Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer... of the Head of Planning and in the case of... OFFICERS' REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 20 AUGUST 2015

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Withdrawn by Applicant 19/09/2013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.


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


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


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.


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,


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 para graph 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.


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. Policy considerations.

2. Principle of development.

3. Landscape Impact (including impact on AONB).

4. Design.

5. 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


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.


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.


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.


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


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 buildi ng’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


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.


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.


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


- Target Date: 24 June 2015

Case Officer: Miss J Smith


CONSTRAINTS

Countryside

Listed building

Conservation Area


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.


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.


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,


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





CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17


POLICIES


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).


(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


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 pr operty, ‘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


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.


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.


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;




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:




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


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.


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.



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


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.


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.


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 6 th

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).


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.


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 s ite’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.


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.


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.








POLICIES


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




Policy EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability


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.




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 c. and a landscaped buffer to the A148; 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


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.


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


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-Ordinator-

Environment) 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


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


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.


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


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.


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) 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

(ii) No new material issues being raised from the Strategic Housing team following submission of the revised S.106 Obligation total figure

(iii) 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

(iv) To include the specific conditions listed below:

1 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.

3

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.

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).


5

6

7

8

9

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.

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)

Roads, footways, cycleways, foul and on-site water drainage.

Visibility splays.

Access arrangements.

Parking provision in accordance with adopted standard. vi)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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


15

16

17

18 local fire service to tackle any property fire in accordance with Policy CT 2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

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.

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.

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.


19

20

21

22

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


4.

(v) 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


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.


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.


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.








POLICIES



Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside

(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).



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.


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.


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


- Target Date: 03 August 2015

Case Officer: Miss J Smith


CONSTRAINTS

Residential Area

Settlement Boundary

Conservation Area


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.


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.


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.








POLICIES


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




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.


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


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.


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


- Target Date: 08 April 2015

Case Officer: Mr J Williams


CONSTRAINTS

Residential Use Allocation

A Road

Conservation Area


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.


The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.


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 - No objection subject to a condition relating to surface water drainage.


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


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.


Norfolk Constabulary (Architectural Liaison) - No concerns raised.








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.


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).


(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their setting).






Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).


Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer contributions).


Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking standards other than in exceptional circumstances).


1. Layout, scale and design.

2. Housing mix and type.

3. Landscaping / ecology

4. 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


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


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).


7.

WORSTEAD - PF/15/0936 - Development of ground mounted solar voltaic panels and associated works.; Land at Bunn's Hill, North Walsham for Solarcentury


- Target Date: 25 September 2015



CONSTRAINTS

Countryside


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


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.


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.


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 a nd 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.


Norfolk County Council Flood Management Team - Awaiting comments.

Network Rail - No objection.









POLICIES



Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).





Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).





Policy EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).



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 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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


8

.

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.

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


- Target Date: 28 September 2015




CONSTRAINTS

Countryside


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.


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 (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 constitu te ‘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.

Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - Awaiting comments.


Norfolk County Council Flood Management Team - Awaiting comments.

Network Rail - No objection.








POLICIES



Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).






Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).





Policy EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).



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 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



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


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.


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.


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


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


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 post- construction. 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


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)


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


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


BLAKENEY - PF/15/0722 - Creation of pond; 8 Wiveton Road, Blakeney, Holt,

NR25 7NJ for Mr & Mrs Smedley


BLAKENEY - PF/15/0783 - Erection of front porch and cedar cladding to existing front elevation gable.; 23 Kingsway for Mrs P Watson-Farrah


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


CROMER - AI/15/0819 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated signage;

White Horse Inn, 24 West Street, Cromer, NR27 9DS for Enterprise Inns PLC


CROMER - LA/15/0820 - Fixing of Signage to Exterior of Building; White Horse

Inn, 24 West Street, Cromer, NR27 9DS for Enterprise Inns PLC


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


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


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


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


FAKENHAM - PF/15/0771 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Seletar, 8

Thorpland Road, Fakenham, NR21 8JQ for Mr K Wisla


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


FAKENHAM - PF/15/0844 - Erection of car-port; 1 Toll Bar for Mr D Fox


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



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


FAKENHAM - PF/15/0846 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 27 Nightingale

Close, Fakenham, NR21 8NS for Mr P Tann


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


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


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


GIMINGHAM - PF/15/0504 - Erection of front porch and single-storey rear extension; The Edge, Windmill Road for Mr & Mrs Robins


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


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


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


HANWORTH - PF/15/0367 - Erection of detached garage; Ivy Cottages, Gunton

Park, Hanworth for Mr Braka



HELHOUGHTON - PF/15/0806 - Two storey extension to side and rear.; 5 Council

Houses, Raynham Road, Helhoughton, Fakenham, NR21 7BH for Mr Forsyth


HEMPTON - PF/15/0731 - Demolition of outbuildings and erection of single-storey rear extension; Abbey Cottage, 19 Dereham Road for Mr Hutchison


HEMPTON - PF/15/0812 - Change of use of offices to dog-grooming business

(retrospective application); Offices, 4B Raynham Road for Mr R Gorman


HICKLING - PF/15/0644 - Erection of single storey rear extension; Herons, Hill

Common, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0BT for Mr Perrin


HINDOLVESTON - PF/15/0855 - Proposed oak framed car port and store; 48A The

Street, Hindolveston, Dereham, NR20 5DF for Mrs C Eggleton


HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/0484 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Upper

Hall Farm, Wells Road, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0PQ for Mr M Green


HOLKHAM - PF/15/0687 - Construction of below ground plant room; Holkham

Hall, Holkham Estate, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AB for Holkham Estate


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


HOLT - PF/15/0839 - Internal and external alterations and refurbishment works to existing wine bar (part retrospective); Balthazar Wine Bar, Lees Yard for Eclipse


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


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.


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



LESSINGHAM - PF/15/0480 - Retention of pitched roof and extension to garage/outbuilding; Chenies, The Street, Lessingham for Mr D Reynolds


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


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


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


MORSTON - PF/15/0620 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Anchor

Cottage, 39 The Street, Morston, Holt, NR25 7AA for Mr J Bessell


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


MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0679 - Access ramp to beach; East of Inshore Lifeboat

Station, East End of Promenade, Mundesley for North Norfolk District Council


MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0829 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 3 Meadow

Close, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8LW for Mr and Mrs Day


NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0632 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 17

Hazell Road, North Walsham, NR28 0ST for Mr D West


NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0715 - Retention of extensions to existing storage warehouse (use class B2); Land at, Cornish Way for Drury Transport


NORTH WALSHAM - LA/15/0589 - Retention of internal shutters to shop front and satellite dish to rear; 32 Market Place for Digital Phone Company


NORTH WALSHAM - AI/15/0832 - Display of internally illuminated signage, including projecting sign; 8-9 St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for RBS


NORTH WALSHAM - AN/15/0833 - Retention of non-illuminated fascia and projecting signs; 15A Market Place, North Walsham, NR28 9BP for MY DENTIST



NORTH WALSHAM - AI/15/0877 - Display of illuminated advertisements; Black

Swan Hotel, Black Swan Loke for Enterprise Inns PLC


PASTON - PF/15/0523 - Erection of single-storey front extension and two storey side extension; Pebble Cottage, Vicarage Road for Mr Clayton


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


ROUGHTON - PF/15/0817 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 229

Roughton Road, Cromer, NR27 9LQ for Mr M Durrant


RUNTON - PF/15/0562 - Insertion of window to north elevation; 2 Farm Cottages,

Beach Road, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9PA for Mr McCrohon


RUNTON - PF/15/0739 - Erection of single-storey rear extension.; 106 Cromer

Road, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9QA for Mr Payne


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


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


SCOTTOW - PF/15/0760 - Erection of part two-storey and first floor side extension; 40 Barton Road, Badersfield for Mr and Mrs Stubley


SCOTTOW - PF/15/0816 - Retention of security fence and access; H M Prison

Bure, Jaguar Drive, Badersfield for Ministry of Justice


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


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


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



SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0113 - Erection of 8 two-storey detached dwellings, road and associated works; Land off Holway Road for Norfolk Homes Ltd


SHERINGHAM - AN/15/0890 - Installation of non-illuminated signs; 33 Station

Road, Sheringham, NR26 8RF for Age UK Norfolk


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


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


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


SKEYTON - PF/15/0661 - Change of use of workshop/store to one unit of holiday accommodation; Stackyard Barn, Cross Road for Mrs M Fearn


STALHAM - PF/15/0711 - Erection of single storey side extension; 57 Rivermead,

Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9PJ for Mr & Mrs Wooden


STALHAM - PF/15/0736 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Leeway,

Yarmouth Road, The Green, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9QB for Mr S O'Regan


STALHAM - PF/15/0840 - Erection of front porch; Lancaster House, 7 Whiley Lane for Mrs Palmer


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


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


SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/0810 - Erection of 1.20m to 1.73m front boundary fence; The Cottage, St Giles Road for Mr H Thompson


THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0613 - Creation of small pond and wetland area on site of redundant pond; Pitt Cottage, Cromer Road for Ms Carey



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


THORPE MARKET - LA/15/0699 - Installation of Replacement windows; Nursery

Farm, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TU for Miss P Black


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


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


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


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


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


WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0766 - Erection of extension to porch; 1 Roses

Court, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1DG for Mrs Peet


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


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



WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0764 - Erection of two-storey side extension;

Anchor Cottage, 29 Newgate Lane for Mr Gallagher


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


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


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


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


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


MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0655 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent to 57 Sea View Road, Mundesley, NR11 8DJ for Mr Somers


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


An application for costs was also made against the District Council; this was refused.


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.


16.

COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS

No change from previous report.


Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer... of the Head of Planning and in the case of... OFFICERS' REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 20 AUGUST 2015

Related documents

Products

Support

Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer... of the Head of Planning and in the case of... OFFICERS' REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 20 AUGUST 2015

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib