
site allocation landowners.
In addition, given viability concerns, this development is not proposing to provide £500
per dwelling towards a Travel Plan Performance Bond (as requested by County
Council (Highways)); Officers do not consider that this would raise a highway safety
concern.
Drainage
Whilst drainage would be a matter to be determined at the Reserved Matters stage, the
Committee will note the response from Environmental Health, County Council
(Highways), Anglian Water and the amended response from the Environment Agency,
in respect of surface water drainage.
Whilst the consultation responses indicate that there are a number of constraints to
disposing of surface water from this site (including uncertainty as to the condition and
capacity of existing surface water drains to take the additional load), Officers recognise
that there are a range of solutions available to the Applicant, which can be explored
Development Committee
35
20 August 2015
ahead of any Reserved Matters application.
Foul sewage would be disposed of through connection to the mains sewer; Anglian
Water has confirmed that there is currently available capacity.
In light of the concerns raised in the report completed by ASD Engineering (on behalf
of Trinity College), further amended responses are expected from the above
consultees as well as from Natural England.
Further to no new material issues being raised by these consultees and subject to
these matters being satisfactorily resolved at Reserved Matters stage, it is considered
that the surface water and sewage disposal methods would be compliant with the aims
of Policies EN10 and EN13 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Landscaping and biodiversity
Whilst landscaping issues would be a matter to be determined at the Reserved Matters
stage, the Committee will note the response from the Landscape Officer, Natural
England and County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator- Environment) (see
copy of Landscape Officer and Natural England consultation responses in
Appendix 5 & 6). The County Council (Planning Obligations Co-OrdinatorEnvironment) response is in the Consultations section of this report.
The site lies within Rolling Open Farmland, as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment. A green corridor (Grove Lane) runs along the eastern
boundary of the site, whilst the western boundary of the site is delineated by significant
tree groups. Both are considered to be important landscape features of the site.
Members will note that the provision of opportunities for this development to connect
outward to future developments in the surrounding allocation, particularly in terms of
pedestrian and cycle mobility, has been identified as being important by County
Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) and the Council's Landscape Officer. It is
considered that this is something that will need to be addressed at a Reserved Matters
stage on any approval.
The Committee will also note that, whilst the Council's Landscape Officer has raised
some concerns over the proposed development, it is considered that the majority of
their concerns can be alleviated through the imposition of appropriate conditions or at
the Reserved Matters stage. The possible exception is the linking of the attenuation
pond with the landscape proposals for the wider site, although this can be given further
consideration at the Reserved Matters stage and when applications are submitted for
the wider allocation.
In terms of biodiversity, neither Natural England nor the Council's Landscape Officer
has raised any objections to the development on the grounds of impact on the River
Wensum SAC or SSSI. A S.106 obligation contribution of £50 per dwelling has been
offered by the Applicant towards mitigating potential impacts on the North Norfolk
Coast SAC and SPA.
Subject to these matters being satisfactorily resolved at Reserved Matters stage,
through the imposition of appropriate conditions and S.106 obligations, it is considered
that the proposal would be acceptable in respect of landscaping and biodiversity would
be compliant with the aims of Policy EN9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Impact on neighbouring amenities
Whilst it is recognised that the construction and occupation of 78 dwellings and their
associated traffic movements will have some impact on nearby residents (particularly
Development Committee
36
20 August 2015
from the coming and going of vehicles along the surrounding highway network), it is
not considered that this would amount to sufficient grounds for refusal, providing that
the agreed off-site highway improvements are implemented.
Further, it is recognised that principle of developing the land as part of the wider F01
allocation has already been accepted under the Site Allocations Document (adopted
Feb 2011).
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, it is considered that the proposed
development would comply with the aims of Policies EN4 and EN13 of the adopted
Core Strategy.
Sustainable construction and energy efficiency
Whilst central Government advice has removed the requirement to comply with the
Code for Sustainable Homes, Policy EN6 still requires 10% of the predicted total
energy usage of the development to be provided by on-site renewable energy
technology. A condition would be imposed to secure this.
Land contamination
In respect of land contamination, Environmental Health has advised that further
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants affecting the
site is required. Subject to a condition on any approval requiring this, the proposed
development would comply with the aims of Policy EN13 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Development Viability Implications and S.106 Planning Obligations
Development of the scale proposed triggers the need for a range of planning policy
requirements to be met. The delivery of affordable housing is a key policy objective
which seeks to address the need for affordable housing and the need for communities
to have a mix of housing types. Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires that, on sites of this
scale, at least 45% of the new dwellings should be affordable, subject to viability. Other
requirements for larger scale development are set out in Policy CT2 and include
contributions towards infrastructure, services, community facilities and open space.
Site Allocation Policy F01 makes it clear that development on the site will be subject to
compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies (including the on-site provision of the
required proportion of affordable housing) as well as other requirements needed to
make the development deliverable.
A (confidential) development viability report has been submitted with the application
which sets out the estimated development costs (including demolition and site
clearance) and projected dwelling values. This viability report proposed no affordable
dwellings. Advice in respect of viability matters has been received from the Strategic
Housing team, which concludes that, whilst it is not viable for this development to
provide affordable housing or other contributions at the level the policy requires, there
is scope for the development to provide at least two affordable dwellings. The
Applicant has not challenged this conclusion.
The Applicant has also offered the following contributions totalling £501,381:
 Affordable housing;
 the on-site provision of public recreational open space and a contribution towards
its future maintenance (approx. £32,000);
 contribution towards children's equipped play space (£36,000);
 education contributions towards building a new primary school (£409,523);
 library contributions towards extending the existing library or providing a new
facility (£18,174) or a fall back contribution of £4,680 in the event that Norfolk
Library and Information Service (NLIS) were unable to extend the existing library or
Development Committee
37
20 August 2015


provide a new facility;
fire hydrant provision (£1,784), and;
contribution per dwelling towards mitigating potential impacts on the North Norfolk
Coast Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Areas (SAC/SPA)
(£3,900).
In addition, off-site highway improvements are proposed to Rudham Stile Lane
(£100,000).
Any S.106 Obligation would include an ‘Uplift Clause’, which would secure a financial
contribution in the event of the development profit level increasing (over what is
currently assumed) during the construction period. Should the uplift requirement be
triggered, then additional contributions would be used to provide off-site affordable
housing as well as wider F01 policy requirements not currently met.
Whilst the package of contributions proposed by the Applicant addresses some (but
not all) of the elements required by the Policy and consultees, on the basis of the
submitted viability, it is accepted that the development would not be viable if expected
to provide all of the requirements of Policies HO2, CT2 and F01.
Therefore, subject to the completion of a S.106 Obligation and the imposition of
appropriate conditions to secure the above (including the provision of at least two
affordable dwellings), it is recognised that the proposal would generally accord with the
aims of Policies HO2, CT2 and F01 of the adopted Core Strategy.
There does, however, remain the outstanding matter as to how this site for 78
dwellings should contribute towards the delivery of key infrastructure relating to the
wider F01 site allocation; the key concern being whether approval of this development
would prejudice the viability and delivery of the wider allocation. This is a concern
shared by Trinity College Cambridge, the major F01 site allocation landowners, who
have commented that it is crucial that the proposed development does not result in an
increase in the costs of developing the wider allocated site to the detriment of its
deliverability, and should in no way hinder, delay or limit the delivery and form of that
future development.
Conclusions
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in
accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises the Council's adopted Core
Strategy and Site Allocations DPD. Guidance contained in the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes a material consideration. At the heart of the
NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The site is allocated for a mixed use development for a range of uses, including
residential under Policy F01 (Site Allocations Document, 2011). The principle is
therefore established.
This is an outline application for means of access only and therefore a key
consideration is whether 78 dwellings can be accommodated on the site, served by a
single means of vehicular access onto Rudham Stile Lane.
If the application site is looked at in isolation, it can be concluded that 78 dwellings
could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site, albeit that this may require an
alternative layout to the proposed illustrative layout. Furthermore, subject to off-site
highway works, Officers are able to conclude that there is no highway safety reason for
refusal of the current application.
Development Committee
38
20 August 2015
Paragraph 17 on the NPPF outlines 12 Core Planning Principles that should underpin
planning, to include to ‘proactively drive and support sustainable economic
development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and
thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to
identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area,
and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.’ As the largest single
allocation in the District, it is recognised that the site is important in bringing forward
much needed homes and unlocking the potential for job creation.
However, another important consideration for the Committee is how this site fits with
the wider F01 allocation and whether delivery of this site alone would put at risk or
prejudice the delivery of the wider allocation (including all the requirements set out in
Policy F01).
Whilst the F01 site is in multiple ownerships, landowners would appear to be working
independently of one another and, in this case, the Applicant would appear to be
looking at their site in isolation, rather than as an integral part of the allocation as a
comprehensive whole.
Ultimately, it is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee to weigh the benefits
of the proposal against the dis-benefits/risks in deciding whether to approve/refuse the
application.
Officers have identified the key benefits of the development, including:
 Providing an outline planning permission on part of the District’s largest land
allocation, requiring a Reserved Matters application to come forward in a
shortened timeframe;
 a future application would provide the means of demolishing an existing poultry
farm (and cease the associated activities) which would be expected to help to
unlock the surrounding land for the delivery for the remained of the F01 site;
 contributions or provisions towards education, library, public open space and
off-site highway improvements in Rudham Stile Lane;
 jobs creation through the construction and sales phases of the development,
and;
 improvements to the wider road network;
 financial benefits including payment of the New Homes Bonus and Council tax
revenue, and;
 the opportunity to help support local shops, services and other businesses
through the construction stage and the occupation of new homes.
However, there are a number of dis-benefits/risks associated with approval of the
application, including:
 A lack of evidence submitted by the Applicant to assist with an understanding
as to what the wider F01 site allocation costs would be (including highway
costs and the provision of a school site)
 a lack of evidence as to whether the costs associated with this development for
78 dwellings are higher than they need to be if a comprehensive scheme with
an integrated infrastructure strategy was being proposed across the whole F01
allocation;
 the development would not provide affordable housing or other contributions at
the level that policy would generally require;
 whether the failure of the 78 dwellings to contribute on a pro-rata amount to
some of the wider F01 allocation requirements would undermine the ability of
the remaining 800 (approx.) dwellings to be able to fund the wider allocation
Development Committee
39
20 August 2015



requirements;
whether any available capacity within the existing highway and drainage
infrastructure taken up by this application would result in costly up-front
infrastructure works being required before any development could take place
on the remaining allocated land;
concerns raised that there would be additional flooding risks posed by this
development that the costs of possible mitigation measures required to ensure
that future properties are not adversely affected, and;
the consideration of the site in isolation could set a precedent and lead to
further such applications with the potential to hamper the connectivity and
permeability across the wider F01 site allocation.
The delivery of an integrated development is something that was noted as important
when Policy F01 was adopted, with the pre-amble envisaging the submission of an
outline application across the whole allocation:
‘A formal phasing obligation will be required as part of the grant of outline planning
permission providing for the delivery of key infrastructure and services, including the
provision of open space, a new primary school site, affordable housing, and serviced
employment land at appropriate stages as the development progresses.’ (Paragraph
5.1.12, Site Allocations Development Plan Document, 2011).
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the following guidance on
the issue of development viability and land values under the heading of 'Ensuring
viability and deliverability' (paragraph 173):
‘Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in
plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and
the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of
obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To
ensure viability, the costs of any affordable housing, standards, infrastructure
contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of
development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and
willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.’
This makes it clear that the financial viability to undertake developments should not be
prevented by onerous costs associated with the provision of affordable housing, wider
infrastructure contributions and other requirements. In view of this and given that
Officers concur with the overall conclusions of the submitted viability assessment, it is
not considered justifiable that the application should be refused solely on the lack of
these items.
Neither, on balance, is the application considered unacceptable when it is considered
in a general view against the three dimensions of sustainable development referred to
in the NPPF. These being an economic role (the provision of land to support economic
growth, including providing infrastructure); a social role (provision of housing to meet
the needs of present and future generations); and an environmental role (enhancing
the built environment).
Notwithstanding these conclusions, the application is only considered acceptable
subject to the below:
 The inclusion of an uplift clause on any S.106 Obligation, and;
 the imposition of a condition on any approval requiring a 1 year submission
date for a Reserved Matters application and a 1 year implementation period
following the grant of outline planning permission, to encourage quick delivery
so as not to undermine the viability and deliverability of the wider F01
allocation.
Development Committee
40
20 August 2015
The Committee will need to consider whether it considers that the requirement for the
formal phasing agreement and an uplift clause on any S.106 is reasonable in the
circumstances of this case.
Recommendation: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
1
Prior completion of Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms set
out in the Development Viability Implications and S.106 Planning Obligations
section of the report and including an uplift clause
No new material issues being raised from the Strategic Housing team following
submission of the revised S.106 Obligation total figure
No new material issues being raised from the Environment Agency, Anglian
Water, Environmental Health, County Council (Highways) or Natural England
following re-consultation on the ASD Engineering report submitted on behalf of
Trinity College Cambridge
To include the specific conditions listed below:
Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made not later than the
expiration of one year beginning with the date of this permission. Approval of these
reserved matters (referred to in condition 2) shall be obtained from the Local
Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. The
development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of one
year from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on
different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
These reserved matters shall relate to pedestrian and cycle access, appearance,
landscaping, layout, scale of the proposed development and this condition shall
apply notwithstanding any indication as to these matters which have been given in
the current application.
Reason:
The application is submitted in outline form only and the details required are pursuant
to the provisions of Article 4(1) to the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.
3
This permission is granted in accordance with the submitted and approved plans,
drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4
No development shall commence until details of the proposed arrangements for
future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority. (The streets shall thereafter be maintained
in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such
time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act
1980 or a Private Management and Maintenance Company has been established).
Development Committee
41
20 August 2015
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are
managed and maintained thereafter to a suitable and safe standard, in accordance
with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted full details, in the
form of scaled plans and / or written specifications, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority to illustrate the following:
i)
iv)
v)
vi)
Roads, footways, cycleways, foul and on-site water drainage.
Visibility splays.
Access arrangements.
Parking provision in accordance with adopted standard.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site and a satisfactory standard of
highway design and construction, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6
The driveway length in front of the garages shall be at least 6.0m as measured from
the garage doors to the highway boundary.
Reason:
To ensure parked vehicles do not overhang the adjoining public highway, thereby
adversely affecting highway users, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
Core Strategy.
7
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any amendments thereto, garage
accommodation on the site shall be provided with minimum internal dimensions
measuring 3m x 7m.
Reason:
To minimise the potential for on-street parking and thereby safeguard the interest of
safety and convenience of road users, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Development shall not commence until a scheme detailing provision for on site
parking for construction workers for the duration of the construction period has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall be implemented throughout the construction period.
Reason:
To ensure adequate off street parking during construction in the interests of highway
safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9
Prior to the commencement of any works a Construction Traffic Management Plan
and Access Route which shall incorporate adequate provision for addressing any
abnormal wear and tear to the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing
with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Norfolk County Council
Highway Authority together with proposals to control and manage construction traffic
using the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and to ensure no other local roads are
used by construction traffic.
Development Committee
42
20 August 2015
Reason:
In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety, in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, in accordance with Policy CT
5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10
For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction
of the development will comply with the Construction Traffic Management Plan and
use only the 'Construction Traffic Access Route' and no other local roads unless
approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of maintaining highway efficiency and safety, in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11
No works shall commence on site until the details of wheel cleaning facilities for
construction vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway, in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
12
Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works shall
commence on site unless otherwise agreed in writing until a detailed scheme for the
off-site highway improvement works in Rudham Stile Road as indicated on drawing
number 742/03/002 Rev A have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate
standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local
highway corridor, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
13
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the off-site highway
improvement works referred to in Part A of this condition shall be completed to the
written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway
Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development
proposed, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
14
Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority which provides for two fire hydrants on the development in a
location agreed with the Council in consultation with Norfolk Fire and Rescue
Service. The scheme as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall
prior to the first occupation of any dwellings and retained thereafter.
Reason:
In order to ensure adequate water infrastructure provision is made on site for the
Development Committee
43
20 August 2015
local fire service to tackle any property fire in accordance with Policy CT 2 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
15
16
Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application, as part of any reserved
matters application a surface water drainage scheme for the proposed development
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in
consultation with the Environment Agency, Anglian Water and County Council
(Highways). The scheme as approved shall be fully implemented and subsequently
maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within
the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by
the Local Planning Authority.
Prior to development, further investigation/characterisation and sampling of surface
soils across the site should be undertaken. In the first instance this should include
sampling in those areas which were not previously investigated, and in the second
instance the completion and submission of details regarding investigation works in
and around the former fuel filling tanks. These works should be undertaken post
clearance of the site to allow access to previously covered surfaces .Once further
works are completed a Remediation Method Statement (RMS) must be formulated
and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. The RMS must include specific
remediation proposals, details of waste compliance and proposed Health and safety
measures. Prior to use of the site, the remediation scheme must be implemented in
full and appropriate validation must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and
approved in writing.
Reason:
In the interests of public health and safety, and in accordance with Policy EN 13 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.71-3.3.72
of the explanatory text.
17
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present
at the site then no further development (unless otherwise first agreed in writing with
the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until a remediation strategy has first
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing
how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy
shall then be implemented as approved.
Reason:
To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters (the Chalk Principal Aquifer
at depth and the SPZ2) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous
land uses (including poultry farm and former fuel storage tanks as identified in
submitted documents) in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF;
paragraphs 109 and 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin
Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and
Practice (GP3 v.1.1, 2013) position statements A4 – A6, J1 – J7 and N7 and in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
18
Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, precise details of tree
protection measures for those trees to be retained shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include an
Arboricultural Method Statement & Tree Protection Plan compiled in accordance with
BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations. The tree
protection measures shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
Development Committee
44
20 August 2015
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.
19
Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, hard and soft
landscape proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next available
planting season following the commencement of development or such further period
as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
20
In accordance with Condition number 19, any new tree, hedge or shrub which within
a period of ten years from the date of planting dies, is removed or become seriously
damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next planting season with another
of a similar size and species to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless
prior written approval is given to any variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
21
Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared in accordance with the format
laid out in BS42020:2013 Biodiversity- Code of Practice for Planning and
Development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
The Plan shall be informed by the results of the Ecological Constraints &
Opportunities Assessment carried out in June 2014 by Enims. The development shall
be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved CEMP and any mitigation or
compensation measures shall be erected or installed according to the approved
details and thereafter maintained in a suitable condition to serve the intended
purpose.
Reason:
To ensure that the development does not have any adverse ecological impacts in
accordance with Policy EN 9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
22
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, at least 10
percent of the energy supply of the development shall be secured from decentralised
and renewable or low-carbon energy sources (as described in the glossary of
Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change (December 2007)). Details
and a timetable of how this is to be achieved, including details of physical works on
site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority as
a part of the reserved matters submissions required by Condition number 2. The
approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable
and retained as operational thereafter.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving the required level of renewable energy supply in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
45
20 August 2015
(v)
4.
Any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning,
possibly including a condition requiring details of sewage disposal from the
development to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application.
RUNTON - PF/15/0315 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension and
raise roof to provide habitable accommodation, insertion of first floor balcony
and installation of cladding; Apple Tree Cottage, Rosebery Road, West Runton
for Mr B Cottam
- Target Date: 01 May 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20050581 PF
Retention of garden shed
Approved 06/05/2005
PF/13/0822 PF
Erection of one and a half storey side extension and two storey rear extension
Approved 30/08/2013
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the extension and raising of the existing walls and roof of the
existing single-storey property to create a one-and-a-half storey dwelling. In addition,
the proposals include the addition of a balcony on the rear (west-facing) elevation and
the insertion of two rooflights on both the north and south-facing roof slopes. It is
proposed to adopt a more contemporary design through the use of off-white cladding
and upvc windows doors, whilst incorporating a reclaimed pantile roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr S Butikofer due to the design and potential impact on
neighbouring amenity.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application. Concerned that the neighbour will be adversely affected by
the application. The measurements need to be checked on site against the property as
they do not seem to agree.
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notice expired on 09 April 2015. To date, one representation has been
received from a neighbouring property, raising the following concerns:




Boundaries between Apple tree Cottage and Glenroy are incorrectly shown on
location/site plans, providing a false perspective in terms of proximity of the
properties to the boundary;
Loss of light to the windows along the south-facing side of the neighbouring
property (Glenroy)
Loss of privacy due to proposed windows along the northern side and rear balcony.
Grey plastic cladding is out-of-keeping with the village.
Development Committee
46
20 August 2015
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - noted the awkward access arrangement onto the
private unmade road which has restricted visibility onto the A149, due to road
alignment and roadside vegetation, and would therefore seek to resist any increases in
vehicular traffic. However, as the proposal is to extend an existing dwelling, there is no
objection to the proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Design
3. Neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The property in question lies within the designated Countryside policy area of North
Norfolk, as defined under Policy SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this
area, extensions to existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle,
subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Design
The existing property is barely visible from the roadside, being a very low single-storey
dwelling with a quirky elongated arrangement of near-flat roofs and a single pitched
roof element with chimney. The principle of extending the dwelling is acceptable. The
proposal, adopting a more contemporary approach, involves raising the walls and roof
of the existing property to create a one-and-a-half storey dwelling, consisting of a
pitched reclaimed pantile roof, cladded walls and white upvc doors/windows. A first
floor balcony will be incorporated into the rear gable ended elevation facing west. Two
rooflights are proposed on both the north and south-facing roof slopes, and the main
entrance would be situated on the south-facing elevation incorporated within a large
landing area with ground and first floor glazing.
Development Committee
47
20 August 2015
As a result of the proposals, the footprint of the property would increase by a modest
13sqm, the eaves height increasing in places by approx. 1m and the overall height
increasing to approx. 6m.
In terms of appearance, a more contemporary approach is not unique in this location,
the neighbouring property 'Mascot' has adopted a similarly contemporary approach, on
which extensions were permitted in 2013 and currently nearing completion, consisting
of white render and a slate roof. There is a mix of dwelling types in the area.
The design is unusual, being entirely cladded, however, it is proposed to use an
off-white colour, almost identical to the neighbouring modern dwelling, which should
not create an appearance that is too stark. The approach in terms of materials,
although bold, is not something that causes significant concerns in terms of
appearance and the site is not widely visible within the surrounding settlement and as
such, is considered to comply with Policy EN 4.
Given that the overall footprint of the dwelling will only increase by a modest amount,
the height of the building is increasing from single-storey to one-and-a-half storey, and
the existence of neighbouring properties of similar height, it is not considered that the
increase in size is disproportionate and as such, the proposals comply with Policy
HO8.
Neighbouring amenity
It is acknowledged that the extended property is in close proximity to the northern
boundary and to the neighbouring property. An objection has been received from the
occupiers of the neighbouring property raising concerns in regards to the potential loss
of light to windows on this property. There are first floor windows facing south, along
with a ground floor kitchen window. The height of the wall on the applicant's property
along the northern boundary has been reduced by 100mm - this is about as much a
reduction as can be accommodated without compromising first floor space. It is
considered that the raising in height of the walls (by approx. 1m) and roof of the
property (which is pitched and slopes away from the neighbouring properties) to an
overall height of approx. 6m will not have a significantly detrimental impact to the
extent that would warrant refusal of this application. It is also noted that light to and
outlook from the ground floor kitchen window of the neighbouring property 'Glenroy' is
already compromised to an extent by an existing closeboard fence and the existing
wall of the property along the northern boundary.
In terms of privacy, the proposed rear balcony is recessed back within the extended
walls of the property, so would only allow limited overlooking of the rear half of the
neighbouring garden. Again, it is not considered that this is significant enough to result
in a recommendation of refusal of the application. The proposed rooflights are
relatively small, with the two facing the neighbouring property to the north being
obscure glazed.
Based upon the above considerations, the proposal is considered to comply with
Policy EN 4 in regards to neighbouring amenity.
Conclusion
Overall, the design is considered to be acceptable, whilst the concerns in regards to
the potential for loss of light and privacy are not considered to be significant enough to
warrant a refusal of this application. Accordingly, it is considered that on balance, the
proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
48
20 August 2015
5.
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0721 - Erection of a detached single-storey building to
provide 2 self-contained annexes; Dalmeny House, 2 The Boulevard for
Dalmeny House Limited
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 August 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20021403 PF
Change of use from residential care home to house in multiple occupation
Refused 05/03/2003
PLA/19941430 PF
Erection of single-storey extension to residential home (renewal of planning
permission reference 900609)
Approved 03/02/1995
PLA/19900609 PF
Ground floor extension to residential home
Refused 09/07/1990 A 17/01/1991
PLA/20041973 PF
Erection of single-storey extensions
Approved 20/12/2004
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks permission for the erection of a detached single storey building
to provide 2 self-contained annexes to the rear of the Dalmeny House in Sheringham.
The annexe building will measure approximately 8.9 metres in length by 5.5 metres in
width with a mono-pitch roof which has a maximum height of 3.7 metres. The annexe
building will be constructed in cedar weather boarding with a facing brickwork plinth,
single ply membrane roof, UPVC joinery with black UPVC guttering.
The annexe accommodation will be situated to the south east corner to the garden
area associated with Dalmeny House and will replace an existing timber shed which
measures approximately 6 metres in length by 4.2 metres in width by 3.5 metres in
height.
Dalmeny House is situated on the east side of The Boulevard in Sheringham adjacent
to St Peter’s Church which is also located within the Sheringham Conservation Area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr D Smith due to overdevelopment of the site, lack of amenity
space for existing residents and that a further outbuilding could be erected within the
curtilage.
Development Committee
49
20 August 2015
TOWN COUNCIL
Sheringham Town Council: Object to the application due to size and suitability of this
development as residential accommodation.
REPRESENTATIONS
The Site notice expired on the 10 July 2015 and no representations have been
received to date.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council Highways: It is unlikely that the proposed development would
endanger any increases in vehicular activity at the site, nor increase parking needs.
Therefore, subject to the use of the development in association with the existing use of
the site, I am able to comment that in relation to highways issues only, as the proposal
does not affect the current traffic patterns and the free flow of traffic, that Norfolk
County Council does not seek to restrict the grant of permission.
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):
SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
EN4: Design
EN8: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
CT5: The Transport Impact of New development
CT6: Car Parking
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of development
 Design/Impact on Conservation Area
 Amenity Space/Overdevelopment
APPRAISAL
Dalmeny House is a semi-detached, 2 ½ storey building constructed of redbrick with
corbelled eaves under a natural slate roof with timber sash windows. The building
functions as an 11 bed residential care home for persons with learning disabilities and
mental health issues. The intention is that the annexe building will provide the final
step of rehabilitation for occupants associated with Dalmeny House prior to stepping
back in the community.
Principle of Development
The site lies within the town and of Sheringham which is defined by the North Norfolk
adopted Core Strategy as a Secondary Settlement. Subject to compliance to relevant
planning policies a residential annexe form of development as proposed in a
designated Secondary Settlement is in principle acceptable.
Development Committee
50
20 August 2015
The development site lies within a residential area. The proposed annexe
accommodation is well related to the host building and is complimentary and well
related to the principle use of the site.
Vehicular access for parking is currently direct from the highway (The Boulevard) and
pedestrian access is located to the south side of the building. Vehicular and
pedestrian access remains unchanged to that which is existing for Dalmeny House.
The application is considered to comply with Policy SS1.
Design/Impact on Conservation Area
Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy requires that development should be
designed to a high standard, reinforces local distinctiveness and should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupants.
With regards to the proposed annexe building, it will replace an existing timber
structure of a similar size, scale and location albeit three metres longer in width. The
design and materials proposed are similar to that which would be expected of an
ancillary outbuilding and therefore is considered acceptable in design terms.
In terms of Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC): the annexe building is considered to be
modest in nature and would not result in overbearing or overshadowing of
neighbouring properties. The application building is bounded by an approximate 1.5
metre high breeze block wall to the north, 1.5 metre concrete rendered wall to the east
and 2 metre red brick wall to the south. There is a pedestrian access to the east of the
site which links Morris Street with Church Street where the land is slightly lower than
that of the application site.
The neighbouring dwelling to the north contains two rear first floor dormer windows
which look directly in the application buildings rear garden and is considered of
sufficient distance (approx. 15 metres away) so as to not be significantly impacted
upon by the development. It is considered the proposal would not significantly impact
upon the residential/garden amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
The proposed window and door openings of the annexe would overlook the residential
garden of the application building. There are no openings proposed to the east, south
and west elevation of the annexe building. The application is considered to comply
with Policy EN4.
Development proposals, including alterations and extensions, should preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in this case the
Sheringham Conservation Area. Development that would have an adverse impact on
their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
The site is situated within the Sheringham Conservation Area. The proposed annexe
building is of a similar size, scale and external appearance to that of the existing timber
building proposed to be removed. Given the siting of the annexe to the rear of the
application building, it is not considered that the proposal would detrimentally impact
upon the significance of the heritage assets, in this case the wider Sheringham
Conservation area and is therefore is considered to be compliant with Policy EN8.
Amenity Space/Overdevelopment
The residents of the annexe would use the outside amenities of the main house which
would remain of sufficient size to accommodate all residents associated with Dalmeny
Development Committee
51
20 August 2015
House.
Other Matters
Vehicular and pedestrian access remains unchanged to that of Dalmeny House.
Vehicular access for parking is currently direct from the highway (The Boulevard) and
pedestrian access is located to the south side of the building to access the rear garden.
Existing access to the proposed annexe building would utilise the existing pedestrian
access.
The Highway Authority's engineer does not raise an objection to the application
providing that the use is ancillary to that of the host building, therefore a condition
limiting the use of the annexe to ancillary accommodation only will be imposed on any
subsequent planning approval granted.
The proposal, subject to conditions, is considered acceptable in terms of Core Strategy
Policies CT5 and CT6.
Conclusion
The development site lies within a residential area where proposals for annexe
accommodation are considered acceptable. The design of the annexe is considered
acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding area and the garden area of Dalmeny
house is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed annexe accommodation and
would not result in overdevelopment of the site. Vehicular and pedestrian access
remains unchanged to that of Dalmeny House. Overall, it is considered that the
proposal complies with relevant Development Plan Polices.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions:
i.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
ii. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
iii. The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall
be in full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
iv. The annexe accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any
time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling
known as Dalmeny House.
Development Committee
52
20 August 2015
6.
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0114 - Erection of 52 dwellings, access, roads,
open space, parking areas and associated works; Land off Holway Road/Butts
Lane for Norfolk Homes Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 08 April 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Use Allocation
A Road
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
THE APPLICATION
The proposals are for a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached two and three
storey properties. Dwelling sizes range from one to five bedroom units. Seventeen of
the units comprise 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.
The main access is to be from Holway Road via a 'type 3' road which is shown to
extend to the north-western corner of the site. From this principal access road a 'type 6'
road will form a 'loop' around a large part of the development. The majority of
properties will either be served directly off these estate roads or from a number of short
private drives served of them. The exception being two detached dwellings which will
have a shared driveway access directly onto Holway Road.
External building materials are to comprise a mix of brick, coloured render, timber
cladding and slate coloured tiles.
Two areas of public open space are proposed. One small area centrally in the site and
the other around the western and southern perimeters.
Surface and foul water disposal is proposed via mains connections in Holway Road.
An on site attenuation tank is proposed to regulate surface water flows.
Accompanying the planning application is an application under the Council's Housing
Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing to 20% (10 units)
together with a relaxation of renewable energy and sustainable homes code level
requirements.
Submitted with the application are the following documents:
Planning/Design and Access Statement
Transport Statement
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Archaeological Survey
Flood Risk Assessment
Biodiversity & Protected Species Survey
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Contamination Report
Draft S.106 Planning Obligation
Amended plans have been submitted.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
Development Committee
53
20 August 2015
UPPER SHERINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL - Strongly objects for the following
reasons:
 Loss of valuable open space
 Impact on infrastructure (schools, surgeries, sewerage
 Road safety on Holway Road
 Affordable homes
 The spur road indicated on the plans
Also queries if there are any covenants on the land.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
SHERINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL - Objects on the following grounds:
 There will soon be no separation between Sheringham and Upper Sheringham
 Development should not proceed without improved infrastructure (schools, health
services, sewerage)
 Flood risk
 Safety of the road junction onto Holway Road, particularly given the indication of
future development beyond this site.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection received from residents of the adjacent Knights Green
development on the following grounds:
 Impact upon AONB / appearance / character of the area.
 Dispute process which lead to the site being allocated for development.
 Contrary to guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
 Excessive no. of dwellings proposed.
 Impacts on views.
 Height of the two proposed 4 bedroom dwellings.
 Plot 8 - upper floor living accommodation (overlooking).
 Ground stability.
 Flood risk.
 Drainage issues.
 Highway safety.
 Residential amenity.
 Overlooking.
 Impact on wildlife.
 Strain upon local services.
 Disruption / noise.
 Indication of access to serve further development.
 Increased demand on water abstraction / adverse impact upon Beeston Common
(protected land).
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water
Advises that there is available capacity at the Cromer
Wastewater Recycling Centre and the sewerage network to cater for the
development. Comments that the preferred method of surface water disposal would be
to a sustainable drainage system. The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment
submitted with the application relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable.
Environment Agency water drainage.
Development Committee
No objection subject to a condition relating to surface
54
20 August 2015
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations) - Advises that there is sufficient
capacity at the local primary and high schools to cater for the proposed development.
Financial contributions are sought towards library provision (£60 per dwelling) and fire
hydrant provision.
Refers to Sheringham Footpath No.27 which runs along the northern edge of the site.
Requests that controlled access from the development onto this public right of way to
be provided in order to prevent the creation of informal accesses in the future.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection, subject to the imposition of
conditions in respect of highway construction details, visibility splays onto Holway
Road and a construction management plan.
Conservation and Design Officer - Comments that as the site is situated some
distance away from the Sheringham Conservation Area, and with no listed buildings
nearby, this scheme would not have any impact upon any designated heritage assets.
In as far as the layout is concerned, whilst it is driven by the main access and loop
road, and remains fairly tight in places, there is nothing which requires fundamental
reworking.
As regards the house types, the applicants have opted for a more contemporary
architect-designed approach. This is to be broadly welcomed in principle given the
mixed form and character locally and the fact that the site lies well beyond the historic
core of the town. Elevationally, this approach works fine on the majority of the plots.
However, there are several instances where comments are warranted, notably in
relation to the scale, massing and appropriateness of the large curved central terrace,
flats at the rear of the site and the two large detached properties on the Holway Road
Frontage. In addition comments are made in respect of rather bland rear elevations to
certain dwellings.
In response to the amended plans, considers that these have resulted in a number of
improvements, notably to the proportions and coherency of the curved terrace,
fenestration details and the proposed materials. Balanced against these gains
however, "The previously expressed concerns about the scale of some of the blocks
have largely gone unaddressed. Hence, because the largest/tallest blocks would still
be located towards the higher parts of the site, there is still an overriding feeling that
the development would appear larger than ideal on what should be a transitional site
from town to countryside". In addition does not consider that a revised house type at
the entrance to the site provides for a particularly strong 'gateway feature' into the
development. However does not consider that these concerns are sufficient to merit an
objection to the application as a whole.
English Heritage - No specific comment. The application should be determined in
accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of specialist
conservation advice.
Landscape Officer - Notes that the site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty and Sheringham Park Conservation Area. Concludes that in the longer term
the development will have no significant adverse effects on these designations.
Does not consider that the proposals meet with the requirements of Policy SH14 in
terms of retaining existing boundary hedgerows, providing a landscaped linkage
between the northern hedgerow and the adjoining woodland, and providing an
appropriate landscaped buffer between the developed part of the site, all of which are
intended to provide ecological enhancement measures.
If the application is to be approved, conditions should be imposed in relation to
Development Committee
55
20 August 2015
landscaping, tree protection and ecological mitigation measures, together with
securing a financial contribution towards mitigating against increased visitor pressure
on the North Norfolk European Habitat sites, by means of a S.106 Planning Obligation.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Notes that the draft s106 agreement refers to a
contribution of £18,000 in respect of off-site provision for play. This is in line with
previous advice.
Suggests that NNDC would not be minded to adopt the proposed area of open space.
The current policy is that where public open space has recreational or amenity value to
the wider community, then the open space may be adopted. In the case of this
development, the open space has no wider benefit and is simply 'infrastructure'
associated with the development itself and should be managed by others.
Environmental Health - No objection.
Strategic Housing Officer - Comments that there is a need for affordable housing
in Sheringham with 112 households on the Housing Register and in addition there are
a further 126 households on the Transfer Register and 729 households on the Housing
Options Register who have stated that they require housing in Sheringham.
Referring to the accompanying application under the Council's Housing Delivery
Incentive Scheme, considers that the proposed delivery (site clearance works,
construction of the main access road carriageway up to base course together with
sewers and utilities beneath and construction up to damp proof course level of 7
dwellings within 18 months of the date of the planning permission) is not acceptable as
it would not result in the completion of any dwellings.
Does not support the proposed tenure mix of the 10 affordable dwellings to be
delivered under the Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme (50% for rent / 50% shared
equity) which does not accord with Core Strategy Policy HO2 which states that the mix
of affordable housing should reflect the identified housing need at the time of the
proposal and should contribute to the Council's target that 80% of the affordable
dwellings are provided for rent. The proposed mix is of concern as this site is not
contributing to the Council's target and there are only limited opportunities to provide
affordable housing in Sheringham. Similarly does not support the tenure mix and type
of dwellings proposed under the 45% affordable housing scenario (the fallback
position in the event of the Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme requirements not being
met), as well as the poor integration of the affordable dwellings and market dwellings
across the development.
Comments further that the proposed affordable housing mix does not include a 4
bedroom house which is required to meet the identified housing need. Welcomes the
3 x 1 bedroom flats for rent which are all located on the ground floor and have been
designed to be fully accessible by a wheelchair users, but some minor changes are
required in terms of garden and parking access to improve their usability by a
wheelchair user.
Finally, objects to the proposed phasing for delivering the affordable dwellings as
referred to in the draft S.106 Obligation, which in the 20% affordable housing scenario
would mean that up to 83% of the market dwellings could be completed. The Council's
standard phasing requirements are that 50% of the affordable dwellings should be
completed when 50% of the market dwellings are completed, with the remaining
affordable housing being completed prior to the completion of the final market dwelling.
Further comments awaited.
Development Committee
56
20 August 2015
Norfolk Constabulary (Architectural Liaison) -
No concerns raised.
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 Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy SH14 - Land at Holway Road, Opposite Hazel Avenue:
Land amounting to 1.5 hectares is allocated for approximately 50 dwellings.
Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies
including on-site provision of the required proportion of affordable housing (currently
45%) and contributions towards infrastructure, services, and other community needs
as required and:
a) archaeological investigation if required;
b) retention and enhancement of perimeter hedgerows;
c) retention of a grassland strip or hedging to connect the north hedge to the woodland,
provision of a landscaped buffer between the woodland and development and other
wildlife improvement and mitigation measures as required;
d) a layout and design which minimises the loss of amenity to residents of dwellings to
the north;
e) demonstration that there is adequate capacity in sewage treatment works and the
foul sewerage network and that proposals have regard to water quality standards; and
f) prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the North
Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC and Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor
pressure, and on-going monitoring of such measures.
This site is within the Norfolk Coast AONB, and development proposals should be
informed by, and be sympathetic to, the special landscape character of this protected
area. Proposals should also be informed by Development Control Policies EN1 and
EN2.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Committee
57
20 August 2015
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 CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
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.
2.
3.
4.
Layout, scale and design.
Housing mix and type.
Landscaping / ecology
Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The application site is located within the Parish of Upper Sheringham but is adjacent to
the boundary of Sheringham. Geographically and visually the site is more associated
with Sheringham as opposed to the village of Upper Sheringham. It is located within
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Upper Sheringham
Conservation Area.
The site (1.5 ha.) is located on the western side of Holway Road (A1082), the main
approach route into Sheringham. It currently comprises an open field bordered on its
southern and western sides by dense woodland, and housing development (the
southern extent of Sheringham) to its northern boundary. The site slopes up towards
its south-western boundary.
The site is allocated for residential development in the North Norfolk Site Allocations
DPD. Accordingly the principle of developing it for residential use is acceptable in
planning policy terms.
Layout, scale and design
The main factors which influence the layout of the site are its boundary with Holway
Road which determines the point(s) of access, the surrounding woodland on two sides
where a degree of separation is necessary to avoid overshading of houses and
gardens, and the proximity of existing housing north of the site (separated by a public
footpath). Bearing these factors in mind it is not considered that there are any
fundamental grounds to object to the layout as proposed, which provides for a 'street
presence' of detached properties facing onto Holway Road and satisfactory
relationships between the proposed dwellings and those existing adjacent to the
northern boundary. The layout avoids regimentation by the use of sinuous access
routes through the site and the inclusion of a number of informal private courtyards.
Whilst the juxtaposition of buildings is relatively tight in places the number of dwellings
proposed is in line with the policy requirement (Policy SH14) and includes a number of
flats which by their nature are more efficient in their take up of land.
Development on this site will be particularly prominent from a public perspective when
travelling out of Sheringham along Holway Road as well as from residential properties
in the immediate neighbourhood. The sloping nature of the site together with the
Development Committee
58
20 August 2015
inclusion of three storey properties (notably a central curved terrace) will contribute
towards this, albeit against a backdrop of woodland. In this respect members will note
the reservations expressed by the Conservation and Design Officer with regard to the
scale of certain of the buildings, in particular on the higher parts of the site.
In terms of design, many of the earlier concerns of the Conservation and Design
Officer have now been addressed with the exception of one plot at the entrance to the
site which would merit improvement in order to provide a better gateway feature.
Housing mix and type.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 (Housing Mix and Type) requires that new housing
developments should comprise at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two
bedrooms. The proposed development meets this requirement with approximately
50% of the proposed dwellings comprising 2 or less bedrooms.
Core Strategy Policy HO2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) requires that on
developments of this size, 45% of the dwellings should be 'affordable', subject to
viability. However, as mentioned above, the applicants have applied under the
Council's Housing Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing
provided to 20% (10 units). In order to comply with the scheme a (revised) draft
Section 106 Planning Obligation has been prepared which will require the construction
of all estate roads (including sewers and utilities beneath) together with the completion
of 10 dwellings, within 18 months of the date of planning permission.
In terms of the delivery of the affordable dwellings, it is the Council's normal
requirement for 50% of the affordable homes to be completed by the time 50% of the
market homes are completed and the remainder of affordable homes to be completed
before the final market home is completed. The applicants have requested that in this
case the requirement is amended so that 20% (2) of the affordable homes are
completed by the time 45% (19) of the market homes are complete and the remainder
of affordable homes (8) to be completed before any more than 85% (36) of the market
homes are completed. The reason for this is understood to be because of the location
of the affordable units on the site and the applicants' concerns regarding the
practicalities of providing them earlier whilst other construction work is taking place.
The proposed 10 affordable units comprise 1 and 2 bedroom semi-detached houses
and 1 bed apartments. As currently proposed 6 will be for rent and 4 will be for sale on
a shared equity basis. Policy HO2 refers to the Council's target of achieving 80% of
affordable housing as social rented accommodation.
The further comments of the Council's Strategic Housing Officer will be reported at the
meeting.
Landscaping / ecology
In view of the fact that the site borders existing development on two sides and is
screened for the most part on its other sides by woodland, the development should
have no significant impact upon the wider surrounding landscape other than perhaps a
glimpse of roofscape through a gap in its north-western corner. The fact that the site
has been allocated for residential use is reflective of its relatively discreet location in
the landscape, notwithstanding that it lies within the AONB.
One of the intentions of Policy SH14 is to retain existing hedgerows around the site not
only for visual purposes but also to maintain and enhance the opportunities for wildlife,
and to combine this with other landscaping features as part of the site's development.
Regrettably this is not being achieved as part of the proposed development, partially
due to the necessity to provide adequate visibility splays along the frontage with
Development Committee
59
20 August 2015
Holway Road. As mitigation to this new landscaping treatment is proposed in the form
of hedge and tree planting along the Holway Road frontage and northern boundary
with Butts Lane, together with tree planting within the development.
A further requirement of Policy SH14 is to address the issue of visitor pressure upon
the North Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC and Ramsar site, a policy requirement which
similarly applies to many of the other allocated residential sites in the district. In
accordance with other planning permissions on allocated sites the applicants have
agreed to a financial contribution of £50 per dwelling towards visitor pressure
mitigation measures.
Highway safety
As referred to above there will be two access points onto Holway Road. One will be an
adopted estate road which will serve the majority of the development. The other will be
a private driveway serving two large detached dwellings. As The Highway Authority
has raised no objection to the application, subject to the imposition of conditions, to
include the provision of visibility requirements.
Conclusions
The principle of developing this site for residential development is established by virtue
of its allocation in the adopted Site Allocations DPD. Furthermore there are no
technical objections to the proposed development (access / drainage etc).
The site is prominent in its immediate locality and there are some reservations in terms
of the scale of some of the buildings and their consequent visual impact, although
these concerns are not considered sufficient enough to warrant a recommendation of
refusal. Notwithstanding this the applicants have been asked to reconsider the design
of one of the plots at the entrance to the site.
It is proposed to provide 10 affordable dwellings as part of the Council's Housing
Incentive Scheme which will result in the early delivery of the development. There
remain however unresolved issues in relation to the type, tenure type and phased
delivery of the affordable dwellings. In this respect the further comments of the
Council's Strategic Housing Officer will be reported at the Committee meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to:
1. Agreement on details in relation to the affordable housing provision.
2. Further design amendments.
3. Expiry of the period of re-advertisement (revised plans) and no new grounds
of objection received.
4. The imposition of appropriate conditions.
5. Completion of a S.106 Planning Obligation (to include details relating to the
provision of affordable housing, securing early delivery in accordance with the
Council's Housing Delivery Scheme, financial contributions towards libraries
and SAC/SPA visitor pressure mitigation).
Development Committee
60
20 August 2015
7.
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0936 - Development of ground mounted solar voltaic panels
and associated works.; Land at Bunn's Hill, North Walsham for Solarcentury
Major Development
- Target Date: 25 September 2015
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/11/0418 PF
Construction of 5mw solar generating facility
Approved 24/05/2011
PF/12/0356 PF
Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference: 11/0418 to permit retention
of re-sited buildings, CCTV cameras and fencing
Approved 05/09/2012
PF/15/0938 PF
Development of ground mounted solar voltaic panels and associated works (Pending).
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a solar farm with a capacity of 5MWp set on two parcels of
agricultural land (grade 3b with some parts grade 4) at Bunn’s Hill, Worstead. The sites
combined would have an area of some 12.6 hectares and are referred to as the
eastern and western sites. The eastern site which has an area of some 5.7 hectares
abuts Withergate Lane to the east whilst the western part of the site which has an area
of 6.9 hectares abuts the Bittern Line Railway to the west. Due to a gas pipeline
which crosses this part of site diagonally north east to south west there would be no
panels within a 30 metres buffer zone which the Landscape Mitigation Plan submitted
as part of the application shows would be planted as a wild flower meadow.
A 5MWp solar farm equates to approximately 19,184 individual solar panels to be
installed on site. On each part of the site the panels, which individually measure 1650 x
991 millimetres, would be arranged in rows on an east to west alignment facing south
to maximise sunlight exposure with a 4-5 metre separation between rows. The panels
would be ground mounted on angled racks with the highest point of the panels rising to
approximately 2.5 metres above ground level (dependent on ground conditions).
Access to the site would be via an upgraded farm track, finished in crushed stone,
between the two parts of the site, immediately to the south of the existing poultry farm.
Each part of the site would be enclosed by a 2.0m high security/deer fencing (colour to
be agreed). Within the north western corner of the eastern part of the site the applicant
proposes a transformer substation measuring approximately 6.0m in length x 2.4m
wide with a maximum height of approximately 3.4m, colour moss green finish. Whilst in
the north western corner of the western part of the site there would be a 33kV District
Network Operator (DNO) switchgear room, measuring approximately 6.5m in length x
4.4m wide with a maximum height of approximately 3.8m of brick construction under a
mono pitched roof of metal sheeting together with a satellite pole. Grouped further
south along the western boundary would be a site storage container, customer
switchgear container, wind sensor and further satellite pole, both of which would have
a maximum height of 4 metres. The switchgear container would measure
approximately 12.1m in length x 2.4m wide with a maximum height of approximately
Development Committee
61
20 August 2015
3.4m and would be finished in moss green as would the storage container. In addition
a CCTV system is proposed consisting of a total of 17 infrared CCTV cameras
mounted on 4m high poles, with 8 sited inside the perimeter fence of the eastern part
of the site and 9 to the western part of the site.
A temporary construction compound is also proposed in the north eastern corner of the
eastern part of the site adjacent to the site entrance and Withergate Lane.
The application is supported by a Planning and Environmental Report (including a
Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and ecological assessment), Biodiversity
Management Plan, Historic Environment Assessment, Construction Traffic
Management Plan, Flood Risk Assessment and Design and Access Statement and
Agricultural Land Classification Assessment.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
To comply with Committee requests for all solar farms to be determined by the
Development Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Worstead – Resolved to support the application in principle but requested the
introduction of mature screening, and wish to reserve full comments until after the
Committee site visit on 13 August 2015.
Adjacent Parish:
North Walsham – No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS – None received
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The lie within the ‘Low
Plains Farmland’ Landscape Type as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment (SPD 2009). The key characteristics of this landscape type are
one of predominantly rural arable landscape with an open character with long
uninterrupted views, with topography on the whole of either flat or very gently
undulating land. Field boundaries on the whole consist of low grass banks due to
widespread hedge removal; however the skyline is punctuated by many tree belts, and
areas of woodland and isolated trees.
A key consideration of this development is the effect of a relatively large area (31
acres) of solar panels and associated infrastructure on the character and appearance
of this landscape type. The submitted Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
concludes that the development would have a Moderate Effect on the landscape
character of the site and immediate environs.
The viewpoint analysis demonstrates that there is limited potential for views of the two
sites from public receptors. Fleeting views would be experienced by rail users and
limited visibility would be experienced from some private dwellings, notably the
bungalow at Sandy Hill and dwellings on the northern edge of Withergate, but these
views would be restricted by intervening mature trees and a rising landform. The
combined visual impact of the two sites is therefore not considered to be significant.
As far as the cumulative impact is concerned The Landscape Officer agrees with the
LVIA carried out as part of the submission which concludes that the cumulative impact
of these two sites with the existing Carlton Solar Farm on the local landscape character
would not lead to any Major effects. In terms of visual effects, the analysis concludes
there is limited potential for in combination cumulative effects, this being restricted to
rail passengers who will experience fleeting views of the combined sites.
Development Committee
62
20 August 2015
Given the proposed landscape mitigation, coupled with the existing vegetation
screening and surrounding topography the Landscape Officer agrees with the
conclusion in the LVIA that the combined landscape and visual effects will not be
significant and that the category of land does not constitute ‘best and most versatile
agricultural land’ as defined in para. 112 of the NPPF. Furthermore, that this
development can be accommodated within the landscape without detriment to its
intrinsic character.
In terms of Ecology the assessments carried out by Wild Frontier Ecology on 12 May
2015 concluded no significant impacts on valued ecological interests. The mitigation
and enhancement measures proposed are appropriate, if limited.
 Ecological connectivity is partly addressed through the provision of large mesh
perimeter fencing and mammal gates cut every 100m which is appropriate, but
the landscape mitigation measures could be improved to enhance the habitat
linkage.
 The Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) lacks sufficient enhancement
around the margins of the solar array. The proposed areas of wildflower
meadow do not provide sufficient mitigation. An ungrazed field margin approx.
6m wide which acts as an ecological buffer zone is standard practice and this
should be included along all boundaries, particularly along the railway line to
provide an ecological corridor connecting the two sites. Similarly the identified
offset of 6m on each side of the existing 33kV Overhead Power Lines in the
southern section of the site should be planted and managed as an ecological
buffer zone. The seed mixes here should contain more variety than the main
mix proposed under the panels. The Boston Seeds ELS3 Floristically
Enhanced Buffer Strip would be appropriate here or the Wildflower Meadow &
Field Margin mix as proposed in 1.9 of the BMP.
 The proposed Boston Seeds Low Maintenance Solar Park mix contains little
variety, comprising just drought tolerant grasses and a small percent of clover,
but is acceptable so long as the margins are expanded and enhanced as
discussed above.
In terms of access to the site the proposed access track runs alongside a field
boundary containing mature trees. The track is well within the Root Protection Area of
the trees. An Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan for the two
sites should form a condition of any consent to ensure no long term damage to the
mature field boundary which is an important landscape component in terms of
screening.
The Landscape Officer therefore raises no objection to the proposal subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Environment Agency - As the site lies in Flood Zone 1 the Environment Agency does
not wish to comment on the application.
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - No objection.
Norfolk County Council Flood Management Team - Awaiting comments.
Network Rail - No objection.
Development Committee
63
20 August 2015
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 EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
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. Flood Risk
11. Contamination
12. Archaeology & Impact on Listed Buildings and other Historic Assets
13. Renewable Energy benefits
14. Cumulative Impact Issues
APPRAISAL
Consideration of the application follows a Committee visit to the site and surrounding
area.
Development Committee
64
20 August 2015
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
A formal request for a screening opinion was made to the Council on 5 May 2015.
Officers considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99 and concluded 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. The agents were advised in a letter from the Council dated
11 June 2015 that an EIA was not required. Following the receipt of consultation
replies, Officers remain of the opinion that the proposed solar farm is not EIA
development.
NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY GUIDANCE
Reproduced at Appendix 7.
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 northern part of the site lies within the Lowland Plains Farmland Character Type
LP5 – North Walsham as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment (SPD June 2009), whilst the southern part of the site is within the Lowland
Plains Farmland Character Type LP3 Worstead, Coltishall, Hoveton and Smallburgh.
The key characteristics of this landscape type are one of predominantly rural arable
landscape with an open character with long uninterrupted views, with topography on
the whole of either flat or very gently undulating land. Field boundaries on the whole
consist of low grass banks due to widespread hedge removal; however the skyline is
punctuated by many tree belts, and areas of woodland and isolated trees.
A key consideration is the effect of a relatively 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
12.6 hectares (approximately 31 acres) of arable land.
The submitted LVIA concludes that the development would have a Moderate Effect on
the landscape character of the site and immediate environs. The Landscape Officer
agrees with this assessment and considers that given the proposed landscape
mitigation, coupled with the existing vegetation screening and surrounding topography
that the development can be accommodated within the landscape without detriment to
its intrinsic character.
In terms the viewpoint analysis this demonstrates that there is limited potential for
views of the two sites from public receptors. Fleeting views would be experienced by
rail users and limited visibility would be experienced from some private dwellings,
notably the bungalow at Sandy Hill and dwellings on the northern edge of Withergate,
but these views would be restricted by intervening mature trees and a rising landform.
The combined visual impact of the two sites is therefore not considered to be
significant.
Development Committee
65
20 August 2015
In respect of loss of agricultural land, 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.'
Whilst the loss of farming land for crop growing is regrettable, this ultimately has to be
balanced against the potential environmental and biodiversity benefits of reduced
nitrogen use on the land for the duration of the solar farm and the potential for
biodiversity enhancement together with consideration of any renewable energy
benefits. Whilst commercial crop growing would be prevented for the duration of the
development, the loss is only temporary and would be reversible.
Officers consider that the temporary loss of some grade 3b/4 agricultural land for crop
production would not be sufficient to justify refusal.
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
Chapter 6 of the Planning and Environmental Report - Ecology, submitted as part of
the application indicates that a Desk Study and Phase One Habitat Survey were
undertaken by Wild Frontier Ecology. This concludes that no significant impacts are
predicted either alone or in combination with other proposals as a result of this
proposal, but mitigation and best practice measures are provided to the keep all
potential impacts to a minimum. This includes keeping the arable field in cultivation
prior to the development and building outside the bird breading season In addition, a
Biodiversity Management Plan has been submitted the aim of which is to maintain in
good condition and increase the diversity of the habitats and species of importance to
nature conservation on the solar park site.
The Landscape Officer considers that, although limited, the mitigation and
enhancement measures identified in paragraphs 6.88 to 6.92 of the Planning and
Environmental Report and paragraphs 1.22 to 1.38 of the Biodiversity Management
Plan are considered to be proportionate and in line with the landscape proposals.
Officers conclude that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would not
have a significant detrimental impact on biodiversity interests in the area and would
comply with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 9.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
In respect of impact of the solar farm on residential amenity, the nearest residential
property to the site is the bungalow at Sandy Hill Poultry Farm which is situated some
50 metres to north of the northern boundary and access driveway of the eastern part of
the site. Some 163 metres further north to the northern side of the A149 are properties
known as Thatched Cottage and Woodacre.
As far as the dwelling at the poultry farm is concerned, although there would be some
views of the solar farm, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significantly
overbearing visual impact. Whilst in respect of the other two dwellings to the northern
side of the A149, it is not considered that the solar farm would not be visible from these
dwellings.
Development Committee
66
20 August 2015
In respect of any CCTV systems to be installed around the perimeter of site, (which are
generally required for insurance purposes), the Planning and Environmental Report
submitted as part of the application indicates that these would consist of static, passive
infra-red cameras mounted on pillars measuring up to 4 m in height, which would avoid
the need for lighting to be employed. In addition, it is intended that the cameras would
be focused on the site itself in order to meet their purpose and not directed towards any
private property. Having learned from the experience of systems on other sites within
the District, Officers consider that, because of the distance from nearest property,
appropriately positioned cameras would be unlikely to pose a significant risk to the
residential amenity of the occupiers. Nonetheless, it is recommended that a condition
be imposed requiring approval of the full details of any CCTV system prior to its
installation to ensure that the CCTV to be installed is as unobtrusive as possible both in
terms of visibility in the landscape and impact of amenity.
Officers are of the understanding that no loudspeaker system is proposed and
conditions could be imposed to ensure this remains so.
In respect of noise or other disturbance it is not considered that the proposal would
give rise to unacceptable impacts.
Officers consider that the proposal would not likely result in any significant adverse
impacts to residential amenity and the proposal would comply with the requirements of
Core Strategy Policy EN 4. Nonetheless it is recommended that conditions be imposed
to ensure, amongst other things, that noise impacts remain acceptable and to ensure
that the CCTV system to be installed is first approved by the Local Planning Authority.
LIGHT POLLUTION
In respect of any concerns about light pollution, it is understood that the applicants are
not proposing to erect external lighting. In any event, were the Committee minded to
approve the application, conditions could be imposed which would prevent external
lights being installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
It is considered that the proposed development 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 to site that would be likely to create the most number of vehicle
movements. A Construction traffic management plan submitted as part of the
application indicates that the anticipated schedule for construction and commissioning
of the solar park is over an 8 week period and it is anticipated that there would be
approximately 234 HGV movements with a typical average of 5 movements per day.
The proposed haul route will direct construction vehicles to and from the A149 which
runs in a southeast to northwest alignment adjacent to the site with Withergate Lane
being accessible directly off the A149, with vehicles traversing a short distance to the
site.
The Highway Authority has indicated that subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, which include construction traffic for the development being derived from
and to the A149 only and site advance warning signage of construction vehicles
turning, together with on site vehicle parking, as submitted as part of the Construction
Traffic Management Plan they have no objection to the proposal.
Subject to the scheme being implemented in accordance with the Construction Traffic
Management Plan it is considered that the proposal would accord with Core Strategy
Development Committee
67
20 August 2015
Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
FLOOD RISK
As the application site area is above 1 hectare in size a Flood Risk Assessment
incorporating a Sustainable Drainage Strategy has been submitted as part of the
application. This indicates that the site is in Flood Zone 1 (low risk) and in order to
reduce the risks associated with surface water runoff a Sustainable Drainage Scheme
(SuDS) is proposed. This would involve the introduction of a system of swales, one in
the north eastern corner of the western part of the site where the land falls away and
two others running east west adjacent to the southern boundaries of both parts of the
site, which combined would provide 146 m3 of storage. The report suggests that this
well in excess of the minimum required storage.
The Environment Agency has indicated that as the site lies in Flood Zone 1 they do not
wish to comment on the application.
Comments from Norfolk County Council Flood Management Team are awaited.
It is therefore considered that subject to no objection from the Norfolk County Council
Flood Management Team and the construction of the swales as detailed in the Flood
Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Strategy the development would not
result in an increase in surface water flood risk to areas downstream of the site and the
proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the proposed development is not considered to pose any
significant risks nor are there any previous land-uses on site which would require
consideration in relation to contamination.
The proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
ARCHAEOLOGY & IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDINGS AND OTHER HISTORIC
ASSETS
As part of the application the applicant has submitted a Historic Environment
Assessment the aim of which is to assess the potential physical impact of the proposed
development on archaeological remains the Historic Landscape Character of the site
(HLC) and the effects on the setting of heritage assets in the vicinity of the site.
The report concludes that the assessment has established that there is an
archaeological interest within the site and that there is the potential for the presence of
buried archaeological remains. However, due to the lack of previous archaeological
investigation within the site, the potential for and significance of any such remains
could not be accurately assessed on the basis of the evidence available. Furthermore,
whilst any impact to buried archaeological features as a result of the implementation of
the development would be permanent and irreversible in nature the adverse effects
could it is suggested be reduced through the implementation of an appropriate scheme
of archaeological mitigation, in accordance with national and local planning policy.
The HLC report concludes that overall the impacts on the site and surrounding area
are likely to be very limited, and the development would be temporary and fully
reversible in nature.
As far as the setting of heritage assets are concerned within the wider landscape
including the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Honing a Grade II* Listed building and
the Church of St. Mary, Worstead a Grade I Listed Building the report concludes that
the proposed development would not meaningfully or perceptibly affect the setting of
Development Committee
68
20 August 2015
any designated heritage assets.
The comments of Norfolk Historic Environment Services are awaited.
Having regard to other similar development recently approved archaeological works
were secured by way of planning condition and Officers consider that suitable
conditions may also be appropriate in this instance, particularly as the time to
undertake a survey will take the planning decision out of time. There is clearly a risk
that archaeological deposits may be found but, in the event that further archaeological
evaluation or investigation is required following receipt of the results of the
magnetometer survey, Officers propose planning conditions which require those works
to take place before each panel mount, base or fence post is erected on site and will
require the results of any further required evaluation or investigation to be shared with
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services and the Local Planning
Authority.
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 architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Having regard to these
requirements, it is not considered that the proposed solar farm would adversely affect
the setting of the above identified listed buildings or any features of special
architectural or historic interest which they possess.
In addition 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.
Given that the nearest heritage assets to the site are the Baptist Church at Meeting
Hill, a Grade II Listed Building and the Meeting Hill Conservation Area, some 1.2 km to
the east of the site, both of which are screened from view by trees, Officers conclude
that the proposal would have no impact on heritage assets and the proposal would
accord with the general aims of Core Strategy Policy EN 8.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
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 design and access statement and that the benefits are
primarily related to renewable energy generation.
The applicants have indicated that the proposed solar farm would generate
approximately 5.00GWh (5,000,000KWh) of electricity per annum based on a stated
capacity of the solar farm of approximately 5MWp. 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 1060 homes annually.
This would make a significant contribution towards meeting national renewable energy
targets, to which significant weight can be attached.
Development Committee
69
20 August 2015
It is considered that the proposal would broadly comply with the requirements of Policy
EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ISSUES
The proposed site would be directly to the south and east of existing solar farm at
Carlton Farm, Old Yarmouth Road which covers an area of some 11 hectares. In
addition, a further solar farm, which is the subject of a separate planning application
15/0938, is proposed immediately to south. In the event of both planning applications
being approved this would result in a total area of solar arrays of some 32.7 hectares.
When viewed from the north and east, due to intervening landscaping features
combined with the topography of the land it is considered that the cumulative would be
negligible. However, it is inevitable that when viewed from the west along the route of
the Bittern Line railway, particularly when approaching from the south, from where the
panels would be most noticeable, cumulatively the combination of all three solar farms
would be visible at close proximity for a distance in excess of 1 kilometer. Whilst this
would inevitable detract from the landscape character of the area, especially for rail
users, this in itself is not considered to justify refusal of the application.
SUMMARY
Whilst the installation of a 5MWp solar farm would, amongst other things, have some
adverse visual impacts on the surrounding landscape, it is considered that these
impacts can be made acceptable. It is considered that the proposal would not have a
significant adverse impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, 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 in
accordance with the guidance set out in paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection from
outstanding consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
including:1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
3. Except as where permitted by the details approved under Condition 13 of this
permission, no CCTV, public address or speaker system shall be operated from
the site at any time unless planning permission has first been granted for such
items.
4. Within 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from the solar farm
to the electricity grid network (‘First Export Date’) or, if before that date, when the
solar farm hereby permitted is no longer reasonably necessary for the purposes
of generating electricity from solar energy, the solar panels, mounts, substation,
inverters and all other associated apparatus/equipment shall be removed from
the site within six months of the cessation of operation and the site shall be
Development Committee
70
20 August 2015
restored to the condition it was prior to the implementation of the permission,
except as may otherwise be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local
Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after the event.
5. Prior to any other construction works on site the surface water drainage
proposals as referred to in paragraph 6.3 of The Flood Risk Assessment
incorporating Sustainable Drainage Strategy and detailed on (drawing number)
3001 - Appendix B of the report shall be constructed in full in accordance with the
approved details. The surface water drainage scheme shall be maintained for the
lifetime of the development to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
6. Means of access to and egress for construction traffic from the development
hereby permitted shall be derived from, and to, the A149 only; as indicated within
the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan (Haul Route).
7. Prior to any works starting on site advance warning signage of construction
vehicles turning shall be placed on the A149 and Withergate Road (C397) to a
sign specification and at positions as agreed by the Local Planning Authority in
conjunction with the Highway Authority.
8. For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the
construction of the development will comply with the submitted Construction
Traffic Management Plan and use only the Route specified and no other local
roads unless approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation
with the Highway Authority.
9. For the duration of the construction period the proposed on-site vehicle parking,
servicing, loading, unloading, turning and waiting area (Site Compound) shall be
laid out in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available
for that specific use.
10. No works shall commence on site until the details of wheel cleaning facilities for
construction vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
11. For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the
construction of the development permitted will use the approved wheel cleaning
facilities provided referred to in Condition 10.
12. Except in relation to the construction phase of the development hereby
permitted, no external lighting whatsoever shall be installed on site unless
planning permission has first been granted
13. Prior to its installation, details of the proposed CCTV equipment to be installed
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter the CCTV system shall installed and operated in accordance with the
approved details.
14. Prior to commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement and
Tree Protection Plan (compiled in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in
relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
assessment shall include the access tracks, all activities during construction and
access post- construction. The tree protection measures shall be carried out in
Development Committee
71
20 August 2015
accordance with the approved details and to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
15. Notwithstanding the submitted details and unless otherwise first approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority, an updated Ecological Mitigation and
Environmental Management Plan (EMEMP) (which shall be informed by the
Biodiversity Management Plan dated June 2015 produced by Wild Frontier
Ecology as submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 26th June 2015 ) shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The EMEMP shall be submitted within two months of the date of the permission
hereby granted and shall include, amongst other things, the following:(a) detailed landscape proposals to enhance the biodiversity on site during
operation of the solar farm including the provision of ecological buffer zones
around the site margins and alongside the overhead power lines;
(b) timing of proposed planting and ecological enhancement measures;
(c) measures to be employed for the protection of existing bird nest habitats
during any construction between March and end of August;
(d) details regarding the appointment of a suitably qualified ecological Clerk of
Works to oversee the construction phase of the development and to monitor and
report back with regard to the effectiveness of the biodiversity enhancements to
the Local Planning Authority at the following timed intervals: post construction
and then once a year for the first 5 years and then at 5 year intervals over the
consented life of the project unless otherwise agreed in writing;
(e) if, during the monitoring period, the Local Planning Authority considers
that further biodiversity improvements are required, then a further scheme shall
be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. And implemented
within a timescale to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved
EMEMP.
16. No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the Mitigation plan to be
retained shall be topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed,
within ten years of the date of this permission, without the prior consent of the
Local Planning Authority in writing.
17. Any new trees, hedgerows or seed mixes which within a period of ten years from
the date of planting dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased,
shall be replaced during the next planting season with another of a similar size
and species to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written
approval is given to any variation.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
8.
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0938 - Proposed development of ground mounted solar
photovoltaic panels and associated works; Land at Frog's Loke, North Walsham
for Frog's Loke Solar Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 28 September 2015
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
72
20 August 2015
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/11/0418 PF
Construction of 5mw solar generating facility
Approved 24/05/2011
PF/12/0356 PF
Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference: 11/0418 to permit retention
of re-sited buildings, CCTV cameras and fencing
Approved 05/09/2012
PF/15/0936 PF
Development of ground mounted solar voltaic panels and associated works (Pending).
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a solar farm with a capacity of 5MWp on agricultural land
(grade 3b with some parts grade 4) at Frog’s Loke, Worstead, which would have an
area of some 9.1 hectares and abuts the Bittern Line Railway to the west. A 5MWp
solar farm equates to approximately 19,184 individual solar panels to be installed on
site. The solar panels which individually measure 1650 x 991 millimetres would be
arranged in rows on an east to west alignment facing south to maximise sunlight
exposure with a 4-5 metre separation between rows. The panels would be ground
mounted on angled racks with the highest point of the panels rising to approximately
2.5 metres above ground level (dependent on ground conditions).
Access to the site would be via an upgraded farm track, finished in crushed stone, to
the north of the site and immediately to the south of the existing poultry farm which
joins Withergate Lane to the east. The site would be enclosed by a 2.0m high
security/deer fencing (colour to be agreed). Within the north western corner of the site
the applicant proposes a 11kV District Network Operator (DNO) switchgear room,
measuring approximately 3.1m in length x 2.5m in wide with a maximum height of
approximately 2.4m with the walls and roof of a dark green finish. In addition there
would be a satellite pole in this location. Further to the east, to the southern side of the
access track would be a site storage container and customer switchgear container.
The switchgear container would measure approximately 12.1m in length x 2.4m wide
with a maximum height of approximately 3.4m and would be finished in moss green as
would the storage container. Grouped further to the south at the centre of the site,
would be a transformer substation measuring approximately 6.0m in length x 2.4m
wide with a maximum height of approximately 3.4m, colour moss green finish, plus a
wind sensor and further satellite pole, both of which would have a maximum height of 4
metres. Access to this part of the site would be via a track set at 90 degrees to the track
running east west to the north of the site. In addition a CCTV system is proposed
consisting of a total of 9 infrared CCTV cameras mounted on 4m high poles, inside the
perimeter fence.
The application is supported by a Planning and Environmental Report (including a
Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and ecological assessment), Biodiversity
Management Plan, Historic Environment Assessment, Construction Traffic
Management Plan, Flood Risk Assessment and Design and Access Statement and
Agricultural Land Classification Assessment.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
To comply with Committee requests for all solar farms to be determined by the
Development Committee.
Development Committee
73
20 August 2015
PARISH COUNCIL
Worstead – Resolved to support the application in principle but requested the
introduction of mature screening, and wish to reserve full comments until after the
Committee site visit on 13 August 2015.
Adjacent Parish:
North Walsham – – No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS - None received.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The lie within the ‘Low
Plains Farmland’ Landscape Type as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment (SPD 2009). The key characteristics of this landscape type are
one of predominantly rural arable landscape with an open character with long
uninterrupted views, with topography on the whole of either flat or very gently
undulating land. Field boundaries on the whole consist of low grass banks due to
widespread hedge removal; however the skyline is punctuated by many tree belts, and
areas of woodland and isolated trees.
A key consideration of this development is the effect of a relatively large area (22
acres) of solar panels and associated infrastructure on the character and appearance
of this landscape type. The submitted Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
concludes that the development would have a Moderate Effect on the landscape
character of the site and immediate environs.
The viewpoint analysis demonstrates that there is limited potential for views of the site
from public receptors. Fleeting views would be experienced by rail users and limited
visibility would be experienced from some private dwellings, notably the bungalow at
Sandy Hill and dwellings on the northern edge of Withergate, but these views would be
restricted by intervening mature trees and a rising landform. The combined visual
impact of the two sites is therefore not considered to be significant.
As far as the cumulative impact is concerned The Landscape Officer agrees with the
LVIA carried out as part of the submission which concludes that the cumulative impact
of this and the other proposed sites together with the existing Carlton Solar Farm on
the local landscape character would not lead to any Major effects. In terms of visual
effects, the analysis concludes there is limited potential for in combination cumulative
effects, this being restricted to rail passengers who will experience fleeting views of the
combined sites.
Given the proposed landscape mitigation, coupled with the existing vegetation
screening and surrounding topography the Landscape Officer agrees with the
conclusion in the LVIA that the combined landscape and visual effects will not be
significant and that the category of land does not constitute ‘best and most versatile
agricultural land’ as defined in para. 112 of the NPPF. Furthermore, that this
development can be accommodated within the landscape without detriment to its
intrinsic character.
In terms of Ecology the assessments carried out by Wild Frontier Ecology on 12 May
2015 concluded no significant impacts on valued ecological interests. The mitigation
and enhancement measures proposed are appropriate, if limited.
 Ecological connectivity is partly addressed through the provision of large mesh
perimeter fencing and mammal gates cut every 100m which is appropriate, but
the landscape mitigation measures could be improved to enhance the habitat
Development Committee
74
20 August 2015


linkage.
The Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) lacks sufficient enhancement
around the margins of the solar array. The proposed areas of wildflower
meadow do not provide sufficient mitigation. An ungrazed field margin approx.
6m wide which acts as an ecological buffer zone is standard practice and this
should be included along all boundaries, particularly along the railway line to
provide an ecological corridor connecting the two sites. Similarly the identified
offset of 6m on each side of the existing 33kV Overhead Power Lines in the
southern section of the site should be planted and managed as an ecological
buffer zone. The seed mixes here should contain more variety than the main
mix proposed under the panels. The Boston Seeds ELS3 Floristically
Enhanced Buffer Strip would be appropriate here or the Wildflower Meadow &
Field Margin mix as proposed in 1.9 of the BMP.
The proposed Boston Seeds Low Maintenance Solar Park mix contains little
variety, comprising just drought tolerant grasses and a small percent of clover,
but is acceptable so long as the margins are expanded and enhanced as
discussed above.
In terms of access to the site the proposed access track runs alongside a field
boundary containing mature trees. The track is well within the Root Protection Area of
the trees. An Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan for the two
sites should form a condition of any consent to ensure no long term damage to the
mature field boundary which is an important landscape component in terms of
screening.
The Landscape Officer therefore raises no objection to the proposal subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - No objection.
Norfolk County Council Flood Management Team - Awaiting comments.
Network Rail - No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Development Committee
75
20 August 2015
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 EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
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. Flood Risk
11. Contamination
12. Archaeology & Impact on Listed Buildings and other Historic Assets
13. Renewable Energy benefits
14. Cumulative Impact Issues
APPRAISAL
Consideration of the application follows a Committee visit to the site and surrounding
area.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
A formal request for a screening opinion was made to the Council on 6 May 2015.
Officers considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99 and 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. The agents were advised in a letter from the Council dated
11 June 2015 that an EIA was not required. Following the receipt of consultation
replies, Officers remain of the opinion that the proposed solar farm is not EIA
development.
NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
Reproduced at Appendix 7.
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 Committee
76
20 August 2015
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 Lowland Plains Farmland Character – Type LP3 Worstead,
Coltishall, Hoveton and Smallburgh as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment (SPD June 2009). The key characteristics of this landscape
type are one of predominantly rural arable landscape with an open character in some
parts whilst other parts have a more intimate and small scale character due to the
presence of smaller field sizes. Field boundaries on the whole consist of low grass
banks due to widespread hedge removal; however the skyline is punctuated by many
tree belts, and areas of woodland the presence of which in general is felt from
adjoining areas rather than within the area itself.
A key consideration is the effect of a relatively 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 9.1
hectares (approximately 22.4 acres) of arable land.
The submitted LVIA concludes that the development would have a Moderate Effect on
the landscape character of the site and immediate environs. The Landscape Officer
agrees with this assessment and considers that given the proposed landscape
mitigation, coupled with the existing vegetation screening and surrounding topography
that the development can be accommodated within the landscape without detriment to
its intrinsic character.
In terms the viewpoint analysis this demonstrates that there is limited potential for
views of the two sites from public receptors. Fleeting views would be experienced by
rail users and limited visibility would be experienced from some private dwellings,
notably the bungalow at Sandy Hill and dwellings on the northern edge of Withergate,
but these views would be restricted by intervening mature trees and a rising landform.
The combined visual impact of the two sites is therefore not considered to be
significant.
In respect of loss of agricultural land, 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.'
Whilst the loss of farming land for crop growing is regrettable, this ultimately has to be
balanced against the potential environmental and biodiversity benefits of reduced
nitrogen use on the land for the duration of the solar farm and the potential for
biodiversity enhancement together with consideration of any renewable energy
benefits. Whilst commercial crop growing would be prevented for the duration of the
development, the loss is only temporary and would be reversible.
Officers consider that the temporary loss of some grade 3b/4 agricultural land for crop
production would not be sufficient to justify refusal.
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 Committee
77
20 August 2015
Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
Chapter 6 of the Planning and Environmental Report - Ecology, submitted as part of
the application indicates that a Desk Study and Phase One Habitat Survey were
undertaken by Wild Frontier Ecology. This concludes that no significant impacts are
predicted either alone or in combination with other proposals as a result of this
proposal, but mitigation and best practice measures are provided to the keep all
potential impacts to a minimum. This includes keeping the arable field in cultivation
prior to the development and building outside the bird breading season In addition, a
Biodiversity Management Plan has been submitted the aim of which is to maintain in
good condition and increase the diversity of the habitats and species of importance to
nature conservation on the solar park site.
The Landscape Officer considers that although limited, the mitigation measures
identified in paragraphs 6.91 to 6.95 of the Planning and Environmental Report and
paragraphs 1.22 to 1.38 of the Biodiversity Management Plan are considered to be
proportionate and in line with the landscape proposals.
Officers conclude that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would not
have a significant detrimental impact on biodiversity interests in the area and would
comply with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 9.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
In respect of impact of the solar farm on residential amenity, the nearest residential
property to the site is the bungalow at Sandy Hill Poultry Farm which is situated some
215 metres to north east of the northern eastern corner of the site. Whilst some 270
metres further to the northern east side of the A149 are properties known as Thatched
Cottage and Woodacre.
As far as the dwelling at the poultry farm is concerned, views of the solar farm would be
partially screened by the broiler houses immediately to the west of the bungalow and it
is not considered that the proposal would have a significantly overbearing visual
impact on this property. Whilst in respect of the other two dwellings to the northern side
of the A149, it is considered that the solar farm would not be visible from these
dwellings.
In respect of any CCTV systems to be installed around the perimeter of site, (which are
generally required for insurance purposes), the Planning and Environmental Report
submitted as part of the application indicates that these would consist of static, passive
infra-red cameras mounted on pillars measuring up to 4 m in height, which would avoid
the need for lighting to be employed. In addition, it is intended that the cameras would
be focused on the site itself in order to meet their purpose and not directed towards any
private property. Having learned from the experience of systems on other sites within
the District, Officers consider that, because of the distance from nearest property,
appropriately positioned cameras would be unlikely to pose a significant risk to the
residential amenity of the occupiers. Nonetheless, it is recommended that a condition
be imposed requiring approval of the full details of any CCTV system prior to its
installation to ensure that the CCTV to be installed is as unobtrusive as possible both in
terms of visibility in the landscape and impact of amenity.
Officers are of the understanding that no loudspeaker system is proposed and
conditions could be imposed to ensure this remains so.
In respect of noise or other disturbance it is not considered that the proposal would
Development Committee
78
20 August 2015
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 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 to site that would be likely to create the most number of vehicle
movements. A Construction traffic management plan submitted as part of the
application indicates that there would be approximately 234 HGV movements with a
typical average of 5 movements per day. The proposed haul route will direct
construction vehicles to and from the A149 which runs in a southeast to northwest
alignment adjacent to the site with Withergate Lane being accessible directly off the
A149, with vehicles traversing a short distance to the site.
The Highway Authority has indicated that subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, which include construction traffic for the development being derived from
and to the A149 only and site advance warning signage of construction vehicles
turning, together with on-site vehicle parking, as submitted as part of the Construction
Traffic Management Plan they have no objection to the proposal.
Subject to the scheme being implemented in accordance with the Construction Traffic
Management Plan it is considered that the proposal would accord with Core Strategy
Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
FLOOD RISK
As the application site area is above 1 hectare in size a Flood Risk Assessment
incorporating a Sustainable Drainage Strategy has been submitted as part of the
application. This indicates that the site is in Flood Zone 1 (low risk) and in order to
reduce the risks associated with surface water runoff a Sustainable Drainage Scheme
(SuDS) is proposed. This would involve the introduction of a system of swales, one in
the south eastern corner of the site where the land falls away and another running east
west adjacent to the southern boundaries of the site, which combined would provide
82m3 of storage. The report suggests that this well in excess of the minimum required
storage.
Comments from Norfolk County Council Flood Management Team are awaited.
It is therefore consider that subject to the construction of the swales as detailed in the
Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Strategy the development would
not result in an increase in surface water flood risk to areas downstream of the site and
the proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
Development Committee
79
20 August 2015
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the proposed development is not considered to pose any
significant risks nor are there any previous land-uses on site which would require
consideration in relation to contamination.
The proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
ARCHAEOLOGY & IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDINGS AND OTHER HISTORIC
ASSETS
As part of the application the applicant has submitted a Historic Environment
Assessment the aim of which is to assess the potential physical impact of the proposed
development on archaeological remains the Historic Landscape Character of the site
(HLC) and the effects on the setting of heritage assets in the vicinity of the site.
The report concludes that the assessment has established that there is an
archaeological interest within the site and that there is the potential for the presence of
buried archaeological remains. However, due to the lack of previous archaeological
investigation within the site, the potential for and significance of any such remains
could not be accurately assessed on the basis of the evidence available. Furthermore,
whilst any impact to buried archaeological features as a result of the implementation of
the development would be permanent and irreversible in nature the adverse effects
could it is suggested be reduced through the implementation of an appropriate scheme
of archaeological mitigation, in accordance with national and local planning policy.
The HLC report concludes that overall the impacts on the site and surrounding area
are likely to be very limited and the development would be temporary and fully
reversible in nature.
As far as the setting of heritage assets are concerned within the wider landscape
including the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Honing a Grade II* Listed building and
the Church of St. Mary, Worstead a Grade I Listed Building the report concludes that
the proposed development would not meaningfully or perceptibly affect the setting of
any designated heritage assets.
The comments of Norfolk Historic Environment Services are awaited.
Having regard to other similar development recently approved archaeological works
were secured by way of planning condition and Officers consider that suitable
conditions may also be appropriate in this instance, particularly as the time to
undertake a survey will take the planning decision out of time. There is clearly a risk
that archaeological deposits may be found but, in the event that further archaeological
evaluation or investigation is required following receipt of the results of the
magnetometer survey, Officers propose planning conditions which require those works
to take place before each panel mount, base or fence post is erected on site and will
require the results of any further required evaluation or investigation to be shared with
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services and the Local Planning
Authority.
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 architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Having regard to these
requirements, it is not considered that the proposed solar farm would adversely affect
the setting of the above identified listed buildings or any features of special
architectural or historic interest which they possess.
Development Committee
80
20 August 2015
In addition 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.
Given that the nearest heritage assets to the site are the Baptist Church at Meeting
Hill, a Grade II Listed Building and the Meeting Hill Conservation Area, some 1.3 km to
the east of the site, both of which are screened from view by trees, Officers conclude
that the proposal would have no impact on heritage assets and the proposal would
accord with the general aims of Core Strategy Policy EN 8.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
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 design and access statement and that the benefits are
primarily related to renewable energy generation.
The applicants have indicated that the proposed solar farm would generate
approximately 5.00GWh (5,000,000KWh) of electricity per annum based on a stated
capacity of the solar farm of approximately 5MWp. 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 1060 homes annually.
This would make a significant contribution towards meeting national renewable energy
targets, to which significant weight can be attached.
It is considered that the proposal would broadly comply with the requirements of Policy
EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ISSUES
The proposed site would be directly to the south and east of existing solar farm at
Carlton Farm, Old Yarmouth Road which covers an area of some 11 hectares. In
addition, a further solar farm, which is the subject of a separate planning application
15/0936, is proposed on two parcels of land immediately to the north and east. In the
event of both planning applications being approved this would result in a total area of
solar arrays of some 32.7 hectares. When viewed from the north and east, due to
intervening landscaping features combined with the topography of the land it is
considered that the cumulative would be negligible. However, it is inevitable that when
viewed from the west along the route of the Bittern Line railway, particularly when
approaching from the south, from where the panels would be most noticeable,
cumulatively the combination of all three solar farms would be visible at close proximity
for a distance in excess of 1 kilometer. Whilst this would inevitable detract from the
landscape character of the area, especially for rail users, this in itself is not considered
to justify refusal of the application.
SUMMARY
Whilst the installation of a 5MWp solar farm would, amongst other things, have some
adverse visual impacts on the surrounding landscape, it is considered that these
impacts can be made acceptable. It is considered that the proposal would not have a
Development Committee
81
20 August 2015
significant adverse impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, 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 in
accordance with the guidance set out in paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection from
outstanding consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
including:1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
3. Except as where permitted by the details approved under Condition ?? of this
permission, no CCTV, public address or speaker system shall be operated from
the site at any time unless planning permission has first been granted for such
items.
4. Within 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from the solar farm
to the electricity grid network (‘First Export Date’) or, if before that date, when the
solar farm hereby permitted is no longer reasonably necessary for the purposes of
generating electricity from solar energy, the solar panels, mounts, substation,
inverters and all other associated apparatus/equipment shall be removed from the
site within six months of the cessation of operation and the site shall be restored to
the condition it was prior to the implementation of the permission, except as may
otherwise be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local
Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after the event.
5. Prior to any other construction works on site the surface water drainage proposals
as referred to in paragraph 6.3 of The Flood Risk Assessment incorporating
Sustainable Drainage Strategy and detailed on (drawing number) 3001 - Appendix
B of the report shall be constructed in full in accordance with the approved details.
The surface water drainage scheme shall be maintained for the lifetime of the
development to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
6. Means of access to and egress for construction traffic from the development
hereby permitted shall be derived from, and to, the A149 only; as indicated within
the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan (Haul Route).
7. Prior to any works starting on site advance warning signage of construction
vehicles turning shall be placed on the A149 and Withergate Road (C397) to a sign
specification and at positions as agreed by the Local Planning Authority in
conjunction with the Highway Authority.
8. For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the
Development Committee
82
20 August 2015
construction of the development will comply with the submitted Construction Traffic
Management Plan and use only the Route specified and no other local roads
unless approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Highway Authority.
9. For the duration of the construction period the proposed on-site vehicle parking,
servicing, loading, unloading, turning and waiting area (Site Compound) shall be
laid out in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for
that specific use
10. No works shall commence on site until the details of wheel cleaning facilities for
construction vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
11. For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the
construction of the development permitted will use the approved wheel cleaning
facilities provided referred to in Condition 11.
12. Except in relation to the construction phase of the development hereby permitted,
no external lighting whatsoever shall be installed on site unless planning
permission has first been granted.
13. Prior to its installation, details of the proposed CCTV equipment to be installed
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter the CCTV system shall installed and operated in accordance with the
approved details.
14. Prior to commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement and
Tree Protection Plan (compiled in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation
to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations) shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall
include the access tracks, all activities during construction and access postconstruction. The tree protection measures shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
15. Notwithstanding the submitted details and unless otherwise first approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority, an updated Ecological Mitigation and
Environmental Management Plan (EMEMP) (which shall be informed by the
Biodiversity Management Plan dated June 2015 produced by Wild Frontier
Ecology as submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 26th June 2015 ) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The EMEMP shall be submitted within two months of the date of the permission
hereby granted and shall include, amongst other things, the following:(a) detailed landscape proposals to enhance the biodiversity on site during
operation of the solar farm including the provision of ecological buffer zones
around the site margins and alongside the overhead power lines;
(b) timing of proposed planting and ecological enhancement measures;
(c) measures to be employed for the protection of existing bird nest habitats
during any construction between March and end of August;
(d) details regarding the appointment of a suitably qualified ecological Clerk of
Works to oversee the construction phase of the development and to monitor and
report back with regard to the effectiveness of the biodiversity enhancements to the
Local Planning Authority at the following timed intervals: post construction and then
once a year for the first 5 years and then at 5 year intervals over the consented life
Development Committee
83
20 August 2015
of the project unless otherwise agreed in writing;
(e) if, during the monitoring period, the Local Planning Authority considers
that further biodiversity improvements are required, then a further scheme shall
be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. And implemented
within a timescale to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved
EMEMP.
16. No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the Mitigation plan to be retained
shall be topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed, within ten
years of the date of this permission, without the prior consent of the Local Planning
Authority in writing.
17. Any new trees, hedgerows or seed mixes which within a period of ten years from
the date of planting dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased,
shall be replaced during the next planting season with another of a similar size and
species to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval
is given to any variation.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
9.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following application.
The application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
ALBY – PF/15/0849 – Conversion of former reading rooms to wedding venue;
car park for 30 cars with new access off Church Road; The Old Rectory, Church
Road for Mr S Williams
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning prior to consideration of a full report at a future
meeting in order to assess highways and noise implications in respect of the
application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/0775 - Erection of double garage with storeroom;
Woodstock Barn, Middle Hill, Alby, Norwich, NR11 7PN for Mr & Mrs Chandler
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/15/0103 - Erection of replacement dwelling; Home Farm, Holt
Road, Aylmerton, Norwich, NR11 8QA for Mr K Massingham
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
84
20 August 2015
BACTON - LA/15/0230 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to three residential
dwellings; Church Farm, Church Road for Norfolk County Council
(Listed Building Alterations)
BARTON TURF - PF/15/0606 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Cobble
End Croft, Pennygate Lane for Mr & Mrs Willetts
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0787 - Erection of single-storey rear extension,
replacement front porch, alterations to chimney, installation of brick skin to
dwelling and change roof material to clay pantiles; Bramble Cottage,
Sheringwood, Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8TS for Mr J Leake
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0722 - Creation of pond; 8 Wiveton Road, Blakeney, Holt,
NR25 7NJ for Mr & Mrs Smedley
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0783 - Erection of front porch and cedar cladding to existing
front elevation gable.; 23 Kingsway for Mrs P Watson-Farrah
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0724 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 12/1162 to permit revised siting, layout, height,elevational treatment
and landscaping details; Bliss Blakeney, Morston Road for Bliss
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0893 - Variation of condition 17 of planning permission ref:
PF/15/0070 to allow first floor en-suite window on northern elevation of Plot 7
ONLY to be obscure glazed; Greencroft House, 22 Morston Road, Blakeney, Holt,
NR25 7BE for London and Country Homes (Blakeney) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0802 - Erection of single-storey side extension,
demolition of existing conservatory and erection of replacement conservatory to
rear. External alterations including some replacement windows; Howes Yard,
High Street, Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr Savory
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0838 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
garage and erection of replacement single-storey dwelling; Pheasant Cottage,
Church Lane, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7UD for Mr Lynton
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/0769 - Demolition of attached garage and
erection of single-storey front/side extension; New Haven, Irmingland Road,
Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QE for Mr and Mrs Haynes
(Householder application)
CROMER - AI/15/0701 - Retention of 2 no. fascia signs (1 x illuminated) and 1 no.
hanging sign; Mackays, 49 Church Street for Mountain Warehouse
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/15/0691 - Erection of single-storey extension to south elevation;
Faldonside Lodge, 25 Cliff Avenue, Cromer, NR27 0AN for Mr A Soobrayen
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
85
20 August 2015
CROMER - PF/15/0776 - Erection of single storey flat roof extension and raise
existing garage roof to mono pitch.; 2 Mill Road, Cromer for Mr Ratcliffe
(Householder application)
CROMER - AI/15/0819 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated signage;
White Horse Inn, 24 West Street, Cromer, NR27 9DS for Enterprise Inns PLC
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - LA/15/0820 - Fixing of Signage to Exterior of Building; White Horse
Inn, 24 West Street, Cromer, NR27 9DS for Enterprise Inns PLC
(Listed Building Alterations)
DUNTON - PF/15/0369 - Conversion of agricultural building to estate office and
workers accommodation and construction of associated car parking areas.;
Barn at Hall Farm, Church Lane, Toftrees for Raynham Estates
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/15/0425 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
two-storey rear extension; Smea Cottage, Chequers Street, East Ruston,
Norwich, NR12 9JT for Mr and Mrs Pagan
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/15/0394 - Variation of condition 1 of Non material
amendment request ref: NMA1/06/1650 to permit amendments to holiday units 1 4, including demolition of the southern wall and the erection of a revised
elevation, a revised layout, the partial demolition of the northern elevation wall
down to 1.3m in height to permit the installation of open raised terraces to the
northern elevation and revised fenestration and door details and the retention of
some areas of exposed brickwork without rendering and colour washing;
Slaneys Barns, Chequers Street for Mimi Estates Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/15/0714 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
conversion of one residential flat to 2 residential flats; 15 The Old Mill, Bridge
Street, Fakenham, NR21 9AY for Mr Allen
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0771 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Seletar, 8
Thorpland Road, Fakenham, NR21 8JQ for Mr K Wisla
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0713 - Conversion of one residential flat to two residential
flats; 15 The Old Mill, Bridge Street, Fakenham, NR21 9AY for Mr Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0844 - Erection of car-port; 1 Toll Bar for Mr D Fox
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/14/1040 - Non-material amendment request to re-location of
boundary fence and boundary treatments; Aldi Foodstore Ltd, Norwich Road,
Fakenham, NR21 8AX for Aldi Stores Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0863 - Erection of garden shed; 125 Greenway Lane,
Fakenham, NR21 8JE for Mr K Golland
(Householder application)
Development Committee
86
20 August 2015
FAKENHAM - AN/15/0906 - Display of 2 non-illuminated fascia signs and window
graphics; Co Operative Pharmacy, Holt Road, Fakenham for Bestway Group
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0441 - Demolition of church, erection of three story
extension to provide 2 No. dwellings, erection of 3 No. two storey dwellings, and
conversion of church hall to provide 4 No. two storey dwellings; Fakenham
Baptist Church, Mill Court, Bridge Street for Baptist Union of Great Britain
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0846 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 27 Nightingale
Close, Fakenham, NR21 8NS for Mr P Tann
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - PF/15/0463 - Demolition of single-storey side extension and
erection of two-storey side extension; Oak Farm Cottage, Suffield Road,
Felmingham, North Walsham, NR28 0JZ for Mr S Lustig
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/15/0822 - Erection of detached single-storey three bay
garage; Ellis Farm, 51 Holt Road, Field Dalling, HOLT, NR25 7AS for Mr T James
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - LA/15/0753 - External alterations to facilitate insertion of
replacement windows to north and east ground floor; Old Hall Cottage, 56 The
Street, Barney, Fakenham, NR21 0NB for Mr S Edwards
(Listed Building Alterations)
GIMINGHAM - PF/15/0504 - Erection of front porch and single-storey rear
extension; The Edge, Windmill Road for Mr & Mrs Robins
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - PF/14/1549 - Insertion of two dormer windows to the rear
elevation of Manor House and the conversion of part of Manor Barn to changing
room / shower room and construction of pool within the grounds of Manor
House.; The Manor House and Manor Barn, Barsham Road for Mr Chapple
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - LA/14/1550 - Alterations and remodelling of internal layout of
Manor House and reforming of two dormer windows, Conversion of part of
Manor Barn to changing room / shower room.; The Manor House, Barsham Road,
Great Snoring, Fakenham, NR21 0HP for Mr Chapple
(Listed Building Alterations)
GRESHAM - PF/15/0621 - Conversion of existing attached garage to garden room
with associated external alterations; erection of single-storey building for
garaging and bio-mass boiler room; alterations to front boundary.; Chaucers
Farm, Holt Road, Gresham, Norwich, NR11 8AD for Mr J Mermagen
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/15/0367 - Erection of detached garage; Ivy Cottages, Gunton
Park, Hanworth for Mr Braka
(Householder application)
Development Committee
87
20 August 2015
HELHOUGHTON - PF/15/0806 - Two storey extension to side and rear.; 5 Council
Houses, Raynham Road, Helhoughton, Fakenham, NR21 7BH for Mr Forsyth
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/15/0731 - Demolition of outbuildings and erection of single-storey
rear extension; Abbey Cottage, 19 Dereham Road for Mr Hutchison
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/15/0812 - Change of use of offices to dog-grooming business
(retrospective application); Offices, 4B Raynham Road for Mr R Gorman
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/15/0644 - Erection of single storey rear extension; Herons, Hill
Common, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0BT for Mr Perrin
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/15/0855 - Proposed oak framed car port and store; 48A The
Street, Hindolveston, Dereham, NR20 5DF for Mrs C Eggleton
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/0484 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Upper
Hall Farm, Wells Road, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0PQ for Mr M Green
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - PF/15/0687 - Construction of below ground plant room; Holkham
Hall, Holkham Estate, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AB for Holkham Estate
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0831 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions,
including insertion of 2 velux windows and raising the height of existing roof.; 27
Peacock Lane for Mr L Ryan
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0839 - Internal and external alterations and refurbishment works to
existing wine bar (part retrospective); Balthazar Wine Bar, Lees Yard for Eclipse
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA2/14/0901 - Non material amendment request to allow omission of
north elevation window and revised design of first floor window to south
elevation; Thornwood, Thornage Road, Holt, NR25 6ST for Mr S Smith
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HORNING - NMA1/14/0702 - Non Material Amendment request to alter the shape
of the proposed bay window; 1 James Road for Mr M Charles
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
KELLING - PF/15/0569 - Change of use of land to community and display area in
association with existing garden centre; Emcy Trading Co, Holgate Hill, Kelling,
Holt, NR25 7ER for EMCY Garden and Leisure Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/15/0638 - Erection of front porch and single-storey rear
extension; 24 The Cornfield, Langham, Holt, NR25 7DQ for Mr and Mrs Smith
(Householder application)
Development Committee
88
20 August 2015
LESSINGHAM - PF/15/0480 - Retention of pitched roof and extension to
garage/outbuilding; Chenies, The Street, Lessingham for Mr D Reynolds
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/15/0660 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and re-location
of conservatory to the side; 61 Willow Way for Mr R Millington
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/15/0494 - Erection of single-storey side extension to
storage building and installation of cladding over two elevations; Marriott Way,
Melton Constable, NR24 2BT for The Big Prawn Co Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/15/0726 - Raise roof by 1.75m on existing timber
outbuilding and erection of single-storey rear extension to dwelling; Meadow
House, Craymere Beck, Melton Constable, NR24 2LR for Mrs J Daniels
(Householder application)
MORSTON - PF/15/0620 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Anchor
Cottage, 39 The Street, Morston, Holt, NR25 7AA for Mr J Bessell
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0582 - Erection of second floor roof extension and insertion
of 3 dormer windows to south and east roof slopes; 5 Cromer Road, Mundesley,
Norwich, NR11 8BE for Mr & Mrs McHiggins
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0679 - Access ramp to beach; East of Inshore Lifeboat
Station, East End of Promenade, Mundesley for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0829 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 3 Meadow
Close, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8LW for Mr and Mrs Day
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0632 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 17
Hazell Road, North Walsham, NR28 0ST for Mr D West
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0715 - Retention of extensions to existing storage
warehouse (use class B2); Land at, Cornish Way for Drury Transport
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/15/0589 - Retention of internal shutters to shop front and
satellite dish to rear; 32 Market Place for Digital Phone Company
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/15/0832 - Display of internally illuminated signage,
including projecting sign; 8-9 St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for RBS
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - AN/15/0833 - Retention of non-illuminated fascia and
projecting signs; 15A Market Place, North Walsham, NR28 9BP for MY DENTIST
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
Development Committee
89
20 August 2015
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/15/0877 - Display of illuminated advertisements; Black
Swan Hotel, Black Swan Loke for Enterprise Inns PLC
(Advertisement Illuminated)
PASTON - PF/15/0523 - Erection of single-storey front extension and two storey
side extension; Pebble Cottage, Vicarage Road for Mr Clayton
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - NMA1/15/0405 - Non Material Amendment request to extend the
rear extension a further 500mm; Maybeck Cottage, 61 Chapel Road, Roughton,
NORWICH, NR11 8AF for Mr Costigan
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0817 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 229
Roughton Road, Cromer, NR27 9LQ for Mr M Durrant
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/15/0562 - Insertion of window to north elevation; 2 Farm Cottages,
Beach Road, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9PA for Mr McCrohon
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/15/0739 - Erection of single-storey rear extension.; 106 Cromer
Road, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9QA for Mr Payne
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0786 - Installation of first floor window to side elevation and
erection of 1.2 metre flint/brick wall and access gate; Flintstones, 3-4 The Street,
Little Ryburgh, Fakenham, NR21 0LS for Mr T Crane
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0765 - Amendment to cable methodology from open-cut
trenching to a horizontal directional drill; Disused Railway at Great Ryburgh for
Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/0760 - Erection of part two-storey and first floor side
extension; 40 Barton Road, Badersfield for Mr and Mrs Stubley
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/0816 - Retention of security fence and access; H M Prison
Bure, Jaguar Drive, Badersfield for Ministry of Justice
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/0657 - Erection of car-port and 1.5 metres front wall;
Southview, Lynn Road, Sculthorpe, Fakenham, NR21 9QE for Mr N Cox
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/15/0439 - Demolition of existing of single-storey dwelling and
erection of single-storey/two-storey dwelling and creation of new access;
Shangri-La, Church Road, Waxham, NORWICH, NR12 0DY for Mr Fenn
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0558 - Demolition of linked two-storey extension and
single-storey front extension and conversion of hotel to 9 residential flats;
Beaumaris Hotel, 13 South Street, Sheringham, NR26 8LL for Mr and Mrs Stevens
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
90
20 August 2015
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0113 - Erection of 8 two-storey detached dwellings, road
and associated works; Land off Holway Road for Norfolk Homes Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AN/15/0890 - Installation of non-illuminated signs; 33 Station
Road, Sheringham, NR26 8RF for Age UK Norfolk
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/14/0259 - Non material amendment request to allow
increase window size to first floor east elevation; 5 Havelock Road, Sheringham,
NR26 8QD for Mr M Bywater
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0634 - Alteration to existing garage including increase in
height and change of roof covering; Hill Crest, 19 Hooks Hill Road, Sheringham,
NR26 8NL for Mr D Valace
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0828 - Erection of single-storey side extension and shed;
37 Church Street, Sheringham, NR26 8QS for Ms K Ward and Mr M Smith
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/15/0661 - Change of use of workshop/store to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Stackyard Barn, Cross Road for Mrs M Fearn
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/15/0711 - Erection of single storey side extension; 57 Rivermead,
Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9PJ for Mr & Mrs Wooden
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/0736 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Leeway,
Yarmouth Road, The Green, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9QB for Mr S O'Regan
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/0840 - Erection of front porch; Lancaster House, 7 Whiley Lane
for Mrs Palmer
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/15/0821 - Erection of side extension, increase in height of roof to
create first floor accommodation and insertion of dormer window; Wildcroft, 9
Greenway, Stiffkey, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1QF for Mr and Mrs Roe
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/15/0781 - Erection of single-storey and first floor rear extensions,
alterations to windows to ground floor front and insertion of rooflights, insertion
of first floor dormer to east elevation and erection of detached double
garage/store; Green Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Mr L Saunders
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/0810 - Erection of 1.20m to 1.73m front boundary
fence; The Cottage, St Giles Road for Mr H Thompson
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0613 - Creation of small pond and wetland area on site
of redundant pond; Pitt Cottage, Cromer Road for Ms Carey
(Householder application)
Development Committee
91
20 August 2015
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0761 - Replacement of existing 15m with a 17.5m high
mini macro pole on new base, replacement of 2 equipment cabinets with 1 new
cabinet and development ancillary thereto; Ash Tree Lodge, Church Road,
Thorpe Market for CTIL & TELEFONICA UK LTD
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - LA/15/0699 - Installation of Replacement windows; Nursery
Farm, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TU for Miss P Black
(Listed Building Alterations)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/0554 - Installation of 1m balustrade to first floor flat roofed
side extension to create balcony; The Gate House, Watering Pit Lane for Mr Hill
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0777 - Part demolition of existing outbuilding,
conversion and erection of extension to existing outbuilding to residential
annexe; Sheringham Hall, Sheringham Park for Mr Doyle
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - LA/15/0778 - Part demolition of existing outbuilding, and
conversion and erection of extension to existing outbuilding to facilitate creation
a residential annex.; Sheringham Hall, Sheringham Park for Mr Doyle
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALCOTT - HN/15/0727 - Notification of intention to erect rear extension which
would project from the original rear wall by 5.05m and which would have a
maximum height of 3.5m and an eaves height of 2.3m; 5 Council Houses, Ostend
Road, Walcott, Norwich, NR12 0PG for Mr D Garrett
(Householder Prior Notification)
WALCOTT - PF/15/0773 - Erection of detached garage; Low Barn, Walcott Green,
Walcott, NORWICH, NR12 0NR for Mr T Potter
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0805 - Single storey rear extension and decking
to rear; 29 Waveney Close, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HU for Mr & Mrs Lynch
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0766 - Erection of extension to porch; 1 Roses
Court, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1DG for Mrs Peet
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0332 - Erection of two-storey side extension to
facilitate larger theatre, shop, art space, tourist information centre and cafe and
external alterations of existing Maltings building; Wells Maltings, Staithe Street,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AN for The Wells Maltings Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/0333 - Internal and external alterations to
existing building and erection of two-storey side extension to provide larger
theatre, shop, art space, tourist information centre and cafe; Wells Maltings,
Staithe Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AN for The Wells Maltings Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
92
20 August 2015
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0764 - Erection of two-storey side extension;
Anchor Cottage, 29 Newgate Lane for Mr Gallagher
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/15/0738 - Installation of replacement of 3 new antennaes to
existing mast, removal of radio cabinet, erection of 2 cabinets and ancillary
development works; Land at The Muckleborough Collection, Sheringham Road,
Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7EY for CTIL and Vodafone Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/15/0698 - Erection of single storey dwelling and attached
double garage to existing dwelling (Revised Design of dwelling following
planning permission ref: PF/13/1067) (Part Retrospective); 25 Pine Walk,
Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7HJ for Mr and Mrs S Boon
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/15/0768 - Installation of 10kw ground mounted solar PV array; The
Old Rectory, Heath Road, Ridlington, North Walsham, NR28 9NZ for Mr P Black
(Householder application)
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BINHAM - PU/15/0799 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to dwelling house (C3); Barn at Westgate Farm, Warham
Road, Binham, Norfolk for Norfolk County Council
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
CROMER - PF/15/0708 - Alteration and extension of existing garage to form
annexe and erection of detached garage and creation of vehicular access;
Westwinds, 14 Arbor Road, Cromer, NR27 9DW for Mr & Mrs Hales
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - PF/15/0306 - Use of land for the siting of marquee to use for private
functions (April to October); Land at Muntjac Meadow, Glebe Farm, White Post
Road, Hanworth, Norwich, NR11 7HN for Deer's Glade Caravan & Camping Park
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0655 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 57 Sea View Road, Mundesley, NR11 8DJ for Mr Somers
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - NMA2/14/0998 - Non Material Amendment Request to change all
windows and doors to white painted softwood frames with leaded lights.;
Meadow View Cottage, Mill Common Road, Ridlington for Mr & Mrs Ashmore
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1541 - Insertion of two dormer windows to west
elevation roof slope and glazing to north elevation gable and installation of
access stairs and dormer window to existing detached double garage; Cley
Development Committee
93
20 August 2015
House, The Fairstead, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RJ for Mr & Mrs Everett
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached dwellings
and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road, North Walsham,
NR28 9HB for Ashford Commercial Ltd.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
RUNTON - PF/15/0273 - Insertion of dormer window to front roof slope; 6 Victoria
Terrace, High Street, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9NY for Mr Gould
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
SUTTON - PF/14/1382 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; The
Horseshoe, The Street, Sutton, NR12 9RF for Mr Cutting
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
TATTERSETT - PF/15/0240 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear and side
extension; Heath Cottage, The Street, Tattersett, King's Lynn, PE31 8RU for Ms J
Skinner
FAST TRACK – HOUSEHOLDER
13.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS – PROGRESS
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 July 2015
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room; Primrose
Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington, MELTON CONSTABLE, NR24 2PN for Mr L
Kidd
HOLT - PF/14/1139 - Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached and 1 detached
two-storey dwellings; Land Adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead, Holt, NR25 6JE for
Primrose Developments (Anglia) Ltd
FAKENHAM - ENF/14/0241 - Installation of advertisements and covers to marble
shopfront (see LA/13/0068); 2 Market Place, Fakenham, NR21 9AS
HAPPISBURGH - ENF/14/0009 - Siting of residential caravan; Beach Road,
Happisburgh
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
AYLMERTON – PF/14/0116 – formation of woodland burial ground together with
erection of ancillary buildings and formation of new access at Woodland at Holt
Road/Tower Road Aylmerton for Mr David Oliver
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Planning application PF/13/0116 was for a woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and a new access and was refused in June 2014.
Development Committee
94
20 August 2015
The Inspector noted that demand for woodland burials is growing and found the
principle of this proposed community facility to be acceptable in this rural location. She
identified the main issues to be


highway safety
effect on the character and appearance of the countryside (AONB)
The Inspector noted that the Highway Authority had raised no objection to the location
or usage of the proposed access (although this had been a cause of concern to local
residents at application stage). The Inspector concluded that the proposed
development would not have significant transport implications and the traffic likely to
be generated could be accommodated on the existing road network.
The Inspector also referred to paragraph 32 of the NPPF which states that
development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual
cumulative impacts are “severe.”
Turning to the second issue, the character and appearance of the countryside/AONB,
the Inspector described the position, setting and design of the proposed ceremonial
hall and maintenance building. The Inspector noted that the appeal site covers a
significant area of woodland which characterises this part of the AONB and that the
Plantation which forms part of the site has been the subject of a felling licence granted
by the Forestry Commission in January 2013.
The appellant had contended that it would not be possible to produce a tree survey and
a woodland management plan until the tree felling had been completed. However in
the absence of an up-to-date tree survey and management plan, the Inspector could
not be sure that the extent of tree loss would conserve the landscape and scenic
beauty of the AONB. The potential impact on the AONB is given great weight and the
development would compromise the Council’s Core Strategy policies E1, EN2 and
EN4.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
BLAKENEY – PF/14/1015 – change of use of domestic shed to commercial
gymnasium at The Whins, The Downs, Blakeney for Mrs Lynn Massingham
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
This appeal was against the refusal of Planning permission for change of use of a
domestic shed to a commercial gymnasium. The application had been refused under
officer delegated powers and included the retention of two caravans on the site for
holiday use, although the appeal related only to the gymnasium and was dealt with by
the Inspector on that basis.
The application had been refused on the grounds that a gymnasium for general public
use within the countryside and with no close connection to Blakeney village is
unsustainable and therefore contrary to Core Strategy policies EC2 and EC5.
The Inspector found the building to be an “unassuming domestic shed structure” and
the gymnasium to be a low key and small scale enterprise. He described the location,
setting and access to the building, via Langham Road and a private access along
Blakeney Downs. Contrary to the Council’s reasons for refusal, the Inspector found the
site to be reasonably accessible by a choice of transport. The modest scale and
low-key nature of the gymnasium and an acceptable means of access led the
Development Committee
95
20 August 2015
Inspector to conclude that this development would accord with both the NPPF and the
Council’s Core Strategy in achieving rural sustainable development.
The appeal was therefore allowed and permission granted for use of the building as a
gymnasium subject to conditions to regulate hours of use, parking provision and no
advertising on the site.
BRISTON – PU/14/1390 – change of use of a former agricultural building to three
dwelling units including external alterations at Boundary Farm Reepham Road
Melton Constable for Mr and Mrs Berwick
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal related to the proposed change of use of a former agricultural building to
three dwellings. The application was made under the General Permitted Development
Order (GPDO) then in force. The GPDO was changed whilst the appeal was under
consideration, such that the Inspector considered the appeal against the relevant
provisions of the GDPO 2015 (Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q).
The application and subsequent appeal therefore required an assessment against the
relevant criteria in the GPDO. In summary,






Transport and highway impacts
Noise impacts
Contamination risks
Flooding risks
Whether the location of the building would make it otherwise impractical or
undesirable for the building to be used as dwellings
Design and external appearance.
The Inspector found the main area of dispute between the parties to be the extent of
building operations to convert the building. Under Class Q (b) of the GPDO
development is not permitted if it would consist of building operations other than
installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls “to the extent
reasonably necessary to allow the building to function as a dwellinghouse.” Paragraph
105 of the Planning Practice Guidance states that Class Q assumes the agricultural
building is capable of functioning as a dwelling and that it is only where the building is
structurally strong enough to take the loading from external works to provide for
residential use that the building would be considered to have the GPDO right to
convert to a dwelling.
Applying these criteria to the appeal building, the Inspector noted that this is a modern
structure, comprised of timber posts with a sheeting roof. The areas between the posts
are partially filled with blockwork, consistent with the building’s previous use for pigs.
The Inspector noted the appellants’ evidence that the building is structurally sound in
its current form but found that due to the form and design of the building it would not be
capable of functioning as a dwelling.
Accordingly the Inspector concluded that the development would not meet the criteria
in Class Q (b) of the GPDO. As such the building cannot be converted to dwellings as
permitted development; an application for Planning permission would be required.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
An application for costs was also made against the District Council; this was refused.
Development Committee
96
20 August 2015
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park
and ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27
9JJ for Crematoria Management Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Summary to follow to the next meeting.
SHERINGHAM – PF/14/1126 – proposed bungalow providing two bedroom
accommodation and creation of new vehicular access to existing house (47) at 47 St
Austins Grove, Sheringham for Ms J Rayner and Ms S Thirtle
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED.
The District Council refused Planning permission for a bungalow in the existing garden
of 47 St Austins Grove. The application also included creation of a new vehicular
access for the existing house.
The Inspector found the main issues to be


effect on the character and appearance of St Austins Grove and Curtis Lane
whether the proposed bungalow would provide acceptable living conditions for
occupiers of the proposed bungalow and the existing dwelling.
On the first issue, the Inspector described the location of the appeal site and the
character of the surrounding area. He found that the proposed bungalow would “result
in an uncharacteristically dense pattern of development … harmfully at odds with the
local context.’’ The Inspector referred to the Appellants’ case that the proposed
development was supported by the NPPF but found that the proposed bungalow would
conflict with Core Strategy policy EN4 in that it would not respect the character of the
surrounding area. It would also fail to accord with the NPPF objective of securing high
quality design.
On the second issue, living conditions, the Inspector found that the proposed
bungalow would not have acceptable private amenity space. As such, the
development would again conflict with policy EN4 of the Council’s Core Strategy and
with paragraph 17 of the NPPF, which requires a good standard of amenity for all
future occupiers of buildings.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
16.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
97
20 August 2015
APPENDIX 1
Development Committee
98
20 August 2015
Development Committee
99
20 August 2015
Development Committee
100
20 August 2015
APPENDIX 2
Non-Technical Summary of the Viability Work in relation to:
PO/14-1212 - Residential development for a maximum of 78 dwellings, extension to existing
allotments, public open space, surface water attenuation pond and foul sewage pumping station
at Brick Kiln Farm, Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham
Scheme details
The scheme consists of 78 units:
 43 x 2 bed units
 21 x 3 bed units
 14 x 4 bed units
Full details are contained within the Design and Access statement, but the site also includes:
 Public open space
 Allotments
 Landscaping to protect a proposed school site
 An attenuation basin
 A foul water pumping station
 Adoptable roads to link in with the wider area development brief
Sales Values
Sales values have been calculated with close regard to the existing market and the context of the
wider proposals for the area. They have been prepared in line with best practice.
Costs
The base “unit” construction cost used is in line with recent RICS guidance and DV input. Other
construction costs have been gauged from QS values using standard measured rate calculations
from the plan(s) submitted. Where detailed costs are known (e.g. contamination, demolition & site
clearance), detailed quoted figures have been used.
Remaining costs have been calculated using standard metrics used in previous DV submissions,
comprising of selling agent fees, sales allowances (discounts or sales products) and legal costs, with
financing costs modelled in detail.
Contributions
The following contributions are to be made in the S106 Heads of Terms:
 Play Space
£36,000
 Education
£409,523
 Open Space
£32,000
 Environment £3,900
 Library
£18,174
 Fire/Police
£1,784
TOTAL
£501,381
In addition, £100,000 is proposed to provide significant traffic improvements to Rudham Stile Lane.
Affordable Housing
On completion of the review of the submitted viability by NNDC, it is considered that it is viable to
provide 2 on site affordable dwellings – 2 x 1 bedroom flats as the greatest housing need is for this
type of provision.
Development Committee
101
20 August 2015
Development within the wider scheme proposed in the location
Please refer to separate letter detailing the contribution made by these proposals to the wider
scheme under the current Development Brief.
Land Value
The land value used in appraising the scheme viability is considered appropriate and provides a
competitive return for the land owner which reflects the policy position and also provides a risk
based return for a developer.
Development Committee
102
20 August 2015
APPENDIX 3
Development Committee
103
20 August 2015
Development Committee
104
20 August 2015
Development Committee
105
20 August 2015
APPENDIX 4
Define | Cornwall Buildings
45-51 Newhall Street | Birmingham | B3 3QR
T: 0121 213 4720 W: www.wearedefine.com
Define | Unit 6
133-137 Newhall Street | Birmingham | B3 1SF
T: 0121 237 1901 W: www.wearedefine.com
FAO: Mrs M Moore
Planning Officer
North Norfolk District Council
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk
NR27 9EN
07th August 2015
033 MR 070815 NNDC
Dear Sir
LAND OFF RUDHAM STILE LANE
REF: PO/14/1212
I write in respect of the above application on behalf of my clients Trinity College Cambridge. Trinity
College are the major landowner in the allocated development site to the north of Fakenham, that this
application site also forms part of. You will be aware that Trinity College have been working closely
with your colleagues over a number of years now, most recently in the preparation of a Development
Brief for the site in accordance with Policy FO1 (which has now been approved by Members subject
to some specific minor changes). We are now progressing the preparation of an outline planning
application for the main part of the allocation site that reflects that Development Brief, and again have
had productive discussions with officers at the District Council in that regard. We anticipate that we
will be submitting that application to the District Council towards the end of the year.
In light of the above, Trinity College do have a number of concerns with the submitted planning
application for land off Rudham Stile Lane that, should your Committee Members resolve to grant
planning permission, we would urge you to address through the appropriate conditioning of the
planning permission and / or provision of a Section 106 obligation.
Whilst we understand that the Council would ideally have liked to receive a single planning application
for the entirety of the land required to deliver the urban extension as envisaged by the Development
Brief, we do recognise the potential benefits of this planning application in that it would result in the
relocation of the existing chicken farm away from the allocation site. However, for that benefit to be
realised, the planning permission should have an appropriately short time limit attached to it.
It is also crucial that the proposed development on the application does not result in an increase in the
costs of developing the wider allocated site to the detriment of its deliverability, and it should in no
way hinder, delay or limit the delivery and form of that future development.
The proposed development on the application site should, therefore, be designed to accord with the
Development Brief as closely as possible. This will ensure that in, the fullness of time, it will form an
integral part of the wider development. For example, the proposed dwellings on the application site
should positively address the adjacent land, and notably the proposed green link along Grove Lane.
The proposals should also provide sufficient public open space to meet the needs of its future
residents, and not rely on provision that will come forward as part of the wider development.
Furthermore, the infrastructure design, notably the surface water drainage and foul drainage
solutions, should take full account of the future development of the surrounding land for residential /
Define is the trading name of Define Planning and Design Ltd | Registered in England and Wales | Company number 06449768 | VAT number 104 9131 47
Registered
C/O
Mazars
LLP | Floor
10 | 45
| Birmingham
| B3 2RTand Wales | Company number 06449768 | VAT number 104 9131 47
Define is theoffice
trading
name
of Define
Planning
andChurch
DesignStreet
Ltd | Registered
in England
Development Committee
Registered office C/O Mazars LLP | Floor 10 | 45 Church Street | Birmingham | B3 2RT
106
20 August 2015
school purposes. Given the allocated status of the wider site, it would clearly not be appropriate to
assume that the surrounding land will remain in agricultural use, and therefore, that it can flood safely
if the proposed drainage solutions fail. I have enclosed a report prepared by ASD that sets out in
detail our concerns in this regard.
Moreover, the access, highways, surface and foul drainage infrastructure required to support the
proposed development should be provided in a manner that does not create an additional burden
(financial or otherwise) for the residual development on the wider allocated site. Therefore,
appropriate/proportionate contributions to off-site infrastructure required to deliver the development of
the allocated site as a whole are required.
Similarly, the proposed development must also make a fair and proportionate contribution towards the
provision of community infrastructure needed to support the development of the allocated site as a
whole; most notably education provision. That contribution should reflect the true cost of making
sufficient provision for meeting education needs through the delivery of a new primary school on the
allocated site (i.e. land costs and full school build costs) as set out in the Development Brief.
It is understood that the applicants have sought to demonstrate that the proposed development on the
application site would not be viable without a reduced contribution to affordable housing provision.
However, the District Council should not seek to make up the affordable housing shortfall in the
residual development on the wider allocated site. Indeed, if necessary, Trinity College would expect
the District Council to take a similarly pragmatic approach to the pending outline planning application
for the wider allocation site to ensure viability and deliverability given the substantial infrastructure that
will need to be provided.
We trust that the above comments are clear, and that you and the Council Members will take them
fully into account when the District Council comes to determine the planning application. However,
should you wish to discuss any of the above matters further then please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours faithfully
Mark Rose
Director
Development Committee
107
20 August 2015
BRICK KILN FARM
FAKENHAM, NORFOLK
DELIVERY OF DEVELOPMENT ON
LAND AT RUDHAM STILE LANE
REF:
1007/NMT/BKF/07-15
DATE: JULY 2015
ASD CONSULTANTS
Development Committee
108 - ARCHITECTURE
20 -August
2015
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
Land at Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham
Brick Kiln Poultry Farm Development
1. Introduction & Development Proposals
1.1. ASD Engineering has been commissioned by Savills, on behalf of Trinity College, to undertake a brief
review of the proposed residential development by Mr P. Picken at Brick Kiln Poultry Farm (Planning
Application No PO/14/1212 for 84 dwellings) and its potential to adversely affect the proposed
longer term development of land located to the north of Rudham Stile Lane in Fakenham.
1.2. The outline planning application is for the demolition of all existing agricultural buildings on site to
allow redevelopment for residential purposes. The application seeks to retain the existing
bungalow and the latest illustrative Masterplan submitted by Lanpro dated July 2015 shows an
additional 78 properties, with access off Rudham Stile Lane.
1.3. North Norfolk District Council’s Site Allocations Development Plan Document, under Policy F01, has
allocated 85 hectares of land for residential and commercial development that will create a
sustainable urban expansion to the north of Fakenham to 2021 and beyond. This constitutes
approximately 800-900 dwellings, 7 hectares of employment land, community facilities (including a
primary school) and public open space.
1.4. Brick Kiln Farm covers an area of only 3 hectares and although included within the overall
Development Brief for the full allocated land, has been submitted as a standalone proposal ahead
of the main submission.
Latest Proposed Layout
1007/NMT/Brick Kiln Farm Development
Development Committee
Page 1 of 5
109
20 August 2015
Land at Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham
Brick Kiln Poultry Farm Development
ASD Engineering
Trinity College
___________________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Details have been submitted by Create Consulting Engineers Ltd of highway improvements on
Rudham Stile Lane, to the west of the site at the junction with Claypit Lane, mainly consisting of
providing a direct footway access route to the school. It is assumed that these have been approved
by Norfolk County Council, although it has always been understood that the Highway Authority
would like to see the whole development area brought forward as one, with the infrastructure
requirements co-ordinated and provided as part of the full application.
1.6. Foul Drainage for the site is to be taken to a pumping station located in the north-east corner of the
development, and Anglian Water has confirmed that the flows may be connected into the existing
network at a rate of 3.8l/sec. The pumping station will apparently be designed to adoptable
standards and the discharge will be into Manhole 3602 within Elizabeth Avenue. This will involve
approximately 120m of off-site rising main.
1.7. The Surface Water Drainage Strategy is somewhat less definitive and a series of possible solutions
have been suggested but none proven at this stage. However, it is clear that surface water flows
will be held in an attenuation basin, again constructed in the north-east corner of the site adjacent
to existing arable land, before being disposed of at Greenfield run-off rates.
1.8. Because of poor infiltration rates it is not possible to dispose of surface water into the ground using
shallow soakaways but according to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment ‘subject to appropriate
site investigation at the detailed design stage and based on the nearby borehole logs, it is envisaged
a deep borehole solution can be facilitated within the underlying sands and gravels approximately
10m below existing ground level’.
1007/NMT/Brick Kiln Farm
Development Committee
Page 2 of 5
110
20 August 2015
Land at Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham
Brick Kiln Poultry Farm Development
ASD Engineering
Trinity College
___________________________________________________________________________________
1.9. The normal preferred disposal of surface water from an attenuation basin is through the gradual
release to a watercourse via gravity, but given the distance to the nearest watercourse is
approximately 1.0 kilometre across third party land and the embanked A148, this option is not
feasible.
1.10. However, Anglian Water has surprisingly agreed to a discharge into the surface water sewer within
Rudham Stile Lane, but because a gravity solution is not possible, a pumped connection at a rate of
11.2 l/sec has been confirmed into Manhole 3751, as shown below.
2. Affect on Long Term Development
2.1. Whilst giving general support to the allocated land, the Environment Agency, Anglian Water and
Natural England raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the foul sewers through the centre of
the Town and the capacity of Fakenham Sewage Treatment Works. Many of these concerns
related to impacts on the River Wensum and The Broad’s Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and
these were to be addressed in delivering the overall growth in Fakenham.
2.2. Anglian Water has previously stated that they require the full allocation of dwellings to be drained
in a strategic manner rather than ad-hoc additions to the existing system. This is to be achieved for
the overall development by providing a new foul pumping station discharging all flows directly to
the treatment works, which is actually situated at Hempton to the south of the River Wensum.
2.3. Development could change surface water drainage patterns, i.e. result in an increase in flashier
flows in periods of rainfall due to an increase in impermeable surfaces on site. Sustainable
Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be actively encouraged to lessen the impact of new development
and increased surface water runoff. Discharges from the overall development area were to be
directed northwards towards the River Stiffkey, rather than to the River Wensum to the south.
1007/NMT/Brick Kiln Farm
Development Committee
Page 3 of 5
111
20 August 2015
Land at Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham
Brick Kiln Poultry Farm Development
ASD Engineering
Trinity College
___________________________________________________________________________________
2.4. None of the above concerns have been taken into account with the proposed development at Brick
Kiln Farm. Both foul and surface water flows are being pumped into existing sewerage networks
that drain southwards through the centre of Fakenham. Any existing deficiencies in these
networks will be further exacerbated by the increased flows.
2.5. The natural fall of the land north of Rudham Stile Lane is northwards towards the A148 Fakenham
bypass, and this applies equally to the Brick Kiln Farm development. This dictates the drainage for
the site, with both foul and surface water flows draining naturally to the north-east corner where it
is proposed to construct the pumping station(s) and attenuation basin. At the moment, surface
water flowing off the existing chicken sheds and hardstanding drains onto the adjacent arable land,
which currently does not pose a major problem.
Topographical Survey of Allocated Land
2.6. Obviously, when this land is developed with residential dwellings in the future, any failure of the
proposed drainage facilities on the Brick Kiln Farm development could have a severe negative
impact on the downstream properties.
2.7. It is very unusual to provide a pumping station to deal with surface water, and in this instance it is
because the natural fall of the site is away from the receiving sewerage network. The natural
catchment for the Brick Kiln Farm site is northwards across the remaining allocated land, and
obviously would be better dealt with as part of an overall drainage strategy. It is very unusual for
Anglian Water to accept a pumped discharge for surface water, particularly since it will eventually
drain to the River Wensum which, as explained, previously raised concerns with the Environment
Agency.
1007/NMT/Brick Kiln Farm
Development Committee
Page 4 of 5
112
20 August 2015
Land at Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham
Brick Kiln Poultry Farm Development
ASD Engineering
Trinity College
___________________________________________________________________________________
2.8. The provision of duty/standby pumps will provide some benefit should the duty pump fail when
required, but neither pump will operate if the power fails in a thunder storm, the very time that
the maximum surface water will be generated. The attenuation basin will provide some storage
but the adjacent land will certainly be at greater risk of flooding.
2.9. Similarly, failure of the foul pumping station will result in flooding of the adjacent arable land, but
in this case with untreated sewage.
2.10. The alternative option for dealing with the surface water into borehole soakaways after the
attenuation basin has not been proven as being possible, but again, any failure of this method of
disposal will result in overland flows affecting the proposed development to the north. The use of
deep bore soakaways is also strongly discouraged by the Environment Agency for groundwater
protection reasons and in this instance the site is underlain by a Chalk Principal Aquifer. The
attenuation basin and the boreholes would be located within a groundwater source protection
zone SPZ2 (Outer Zone) associated with a food and drink abstraction.
2.11. The Environment Agency has already objected to the application because the Flood Risk
Assessment is not considered to comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy
Framework. It does not adequately demonstrate that the development will not increase the flood
risk elsewhere, which it obviously does to the proposed development to the north.
3. Summary
3.1. Any available capacity within the existing highway and drainage infrastructure will be taken up by
the Brick Kiln Farm application, which will result in costly up-front infrastructure works being
required before any development can take place on the remaining allocated land.
3.2. Although capacity cannot be ‘reserved’ and can only be determined on a ‘first-come first-served’
basis, the apportionment of infrastructure costs should be equally distributed across the whole
allocation.
3.3. Apart from the ‘unfair’ financial affect on the remaining allocated land, the main cause for concern
is the additional risk of flooding posed by the development at Brick Kiln Farm and the cost of
possible mitigation measures that will be required to ensure that future properties are not
adversely affected. These costs could be avoided if all the land is designed simultaneously, with
appropriate measures taken as part of the layout of the development as a whole.
1007/NMT/Brick Kiln Farm
Development Committee
Page 5 of 5
113
20 August 2015
16A Bridge Street
Halesworth
Suffolk
IP19 8AQ
DX 51201 HALESWORTH
Tel. (01986) 872250
Fax. (01986) 872228
Development Committee
114
enquiries@asd-consultants.co.uk
20 August 2015
APPENDIX 5
From: Cathy Batchelar
Sent: 17 December 2014 11:30
To: Martha Moore
Subject: RE: PO/14/1212- Residential development for a maximum of 84 dwellings,
extension to existing allotments, public open space, surface water attenuation pond and foul
sewage pumping station at Brick Kiln Farm, Rudham Stile Lane, Fakenham
Martha,
The confirmation below that the 4.5m x 90m visibility splay is required implies that, in
accordance with the recommendations in the Preliminary Arboricultural Implications
Assessment (Ravencroft Arboricultural Services, Drawing No 150914/012), three Category B
sycamore trees will need to be removed to achieve this. This will negatively impact on the
established streetscene of Rudham Stile Lane, the character of which is largely defined by
the existing hedged field boundary and intermittent mature trees to the north.
In order to retain these trees and achieve the required access, I recommend that other
solutions should be explored, such as a no-dig surface, so that the trees can be retained.
Regards
Cathy
Development Committee
115
20 August 2015
North Norfolk District Council
Conservation, Design and Landscape
MEMORANDUM
To:
Martha Moore, Planning Officer
Ref:
PO/14/1212
From:
Cathy Batchelar, Landscape Officer
Date:
Dec 3rd 2014
Outline: Access only for max 84 dwellings, extension to
allotments, public open space provision, access and
surface water attenuation pond and foul water sewage
pumping station, Brick Kiln Farm, Rudham Stile Lane,
Fakenham.
Given that this site forms part of a larger scale mixed use proposal allocated in the current
Local Development Framework, there can be no sustainable objections to the principle of
residential development in this location.
Access
The access directly off Rudham Stile Lane does not feature within the emerging
Development Brief for the wider Masterplan that incorporates this site. Grove Lane,
running along the eastern boundary of the site is identified as forming a green corridor, and
is a key feature extending through the wider site. This is envisaged as primarily a vegetated
pedestrian and cycle route leading to a linked access to Fakenham Town centre. Introducing
a new vehicle access so close to this strategic landscape feature could compromise its design
and introduce user conflict. Links across Rudham Stile Lane that favour pedestrians and
cyclists are envisaged and their design will play an important role in incorporating the large
new development into the existing built form. The access as proposed does not fit with this
intention.
The submitted arboricultural information notes that the visibility splays required in
conjunction with the new access onto Rudham Stile Lane will impact on the line of mature
trees on the west boundary of the site. Provision of the standard dimension splay is
considered to be feasible as only 16% of the RPA of T1 would be affected. However if the
wider splay, as put forward in the Transport Statement, is required by Highways, then 3
sycamores that make a significant contribution to the streetscene would have to be
removed. While the final scheme would no doubt include a substantial amount of new tree
planting as mitigation, the loss of 3 mature trees in such a prominent position would be
regrettable and should be avoided if possible. Confirmation is required as to whether these
trees can be retained.
The landscape impact of the proposed access does raise issues as outlined above. However,
if, in consideration of the all of the implications of this proposal, it is deemed acceptable,
these concerns should be taken into account as the design detail is worked up.
Development Committee
116
20 August 2015
Design
While the layout is only indicative at this outline stage, the following comments relating to
design issues should be considered on any future Reserved Matters application.
The site lies within Rolling Open Farmland, as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment. This particular area has been substantially degraded over time and
the underlying landscape structure such as field patterns and settlement structure has been
lost. The land north of Rudham Stile Lane is made up of large arable fields with remnants of
older field boundaries. Any mature vegetation such as the linear tree groups along the
western site boundary therefore form significant landscape features and should be retained
and enhanced.
The dense linear layout of the dwellings, although illustrative only, does not lend itself to an
integrated development where the built form and the landscape are successfully merged. In
places the dwellings are sited tight up against the eastern site boundary which is identified
as the main Greenway running through the wider mixed use site. There should be a much
wider margin all along the eastern site boundary to allow for the required width of surface
and a sequence of vegetated margins of differing heights, in order that the required green
infrastructure can be achieved.
The proposed public open space indicates some amount of play provision. This needs to be
integrated into the identified areas for play provision within the Development Brief.
Currently an area for play is allocated immediately east of Grove Lane where it joins Rudham
Stile Lane.
The additional allotment provision is in keeping with the Development Brief. The margin
between the allotments and the main access road will require a landscape solution to
provide a degree of screening.
Attenuation Pond
Located immediately south of the proposed school and public square as proposed in the
wider Development Brief, and adjacent to the identified green spine running through the
wider site, the proposed attentuation pond has the potential to form a key landscape
feature of the natural green space linkage and provision within the Masterplan. The design
of this feature should include for it to be incorporated into the landscape proposals for the
wider Masterplan and not designed as a separate enclosed element within this site.
Ecology
The site lies 1.3km from the River Wensum SAC and SSSI. Natural England does not consider
that the development will have a significant effect on the interest features of these
designated habitats and Conservation Design & Landscape agrees with this assessment.
In order to comply with the Habitat Regulations 2010 (as amended), an Appropriate
Assessment was undertaken at the Site Allocations stage. This identified that significant
likely effects of increased visitor pressure on the North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA and Ramsar
sites could not be ruled out. Therefore a scheme of monitoring and mitigation was to be
secured by way of condition. An adopted approach to discharge this condition is a financial
contribution of £50 per dwelling secured via a legal agreement. If this is not secured, an
additional Appropriate Assessment will be required.
An Ecological Constraints & Opportunities Assessment carried out in June 2014 by Enims
recommends further surveys in respect of reptiles to be undertaken specifically between
March and September. Timing of works to avoid the bird nesting season and biodiversity
Development Committee
117
20 August 2015
enhancement measures also form part of the assessment. These requirements should be
addressed via a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), prepared in
accordance with the format laid out in BS42020:2013 Biodiversity- Code of Practice for
Planning and Development.
Should the proposals go forward for approval, the following conditions should be included:

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, precise details of
tree protection measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
This shall include an Arboricultural Method Statement & Tree Protection Plan
compiled in accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Construction –
Recommendations. The tree protection measures shall then be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, hard and soft
landscape proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and shall include the following details.
a) the location, species, number and size of new trees, hedges, shrubs and
perennials and seeding at the time of planting with measures for protection during
establishment.
b) accurate plotting of existing trees and hedgerows on the site including species
c) all boundary treatments
d) all proposed surfaces
e) the proposed attenuation basin, including sections to show profiles, construction
methodology, planting

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared in accordance with the format
laid out in BS42020:2013 Biodiversity- Code of Practice for Planning and
Development shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. The Plan shall be
informed by the results of the Ecological Constraints & Opportunities Assessment
carried out in June 2014 by Enims. The development shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the approved CEMP and any mitigation or compensation measures
shall be erected or installed according to the approved details and thereafter
maintained in a suitable condition to serve the intended purpose.
Regards
Development Committee
118
20 August 2015
APPENDIX 6
Development Committee
119
20 August 2015
Development Committee
120
20 August 2015
Development Committee
121
20 August 2015
APPENDIX 7
15/0936 and 15/09398 National and Local Policy Guidance
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.
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;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy, including
developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood
planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating
potential heat customers and suppliers’.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:


not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for
renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects
provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if its
impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low
carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also
expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to
demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable
areas’.
Development Committee
122
20 August 2015
In considering this proposal, officers have taken account of the advice set out within
paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:


approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without
delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date,
granting permission unless:
 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a
whole; or
 specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted’.
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the online Planning
Practice Guidance on 27 March 2015. The guidance includes an assessment of the
particular planning considerations that relate to large-scale ground-mounted solar
photovoltaic farms at Paragraph 13 Reference ID: 5-013-20150327.
Particular factors a local planning authority will need to consider include:
1. encouraging the effective use of land by focusing large scale solar farms on previously
developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value;
2. that solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used
to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and the land is
restored to its previous use;
3. the proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare and on
neighbouring uses and aircraft safety;
4. the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing;
5. 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;
6. the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening
with native hedges;
7. 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:
1. Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) ; and
Development Committee
123
20 August 2015

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.
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 Committee
124
20 August 2015
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’.
Development Committee
125
20 August 2015