OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 20 FEBRUARY 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BRISTON - PF/13/1529 - Erection of eighteen dwellings; Land at Church Street
for Victory Housing Trust
Major Development
- Target Date: 24 March 2014
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Proposed Residential Use Allocation
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
Archaeological Site
THE APPLICATION
The proposed housing development comprises a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom
properties. These would include a combination of semi-detached two storey dwellings,
two x two-storey apartment buildings, a row of terraced bungalows, semi-detached
and detached bungalows.
Although this is an allocated site with a requirement of 50% affordable dwellings, the
application proposes 100% affordable dwellings for Victory Housing.
Vehicular access to the site is proposed from a single point of access from Church
Street.
Foul drainage from the site would link into the existing mains sewer.
Draft Heads of terms for the S.106 payments have been submitted with the
application. It covers details regarding the provision of affordable housing, a financial
contribution for off-site open space (£18,541) and £50 per dwelling towards work
associated with potential increased visitor pressure impacts on the North Norfolk
Coast Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation.
The application is supported by the following documents:
Design and Access Statement
Ecology/Biodiversity report
Land contamination report
Tree survey and arboricultural report
Topographical survey
Foul sewerage plan
Street lighting plan
Statement of Community Consultation
Summary of archaeological trial trench evaluation carried out in December 2013.
Development Committee
1
20 February 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a Members' site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
The Council supports the application with the following observations:
-Worries about the infrastructure failing with particular regard to drainage and the
danger of flooding.
-Grave concerns about the density of the development.
-Concerns about access for more vehicles on to a busy, minor road.
-Safety of children during the construction phase
-Ensuring that the dwellings, once built will go to people who live in Briston and need
housing.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of representation received, one objecting, one offering comment only.
Letter of objection on the following grounds:
1. Church Street has previously flooded and the combination of developing this site
and the other two allocated sites in Briston would exacerbate this problem as Church
Street sits at the bottom of a gentle incline from those three sites.
2. The ground conditions of the site would mean that with the total weight of the
proposed houses, it would be like putting a big brick on an already wet sponge.
3. There is a large pond to the north of the site, additional run-off water from this
development could cause the pond to overflow and cause problems elsewhere.
4. Query why 18 dwellings are proposed when the allocation is for 10.
5. Query the need for the number of parking spaces proposed.
6. Various species of bird, moth and butterfly and other insects have been seen on the
adjacent sites. Also believe that newts are in the area.
7. The hedge should be kept as believe they host nesting birds.
8. Query the risks of vibrations from construction undermining other properties.
9. Church Street is an unclassified road and not suitable for HGV traffic for the
construction work.
10. Concern with noise level and hours of construction.
11. Increased risk of accidents with from construction traffic.
12. Concern with site security during construction.
13. Concern with how new lighting might affect neighbouring properties.
14. Concern that the existing foul sewer does not have capacity.
15. Concern of risk of sewers overflowing and causing damage if risk of flooding
occurs.
Letter of comment:
1. Concern with the density on the site and the impact it could have on the locality.
2. Concern with increased flooding as a result of the development.
3. Concern with the impact of construction traffic on highway and pedestrian safety.
4. Is there enough on-site parking or will additional cars be parked along Church
Street?
5. Appreciate the need for housing in Briston but this number of dwellings on a fairly
small site should be considered.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Housing This application has been submitted with the full knowledge and support of Housing
Strategy.
Development Committee
2
20 February 2014
There is a proven housing need in Briston with 389 households registered on the
Council Housing List who have requested housing in Briston as at 27 January 2014.
Although this is an allocated site with a requirement of 50% affordable homes the
developer is proposing that 100% of the 18 homes will be provided as affordable
housing. The scheme mix on this site of 1 x 3 bed house, 3 x 2 bed houses, 4 x 2 bed
bungalows, 2 x 1 bed bungalows, 4 x 2 bed flats and 4 x 1 bed flats which reflects the
identified housing need in Briston. Additionally one of the 2 bedroom bungalows will
be provided to the Habinteg Wheelchair design standard.
The highest need is for rented dwellings, and is reflected within the scheme mix
proposed for the site. The majority of the homes, 16, will be let by Victory Housing
Trust on affordable rents with the remaining two 2 bed houses to be sold on a shared
ownership basis.
The affordable housing will be protected by a planning condition requiring that 50% of
the dwellings are to be affordable in perpetuity. The affordable housing will also
comply with the Homes and Communities Agency affordable housing standards and
meet the requirements of lifetime homes.
The southern boundary layout adjoins an existing development of bungalows and has
been shown careful attention by allocating bungalows to this boundary so as to
minimise the impact on existing neighbouring residents.
In conclusion, this application has the full support of Housing Strategy as the proposal
provides affordable housing targeted to meet the identified housing need in Briston
both in terms of the property types and sizes but also in tenure. The proposal
increases the number of homes provided on the site than would otherwise be required
by the design brief in a location that is central to the village, its shop‟s, school and
other facilities. This application provides an opportunity to secure 18 affordable homes
providing a scheme mix that will help to meet identified housing need across a wide
section of applicants including single people, couples and families as well as a
bungalow built to the Habinteg wheelchair housing design standard. Additionally the
scheme provides an opportunity to improve the affordable housing stock profile in
Briston so that greater opportunities will exist for households to meet their future
needs to downsize or upsize their home as their family changes over time.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) Advises on the basis that: The form and character of the immediate area is relatively mixed,
The proposed development would not harm the setting of the adjacent Grade II
Listed Home Farmhouse given the intervening mature planting, and
The new units display scale and massing which would be compatible with the
existing built form within the village
……there need be no Conservation & Design objections to the principle of this
development.
In terms of detail, the layout is obviously heavily driven by the access point and
driveway. This is perhaps understandable given the shape and restricted dimensions
of the site. The main thing is that the majority of the dwellings appear to sit
comfortably on the site and should create a relatively unified whole. The obvious
exception is Plots 5-7 which it is considered still err more towards cramming than
planning. As per Conservation & Design‟s pre-application response, this area appears
very cramped and would affectively create a form of backland development.
Development Committee
3
20 February 2014
As for the units themselves, they tread the middle ground between architectural
excellence and mediocrity. With the exception of the „weighty‟ appearance of the flats
(plots 15-18), most of the elevations line up conventionally and have nothing that
particularly jars on the eye. Providing we can secure good quality materials, the new
buildings should be appropriate for their surroundings.
In this regard, the bricks and tiles/slates can all be agreed by condition. Similarly, we
can also agree the windows prior to their insertion - as these are to be PVCu, the main
thing will be to ensure there are matching sight lines between the opening and fixed
casements. Also on materials, we should definitely look to avoid white plastic being
used for the rainwater goods and fascia boards. The former should be black to be
more recessive, whilst the latter should be replaced with brick dentils to create a more
qualitative end result. Lastly, in order to ensure that the development achieves an
informal appearance commensurate with the village setting, we should carefully
condition the permeable paving which runs through the scheme; i.e. the paviors
should have a neutral grey colour rather than red, and there should be a subtle
contrast or delineation between the main access and the parking spaces.
With satisfactory compliance, there cannot be any sustainable C&D objections to this
application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Comments awaited.
Environmental Health Comments awaited.
Countryside and Parks Manager Advises that there is no scope for on-site provision of open space because the site is
too small. The methodology set out in the Council‟s interim practice guide to open
space provision has been applied to this proposal in terms of the relationship between
additional population generated and public open space to calculate the required
contribution towards off-site open space provision. The sum has been adjusted as
there is no demand for allotment provision in Briston and a contribution towards green
space is not considered necessary. As such it is recommended that a contribution of
£18,541 be sought for improvements to play and parks provision at the village
recreation ground.
County Highway Authority Advises that whilst it remains the policy of Norfolk County Council that development in
excess of 8 dwellings should be provided with an adopted road, I note the view of the
Housing Association that they wish this road to remain private. As the road and
dwellings, etc will effectively remain in single ownership, I would not wish to raise an
objection to the current application on this matter.
Furthermore whilst the submitted amendments shown on drawing 10G wouldn't be
sufficient for the County Council to adopt the access road, they will provide safe
access to these dwellings and are therefore acceptable for a private road. I therefore
have no objection subject to conditions including: details of the proposed
arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within
the development; a visibility splay measuring 2.4 x 59 metres to be provided; parking
and turning to be laid out in accordance with the approved plan.
Development Committee
4
20 February 2014
Anglian Water There is sufficient capacity in the waste water and foul sewerage network for the
development. The surface water strategy proposed indicates it will not impact on the
Anglian Water assets.
Historic Environment Service
Comment that an archaeological evaluation has been carried out as indicated in the
archaeology summary submitted with the application. We are awaiting the report on
the evaluation from the applicant and will be making our recommendations to the
Council following our assessment of the report.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy BRI27 - Land at Church Street Briston
Land amounting to 0.7 hectares is allocated for residential development of
approximately 10 dwellings. Development will be subject to compliance with adopted
Core Strategy policies including on-site provision of the required proportion of
affordable housing (currently 50%) and contributions towards infrastructure, services
and other community needs as required and:
a. There being no adverse impact upon the setting of the adjacent Listed Building to
the north of the site;
b. careful attention to site layout and design to minimise the impact on the residential
amenities and occupiers of existing dwellings to the south of the site; and,
c. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the North
Norfolk Coast SAC / SPA arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, and ongoing monitoring of such measures.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy 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 EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Development Committee
5
20 February 2014
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 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle
2. Affordable housing
3. Density
4. Layout, design and scale
5. Landscaping/biodiversity
6. Highways issues
7. Drainage
8. Other issues
9. S106 requirements
APPRAISAL
The application site (0.37ha.) is located on the northern edge of Briston and comprises
part of agricultural field fronting on to Church Street just north of the village store. The
site is level and lacks any particular features worthy of retention. Existing residential
development to the south of the site comprises small single storey dwellings which are
separated to the site by a private footpath. A tree/hedge belt largely delineates the
northern boundary of the site and beyond to the north lies a listed farm house and
associated farm buildings. To the north-east are a mix of terraced and detached
dwellings which front Fakenham Road with no strong vernacular influence.
Principle of Development
The application site includes the whole of the area of land allocated for residential
development by Policy BRI27 of the adopted Site Allocations DPD. Accordingly the
principle to develop the site for housing is established. The policy indicates residential
development of up to approximately 10 dwellings, although the application submitted
proposes 18. In addition the site allocations policy indicates that the area of land in
question amounts to 0.7 Hectares. Whilst the whole allocated site is proposed for
development the allocated area now appears to account for an area of only 0.37 ha
compared to the area quoted for the allocation (0.7ha). However, subject to the
scheme complying with other Core Strategy policies and responding to its context, the
principle of 18 dwellings is acceptable.
Affordable Housing
Policy HO2 requires 50% of the dwellings to be affordable. Since the entire scheme is
general needs Affordable Housing the proposal would comply with this policy. A
S106 is necessary to secure the 50% policy requirement.
Dwelling mix and type
Policy HO1 (Dwelling mix and type) requires at least 40% of the total number of
dwellings to comprise not more than 70sqm internal floorspace and incorporate two
bedrooms or fewer; and at least 20% of dwellings to be suitable or easily adaptable for
occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled. In respect of the first part of this policy,
17 of the 18 dwellings are two bed or less, and 12 of the 18 are both two bed or less
Development Committee
6
20 February 2014
and below the 70sqm threshold (66%), as such the first part of the policy is therefore
complied with. 10 of the 18 properties (55%) are lifetime home compliant (with one
being a wheelchair design standard bungalow) and as such these would be suitable or
easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly/infirm/disabled, in accordance with the
second part of the policy.
Density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. The Council will aim to achieve
minimum indicative density of not less than 30 dwellings per hectare in Service
Villages.
The proposal is for 18 dwellings on approx. 0.37ha, and the density is therefore
approx. 48 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this is a high density, the inclusion of 8 flats
is a contributory factor in this higher density, and it would not be dissimilar to the
density of the existing single storey dwellings which lie immediately south of the site.
Furthermore given the shape of the site, only part of the development would be visible
from Church Street and this high density scheme would not therefore be easily read
with the lower densities on Church Street. Therefore whilst the scheme would in
terms of layout benefit from a reduction in a number of units, the density as proposed
would not necessarily harm the character of the surrounding area.
Layout, design and scale
The layout has been heavily driven by the access point and driveway and the shape
and restricted dimensions of the site. Whilst the layout lacks the informal, low density
approach interspersed with natural green spaces that was envisaged for the site, the
majority of the dwellings proposed appear to sit comfortably on the site and should
create a relatively unified whole. However, plots 5-7 appear very cramped and do not
relate well to one another. In this respect the scheme would be improved by a
reduction in the number of dwellings to ease these relationships.
In terms of scale, the application proposes two storey properties to the north of the site
and bungalows to the south of the site, adjacent to the existing single storey dwellings
of All Saints Close and Plumbs Close. This ensures, firstly that the relationship with
the small single storey properties to the south are acceptable with satisfactory amenity
levels, and secondly that the use of both two storey and single storey properties gives
visual interest with variety of roof form and height.
The Committee will note that in respect of the design of the dwellings, the
Conservation & Design Manager considers that subject to careful use of materials that
the new buildings should be appropriate for their surroundings and would raise no
objection to the application.
Therefore whilst the layout could be improved through a reduction in the number of
units, the design and scale of the buildings is acceptable and, on balance, it is not
considered that a refusal on the basis of a cramped form of development could be
substantiated.
Landscaping and biodiversity
The site backs on to an agricultural field but this is well contained within the village.
The site is L-shaped and sits largely to the rear of existing buildings containing flats
and the Co-Op shop and has mature hedging delineating the northern boundary of the
site. As such the site is not highly visible from wider views around the site and is not
prominent within the street scene.
Development Committee
7
20 February 2014
In respect of landscaping, the submitted landscaping scheme is lacking in detail and
the proposed blanket approach to the use of close boarded fencing needs to be reconsidered particularly on the southern and western boundaries. The existing hedge
along the site frontage is to be removed for the visibility splay and this should be
replaced as part of a landscaping scheme in addition to additional tree planting to the
site frontage. The tree planting within the site needs a more considered approach to
ensure that it satisfactorily breaks up the development. Comments are awaited from
the Council's Landscape Officer. Subject to no objections from the Landscape Officer
and the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would be acceptable in this
respect.
In respect of biodiversity, the submitted ecology and biodiversity report concludes that
the development would not result in any harm to protected species. Comments from
the Council's Landscape Officer are awaited in this respect.
Highways issues
The application proposes a single central point of access on to Church Street. The
proposed access road would be unadopted and would be constructed with permeable
block paving.
A total of 32 car parking spaces are proposed across the development and this would
accord with the Councils parking standards. The layout of the parking within the
development and the use of a parking court for the flats is less than ideal and appears
to have been an after-thought in the layout rather than being designed as an integral
part of the layout. However, subject to appropriate surfacing materials and the
Highways Authority raising no objection, it is not considered that a refusal on the
layout of the development in relation to the parking could be substantiated.
The Committee will note the comments of the Highway Authority who consider that on
this occasion the proposed private driveway is acceptable and subject to conditions
including a scheme for the management and maintenance of the private road;
appropriate visibility splays and provision of the parking and turning in accordance
with the approved plan, that the proposal is acceptable and as such would raise no
objection.
Drainage
The application indicates that surface water will be discharged on the site with the use
of soakaways and SUDs, although no precise system has been submitted. This could
be secured by way of condition to ensure that surface water drainage is contained
within the site. Comments are awaited from Environmental Health in this respect.
In respect of foul water, the application indicates connection to the mains sewer.
Anglian Water has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the waste water and
foul sewerage network for the development.
Other issues
The applicant has indicated that the dwellings would be constructed in accordance
with Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. No reference has been made
to the policy requirement of 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the
development to be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. However,
subject to a condition to ensure the 10% on-site renewable energy and the Code Level
3 compliance, the proposal would accord with Policy EN6.
In respect of land contamination, a contamination report was submitted with the
application. Comments are awaited from Environmental Health in this respect.
Development Committee
8
20 February 2014
S.106 requirements
If planning permission is to be granted for this development, a S.106 Obligation will
need to be completed to secure the following:
- The provision of affordable housing which would be the policy requirement of 50%
- £50 per dwelling towards work associated with potential increased visitor pressure
impacts on the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area and Special Area of
Conservation.
- £18,541 towards improvements to play and parks provision at the village recreation
ground.
A draft version of the S.106 is being prepared and negotiations are continuing in order
to reach final agreement.
Conclusion
Whilst the development could be improved in a number of areas including the density
and layout of the development, it is not considered that the deficiencies in the scheme
are so adverse as to substantiate a refusal and nor would the scheme result in any
adverse impact on the appearance and character of Briston. Furthermore it does
represent a reasonable opportunity to bring this allocated site forward and deliver
100% affordable dwellings.
Therefore subject to no objections from outstanding consultees, the imposition of a
number of conditions to manage the detailing of the scheme in respect of materials,
landscaping and highways etc and completion of a S.106 obligation, the proposal is,
on balance, considered to be acceptable and to accord with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:
- Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms set out
in the report.
- No new material issues being raised following receipt of outstanding consultees.
- The imposition of appropriate conditions as detailed in the report above, any
conditions requested from outstanding consultees and all other conditions considered
to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
2.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/1226 - Conversion of barn to two holiday
units; Barn at Saxthorpe Hall, Aylsham Road, Saxthorpe for Mr W Alefounder
Minor Development
- Target Date: 06 January 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a barn to two three-bed holiday units, which would involve
the raising of the roof to allow insertion of a first floor.
Development Committee
9
20 February 2014
As part of the scheme it is intended that the existing steel and tin roof would be
replaced with clay pantiles. The southern elevation wall would be re-built.
Amended plan received showing proposed area for parking and garden.
Further amended plan received to revise the design.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for negotiations
on design.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object as they believe the proposed design does not reflect the character of
Saxthorpe Hall. The Council have no objection to the proposal of using the barn for
holiday lets.
REPRESENTATIONS
None to date.
The Committee will be updated verbally on any further representations received
resulting from re-advertisement.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - The access would need to provide an improved width to
cater for two way movements associated with the vehicular use from multiple units,
this requires widening and surfacing to provide an access measuring 4.5m in width
for 5m as measured back form the carriageway.
Visibility from the site access is currently restricted by the frontage hedgerow, this
needs to be improved and maintained to provide acceptable levels of visibility.
The parking provision of 2 spaces not detailed on the plans is insufficient and does
not accord with the adopted standards.
Recommends conditions and informative notes.
Environment Agency - The site lies in a non sewer area and we accept that
connection to a main foul water sewer would be difficult and uneconomic. Connection
to a septic tank is a less favoured solution and the applicant has not provided any
evidence to demonstrate why they have not considered a private treatment plant. As
the site is not in a source protection zone it may be that the risk can be managed
through the permitting regime.
Recommends advice to applicant.
Building Control - As part of the Building Regulations application we will need full
details of the proposed septic tank prior to installation to confirm it is an adequate
size to serve the occupancy of the new dwelling, that it is correctly positioned and
that any tail drains are correctly positioned. Additionally, a percolation test may be
required to confirm the adequacy of the ground conditions and to determine the size
and extent of any drainage fields. In principle, there is no obvious reason that can be
seen from the plans submitted why a septic tank would not be suitable.
Development Committee
10
20 February 2014
Landscape - The above application is supported by a protected species survey
prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology Ltd. The survey was prepared by Suitably
Qualified Ecologists and in accordance with recognised best practice guidelines. The
survey involved a physical inspection of the building proposed for conversion looking
for signs and evidence of use by protected species; principally bats, barn owls and
nesting birds. Although the survey was carried out at a sub-optimal time of year to
identify maternity colonies of bats, it would still be possible to identify other bat
activity and use and identify the need for further survey work. The results and
conclusions of the survey are deemed sound.
The existing barn although mainly built of soft red brick has metal roof stanchions,
much block work and a profiled tin roof. The survey indicated that the building
provided little opportunities for roosting bats and no evidence of bats or bat activity
was found. Although the surrounding environment provides optimal habitat for bats,
the building itself does not. The survey notes that the adjacent hall has a brown
long-eared bat roost in the roof. The survey concluded that the impact of the
proposed conversion on bats would be neutral.
The survey did find evidence of a wren‟s nest within the building, therefore the
potential for nesting birds will need to be taken into consideration as part of the
conversion works.
Based on the information contained in the report, the Landscape section consider
that an offence under the Habitats Regulations is unlikely to occur as a result of the
development. However, due to the transient and dynamic nature of bats the Survey
makes recommendations to alert construction workers of their potential presence. In
addition, due to the potential for nesting birds to be present, further mitigation is
suggested to commence works outside of the bird breeding season. It is suggested
that recommended mitigation measures are included as condition of planning if
granted. The following condition is suggested:
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with
the protected species mitigation measures outlined in section 6 of report of the
protected species survey prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology Ltd, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Environmental Health - Recommends informative note.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Committee
11
20 February 2014
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 9: Retaining an adequate supply and mix of tourist accommodation
(specifies criteria to prevent loss of facilities).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Design and impact on Saxthorpe Hall
Highways and parking issues
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting to enable Officers
to negotiate on the design.
Principle of development
The site lies within an area of designated Countryside. The conversion of barns for
holiday use are considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
relevant Core Strategy policies.
The building is considered to be soundly built, suitable for the proposed conversion
without substantial re-building or extension and appropriate in scale and nature for
the location. It is also considered that the proposed alterations would enhance the
character of the building.
Design
The proposed amendments and extensions to the barn are considered to be
acceptable in respect of design and materials.
The existing barn does not compliment Saxthorpe Hall visually and the proposed reroofing from tin/steel roof to clay pantiles is considered to be a significant
improvement.
Following the previous Committee meeting, amended plans have been submitted to
propose revealing the rafter ends, introduce a roof overhang and vertical timber
posts, reduce the amount of glazing and introduce storm porches. It is considered
that the proposed amendments to the original scheme would improve the visual
appearance of the barn and would ensure compliance with Policy EN4 of the adopted
Core Strategy.
It is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.
Development Committee
12
20 February 2014
Highways and parking issues
In the absence of Highway objections and subject to the imposition of conditions
recommended by County Council Highway, it is considered that the proposed use of
the building would be in accordance with adopted Development Plan policies.
Amended plan received showing the area for parking.
In summary, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to
no material issues being raised following re-advertisement and re-consultation
with the Parish Council of the amended plans and subject to conditions listed
below:
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.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by
Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (location
and site plans) received by the Local Planning Authority in December 2013
and in accordance with the further amended elevations and floor plans
received by the Local Planning Authority on 3 February 2014 and does not
include the installation of any Air Source Heat Pumps.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The building subject to this permission shall be used for holiday
accommodation purposes only and shall not be used as the sole or main
residence of the occupiers.
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt and because the barn is located in an area
designated as Countryside in the North Norfolk Core Strategy where the Local
Planning Authority would not normally permit permanent residential
accommodation, in accordance with Policies SS 2, EC 10 and EC 2 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall be made available for
commercial holiday letting for at least 140 days a year and no individual let
shall exceed 31 days.
Reason:
To ensure that the accommodation is restricted to holiday use only and not
used as permanent residential accommodation in accordance with Policy EC 9
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
13
20 February 2014
5
A register of lettings, occupation and advertising shall be maintained at all
times and shall be made available for inspection to the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the accommodation is restricted to holiday use only and not
used as permanent residential accommodation in accordance with Policy EC 9
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other
alteration to the holiday units hereby permitted (including the insertion or any
further windows or rooflights) shall take place unless planning permission has
been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and
the visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7
Bricks to be used on the proposed development shall match those of the
existing building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge
satisfactorily with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Prior to their installation, details and the location of the proposed Solar PV
panels be used on the southern elevation of the holiday units hereby
permitted, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full accordance with
the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
9
Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the vehicular access
shall be widened to a minimum width of 4.5 metres in accordance with the
Norfolk County Council residential access construction specification for the first
5 metres as measured back from the near channel edge of the adjacent
carriageway. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage from the
site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge
from or onto the highway.
Reason:
In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement, in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
14
20 February 2014
10
Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any
Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gates, bollard, chain or
other means of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access
unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11
Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted a 2.0 metres wide
parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent
highway carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site‟s roadside
frontage. The parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained free from
any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway
carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
12
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted sufficient
space shall be provided within the site to enable 4 standard size family cars to
park, turn and re-enter the highway in a forward gear. This area shall be
levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with a detailed scheme submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with
the Highway Authority and retained thereafter available for that specific use.
Reason:
In the interests of satisfactory development and highway safety, in accordance
with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance
with the protected species mitigation measures outlined in section 6 of the
report of the protected species survey prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology Ltd
and dated October 2013, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the impact of the development on protected species is
appropriately mitigated in accordance with Policy EN 9 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
14
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the
building subject to this permission shall not be occupied until the measures
identified in the Sustainable Construction Checklist submitted with the planning
application have been implemented:
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
15
20 February 2014
3.
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one twostorey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills for PP3
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 October 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Archaeological Site
Settlement Boundary
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19760361 HR - Erection of dwelling
Refused 07/04/1976
PLA/19801536 HR - Erection of split level dwelling
Refused 15/12/1980
PLA/19811042 HR - Vehicular access
Refused 28/07/1981
PLA/19811415 HR - Proposed 1m wide access gate
Approved 25/09/1981
PF/13/0618 PF - Erection of five no. two-, three-, and four-storey townhouses
Withdrawn 17/07/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of two three storey dwellings and one two storey dwelling on a
steeply sloping site that lies between the Roughton Road railway bridge and halt, the
high ground of Burnt Hills (the site was formally part of the curtilage of No.1 Burnt
Hills) and the Roughton Road.
Units 1 and 3 propose bedrooms to the ground floor, all units propose living room
accommodation at first floor with unit 1 proposing study/living space at second floor
and unit 2, bedrooms and bathrooms at second floor. Unit 2 would have entrance
and utility at ground floor with parking situated beneath the first floor. Parking areas
would be provided for each unit with the main turning area/entrance forward of unit 2.
A brick and flint wall is proposed along the frontage, either side of the access onto
Roughton Road. A mixture of materials are proposed including larch cladding, red
multi stock brick and flint.
Amenity space would be provided for each of the units in a terraced format, the land
being supported by a series of retaining walls.
Amended plans received in respect of some initial errors, design matters,
section/level details and a reduction in the size of unit 3.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Lee having regard to the following planning issues:
Design, impact on neighbours amenities and highway safety.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds of overdevelopment
Development Committee
16
20 February 2014
REPRESENTATIONS
9 letters of objection have been received in total for both the original and amended
plans.
Objections to original plans:
the plans have already had to be amended before they could be considered
because of the considerable number of errors that were present
the new access has not appeared in the application form and no mention has
been made of this additional entrance on the site notices
the notices refer to Burnt Hills leading people to conclude the entrance will be
from there and not impact on Roughton Road
planning permission for vehicular access to the garden from this position has
been refused in the past since which time traffic has increased and the station is
more popular
the two bungalows opposite are not shown on the plans - is this because to show
them would highlight that the proposals would affect them?
placing a new access directly opposite existing driveways would have an impact
on safety when exiting the very steep existing driveways
the plans go against Section 3 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy
3 houses would be crammed onto an embankment which in the past has been
refused permission for 1 dwelling as the wooded area was considered an asset
to the community
visual impact of 3 storey buildings would be detrimental to the local character of
the area
overbearing impact on the very attractive bridge which is adjacent a Conservation
Area
car parking, bins and brick walls would be an unwarranted addition to what is an
attractive road
proximity of this tall linked building to the road is totally alien to anything else in
the area
all other dwellings are set back from the road with frontages of trees and hedges
which maintain a semi-rural nature
this embankment was originally planned as the frontage to the Burnt Hills Estate
detrimental effect on the privacy of residents whose properties are next to or
opposite the site
felling of the ash and sycamore has already introduced a loss of privacy as
properties are now overlooked by passengers on stationary trains at the rail halt
rail users park along the frontage of the site and more parking issues will be
created along this busy bus route
Roughton Road will soon be busier because of the permission for 145 houses
near the zoo; this will create extra demand for parking near the station
development does not improve or enhance the character and quality of the area
unfettered infilling is undesirable
two properties of more modest height would be more appropriate
detrimental in terms of additional burden on the main drainage
entrance would have poor visibility due to the rail bridge
no outdoor space will be provided
there are covenants on the land that state no building to be erected that may
constitute a nuisance or annoyance - this proposal would do both of those
the proposal should be for bungalow as that is what is in the surrounding area
development would block our view of the railway bridge
where is the dustbin storage area?
one of the 3 storey houses would be close to our boundary with direct sight into
our home
Development Committee
17
20 February 2014
Objections to amended plans
original objections in respect of overdevelopment, loss of privacy, design not in
keeping with area and highway matters still stand
the revised plans are inaccurate; I trust the errors in these plans will be rectified
and checked before any recommendations are made
nothing in the amended plans negate our original objections
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection. The on-site parking provision, is in
accordance with the requirements set out in the Core Strategy and 'Parking
Standards for Norfolk 2007'. The proposed means of access is sited centrally in the
site affording good levels of visibility along Roughton Road, which itself is wide, with
an existing footpath along the site frontage continuing on to the A140 Norwich Road
and the Town Centre, whilst accessing bus stops in close proximity. Conditions
requested.
Building Control: Ground conditions and stability: the following matters should form
part of any proposal under Building Regulations and associated legislation:
It is understood that the adjacent existing bungalows are at a higher level therefore
due consideration should be given to adequate engineer designed retaining walls
and an associated method statement to ensure stability of the existing bank and
nearby properties is not compromised by excavations. This may also be requested
by adjacent properties under the Party Wall Act.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape): No objection.
Notwithstanding other policy considerations, the landscape section does not object to
the application with respect to the impact on trees subject to the provision of a
condition securing the tree protection measures as detailed in the submitted
Arboricultural Impact Assessment.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design): Objected to
original plans This application appears to be re-submission, following the withdrawal of an
application for the development of five townhouses earlier this year.
The revised scheme endeavours to respond in an improved manner to the site
characteristics and in particular the sloping nature of it and its proximity to the railway
station and railway line. It would appear that the Landscape Officer is satisfied with
the received Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIS) but has requested a condition
be attached to any consent concerning the retention of a tree marked as T1 in the
AIS and shown in the Tree Protection Plan produced by A.T.Coombes Associates in
May.
The architectural style chosen for the dwellings still shows little „connectivity‟ with the
locality or the area in general. On this occasion however this would not be sufficient
reason to reject the application. There is no prevailing style of architecture of any
merit in the vicinity and the facing and roofing materials suggested would go some
way towards blending the development with its surroundings, giving it some
resonance with the locality and street scene. Furthermore there can be no overriding
objection the preponderant use of larch cladding for the elevations. Suitably treated
this could provide a very rich and natural „feel‟ to the development.
Development Committee
18
20 February 2014
Of more concern are the over-sized windows on the west elevation of Unit 2 and the
east elevations of all three units. There is a particularly uncomfortable arrangement
of „wall to void/window‟ on Unit 2‟s west elevation and all three units‟ east elevations.
The pattern of fenestration on the north and south elevations of the proposed
dwellings is understood, as this presumably is taking into account the public access
to the railway station and the amenity interests of nearby residents. It is assumed that
the amenity and privacy enjoyed by residents at the rear of the site have already
been considered.
Overall the new design is an improvement on the previous application. Provided the
Local Planning Authority is satisfied that there is no harm to the amenity of adjacent
properties the application could be supported in principle. The development of the
site is acceptable in terms of land-use and policy terms and accords with the relevant
Development Plan policies. Also the form, massing and layout of the development is
acceptable with a potentially interesting positioning of units and good use of the site‟s
physical characteristics. Unfortunately though there remains one major deficiency
and that lies, as mentioned above, in the treatment of elevations. Without the
applicant‟s further addressing of the points made above regarding fenestration and
unit design and some amendments the application cannot be recommended for
approval.
To conclude as the application stands there is no option other than to recommend
refusal in accordance with Policy EN4 (Design) of the adopted North Norfolk Local
Development Framework.
Response to amended plans: No objection. Overall I think the revised fenestration
and relationship of „void to wall‟ looks much improved. I note that the window in Unit
3 remains central to the gable and to the elevation and still appears a little lost. For
the scheme to be successful much will depend on the quality of the finish and the
facing materials, irrespective of precise location and dimensions of windows/doors.
My recommendation is approval, subject to some further negotiations and
agreements on the design and precise position of windows. I consider that the
general form, massing and scale of the development to be acceptable. It would make
for an interesting addition to „street scene‟ and the dwellings themselves will take
advantage of the sloping characteristics of the site. I would assume that building
construction would adequately take account of this factor.
Conditions on any approval would include the need to submit details of facing
materials and roofing, as well as windows and other joinery for Local Planning
Authority approval prior to commencement of the development.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
19
20 February 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on neighbour amenities
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a designated residential area and is within the Norfolk Coast Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) where policies SS3, EN4 and EN1 are
particularly relevant.
Policy SS3 states that in designated residential areas appropriate residential
development will be permitted. The principle of this proposal is therefore acceptable
under Policy SS3.
Policy EN1 and EN4 require that all development will be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness and that design that fails to have regard to local
context and does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will
not be accepted. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly
encouraged. In addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect
on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide
acceptable residential amenity. Development proposals that would be significantly
detrimental to the special qualities of the AONB will not be permitted.
This proposal is a revised scheme following the withdrawal of an earlier scheme for 5
dwellings which was considered by Officers as overdevelopment and which would
have been potentially harmful to the amenity of adjoining residents.
The site is steeply sloping from the west (roadside) up towards the east/south east
and sits between the Roughton Road rail halt and the high ground of Burnt Hills.
Development Committee
20
20 February 2014
Following some amendments to the revised scheme the Council's Conservation and
Design Manager considers the proposal acceptable in design terms subject to final
approval of materials. Whilst some further consideration in respect of the design and
precise positioning of windows was suggested, its is considered that amended
proposal has sufficiently addressed earlier concerns in respect of the size and
positioning of fenestration It is considered that the scale and massing of the proposal
sits comfortably within the topography of the site. The style of the dwellings obviously
differs from existing styles of the area, which mostly consist of single storey
dwellings. However, it is considered that this site 'stands alone' in the street scene
and therefore the innovative design would not be out of keeping with the character of
the surrounding area and responds well to the nature of the site. Bungalows opposite
the site are not visible in the street scene as they sit atop a steep slope and are
fronted by trees and vegetation. The proposal, within the designated residential area
is not considered to be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the wider
AONB.
In terms of neighbour impact the plans demonstrate that, notwithstanding the
proposed heights of the dwellings, because of the nature of the site and that levels
on the site would be altered by excavation, no windows would introduce overlooking
of nearby properties. The highest ridgeline of the proposed dwelling would sit
approximately level with the eaves of No.2 Burnt Hills (dwelling at rear of site), this
would ensure that views from the development look out to the proposed rear garden
areas and embankment. Likewise it is considered that the proposal would not
introduce any loss of privacy to No.1 Burnt Hills due to the differences in land levels.
In addition it is considered that the distance and height variations between the
neighbouring properties and the proposed dwellings is such that the proposal would
not introduce any overbearing impacts nor loss of light.
The proposal is considered to comply with the Design Guide amenity criteria
including the provision of outside space. In terms of Policies HO1 and HO7 the
proposal falls slightly short of the specified criteria. Policy HO1 requires schemes of 3
or 4 dwellings to provide at least one dwelling that is not more than 70sqm of internal
floor space and incorporates two bedrooms or fewer. The applicant has amended the
proposal to reduce the size of Unit 3 from approximately 99sqm of internal floor
space to approximately 78sqm, with the unit also reduced from 3 to 2 bedrooms.
Officers consider this amendment sufficient to satisfy the thrust of Policy HO1 whilst
maintaining an acceptable layout for this site. Likewise, Policy HO7 aims to achieve a
minimum density of not less than 40 dwellings per hectare in the principle
settlements. Optimising the density of a site should be done in a manner that protects
or enhances the character of the area. The proposal would achieve a density of 30
dwellings per hectare which is considered acceptable because of the topography and
location of the site.
Notwithstanding several objections from local residents on highway grounds, it is
considered that in the absence of any objection from the Highway Authority, a refusal
on highway safety grounds could not be substantiated.
In summary, it is considered that the amended proposal would not have any
significantly harmful impact on the AONB or on the general character of the area in
terms of its scale, massing or overall appearance. In addition it would not result in
overlooking or overbearing of neighbouring properties.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as amended would comply with the
policies of the Development Plan.
Development Committee
21
20 February 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to the imposition of specific conditions requested by the
Highway Authority and the Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape
Officers and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
4.
DILHAM - PO/13/1170 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent Cleavers,
Broadfen Lane for Mr & Mrs D Cowburn
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 December 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080380 PO
Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
Refused 12/05/2008
THE APPLICATION
An outline application for a single dwelling on a garden plot approximately 30m x
30m in dimensions. No matters are included for determination.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred previously for Members to visit the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support signed by 6 local residents on grounds that it would
Enhance a barren piece of land into a vibrant addition to our small community.
The agent in support of the application has submitted a statement which is attached
as Appendix 1, but to summarise the case being made is
The previous 2008 application was not determined on the merits of the case.
The application should be considered by a proper application of material
considerations which are;
1. Other gardens in Broad Fen Lane have been developed this is the only remaining
garden plot.
2. As the last garden plot in Broad Fen Lane no precedent will be created.
3. This application proposes a larger site and so precludes the possibility of a
further plot
4. Two plots in Broad Fen Lane were approved in 1993 when the Countryside
Policy was already established in the emerging North Norfolk Local Plan. Those
dwellings were subsequently built by 1998.
5. There have been no recorded accidents attributable to the road network.
6. Localism - Parish support for development.
Development Committee
22
20 February 2014
CONSULTATIONS
Highways The Highways Authority is aware that there was a highway objection to the earlier
identical application (20080380) on this site, this being on grounds of the unsuitability
of the narrow, poorly aligned approach roads to the site to cater for any further
vehicular use resulting from new development.
Having re-inspected the site there is no reason to change the previous view. The
approach roads to the site being in the main of approximately 3.5m width with substandard junctions and poor forward visibility. No formal vehicular passing places or
pedestrian facilities are available.
With regard to the applicant's agents comments regarding highway matters and the
Highway Authority would respond that the fact that no accidents have been recorded
on surrounding rural roads is fortunate and reflects the countryside location and
existing very low number of traffic movements. Any new development, however
small, will increase the number of vehicular movements and increase the likelihood of
accidents and highway inconvenience occurring.
Additionally the site is remote from service facilities without good access to public
transport and pedestrian facilities. The expectation would therefore be that occupiers
of this proposed new dwelling would be highly reliant on the use of the car for
everyday trips contrary to transport sustainability objectives.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of residential development within the Countryside policy area and other
material considerations.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the meeting of the 19 December 2013 for a
Committee Site Visit.
Development Committee
23
20 February 2014
The application site is located on Broad Fen Lane outside of the main village of
Dilham which is not a settlement selected for development. It is therefore located in
the Countryside policy area (Policy SS 2) where there is a presumption against new
market housing unless other material planning considerations are felt to outweigh this
policy objection.
An outline application for a new dwelling on the site was refused in May 2008 under
Local Plan policies as being outside of any area as selected for development and
detrimental to Highway safety. In the Local Plan Dilham was a village selected for
development, Broad Fen Lane however being a little detached from the main body of
the village the application site was excluded from the development boundary
The local Member in referring the application to Committee has quoted Paragraph
187 of the National Planning Policy Framework as relevant to this application.
Paragraph 187 states;
Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and
decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable
development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with
applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and
environmental conditions of the area.
The Council has an up to date, sustainably led, Core Strategy that remains broadly in
line with the National Planning Policy Framework. With the adopted planning policy
being a significant material consideration the ability to work proactively with a
proposal that is contrary to such as policy is very limited. Moreover, the statement
requires the developments should improve conditions for the area. The benefit to the
applicants is personal and clear, however, any benefits of the proposed development
to the area are far less apparent or certain. Furthermore, the agent is not claiming
that the proposed dwelling falls into any of the housing exceptions categories set out
in Policy SS2 or the National Planning Policy Framework as explained below.
Although the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration it
clarifies the primary status of the Development Plan as paragraph 12 states it 'does
not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for
decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan
should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused
unless other material considerations indicate otherwise'. Furthermore, the National
Planning Policy Framework is a material planning consideration and on the subject of
rural housing it emphasises the point that new housing should be sustainable and in
paragraph 55 states ' Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in
the countryside unless there are special circumstances'.
Those special
circumstances include; the essential need for a rural workers dwelling, the optimal
viable use of a heritage asset, the re-use redundant or disused buildings and the
exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. None of the
special circumstances are considered to apply to this proposal.
Instead the agent's case for development looks at three other material
considerations; firstly the 1993 approvals for two dwellings in Broad Fen Lane.
Those applications were approved since the Countryside policy was originally
established in the emerging Local Plan. Secondly, the poor quality of the highway
network has not resulted in accidents and it is unlikely a single dwelling would be
significantly detrimental. The Highway Authority have considered this and continued
to object.
Thirdly, local support for the new development including the Parish
Council. Though it should be noted the Parish Council have not explained the
reasons for the support, officers consider that the localism issue has not be
substantiated.
Development Committee
24
20 February 2014
Consequently it is considered that none of material considerations put forward in
support of the application are of sufficient weight as to outweigh the primary material
consideration that the proposal is contrary to the adopted Core Strategy and the
National Planning Policy Framework.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
The proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of development in the Countryside
policy area where there is a general presumption against residential development. It
is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that there are
material considerations to justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this
case or that compliance with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy
Framework has been achieved.
In addition the road network (Broad Fen Lane (U19235/Staithe Lane (U19236)/Oak
Road ((U19234) ) serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the
development proposed, by reason of its poor alignment, restricted width, lack of
passing provision and restricted visibility at adjacent road junctions. The proposal, if
permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the adopted Development
Plan polices SS 2 and CT 5 and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
5.
FAKENHAM - PO/13/1380 - Erection of three dwellings; Beech House, 1 Hayes
Lane for Mr & Mrs R Gordon
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 January 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Housing
Conservation Area
Flood Risk Zone 2 including Climate Change
Unclassified Road
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071081 PF - Erection of single-storey extension and extension of boundary
wall
Approved 29/08/2007
DE21/13/0098 ENQ - Erection of Three Dwellings
THE APPLICATION
Seeks Outline Planning Permission to erect three dwellings (one detached and two
semi-detached). The proposed dwellings would be located within the rear garden of
Beech House.
Development Committee
25
20 February 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Considered for a site visit at a previous meeting and at the request of Cllr A
Claussen-Reynolds and Cllr R Reynolds having regard to the following planning
issues:
1) Effects on the character and appearance of a Conservation Area
2) Issues relating to highway safety
TOWN COUNCIL
Fakenham Town Council has no objection or comment to the proposal
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection have been received on the following grounds (summarised):
Poor visibility at the junction of driveway and Hayes Lane
Hayes Lane, and the adjacent Nelson Road and Butchers Lane are very
congested with parked cars making visibility difficult
Access drive not considered of adequate width to accommodate the extra volume
of traffic - resulting in vehicles reversing onto the highway
Beech House is a dominate property on the street scene and the alteration to the
corner of the property, which is in a Conservation Area, will cause irreparable
damage to such a distinctive property
Beech House is one of a handful of historic houses in Fakenham and the garden
is an integral part of the property
The development of Beech House garden will not only adversely affect Beech
House itself but the whole of the surrounding area
A property of the stature of Beech House requires a garden proportionate to the
size of the dwelling
Without an appropriate sized garden the future of Beech House, as a single
dwelling, is placed in jeopardy as without a garden the house could be converted
into flats.
That Beech House lies within the development boundary should not mean illconceived proposals should be approved
Potential overlooking
The proposed access to the dwellings would be directly opposite a property in
Olive Fisher Court resulting in vehicle headlights shining into the objector's living
room
The loss of trees, as a result of the development, would have a negative impact
on the resident bat population
Three letters of support have been received (summarised)
At a time of pressing need for housing applications of this nature should be
encouraged
The low density nature of the proposal is to be commended
The development would not put existing facilities under pressure, quite the
contrary it would support local facilities and services
Hayes Lane and Nelson Road have low traffic volumes and are subject to a 20
mph speed limit; the additional housing would not significantly change the current
situation
CONSULTATIONS
Fakenham Town Council: No objection or comment
County Council Highway Authority: The access to the private driveway via Hayes
Lane is inadequate and needs to be 4.5 metres in width and this width would need to
Development Committee
26
20 February 2014
be maintained for the first 5 metres back from the carriageway edge. However,
subject to the access widening, visibility and parking being in accordance with the
required standards the County Council Highway Authority has no sustainable reason
to raise any highway objections.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): Object to
the proposal on the grounds that it would cause harm to the elegant, classically
designed façade of a mid-19th century dwelling which makes a significant
contribution to the Fakenham Conservation Area. To take away one of its corners
and introduce a corbelled splay would seriously undermine the inherent symmetry
within the façade. Moreover, this would introduce a feature more commonly reserved
for vernacular buildings. Similarly, Conservation and Design object to the demolition
and rebuilding of the property's northeast perimeter wall. Therefore, with no obvious
public benefits to outweigh the identified harm, and with the access alterations
seemingly a necessary part of serving the proposed building plots it is recommended
that this application should be refused in accordance with Para 134 of the NPPF and
Policy EN8 of the LDF.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): Object to the proposal
due to the adverse impact the development would have on important amenity trees
and also due to the inaccuracy of the information contained within the application
pertaining to the trees. The submitted Arboricultural Implications Study and Tree
Survey falls short of what is required by British Standards (BS5837). The Root
Protection Areas (RPA) do not correspond with the calculations made in the Tree
Survey, in particular Tree 27 (Sweet Chestnut) has a calculated RPA of 13.2m based
on a stem diameter of 1.1m yet measures only 4m on the plan. The RPA of tree 27
extends into all plots and the driveway, therefore the impact of the proposed
development on this tree alone would be significant and highly detrimental.
Furthermore, the Arboricultural Report does not take into consideration the shading
implications of the trees surrounding the site. The plots would be cast in shade for a
significant portion of the day due to the location of the trees on the south and easterly
boundaries. This would create significant liveability issues in the dwelling, particularly
plots 2 and 3 and ultimately result in requests to remove the trees.
The trees are an important element of the landscape element of the local landscape,
help break up the built development in the area and are contemporary with the house
and subsidiary buildings. If the development was approved and the trees
subsequently removed, the local landscape character would change dramatically and
an important public asset lost.
Although the application is for outline approval for access only with all other matters
reserve, it is considered that the proposed development for three dwellings would not
be possible within the confines of the site boundaries with the retention of the
important amenity trees. It is recommended that the application is refused in
accordance with the policy requirements of EN4.
Norfolk Fire Service: Request that given the sites location and distance from the
existing infrastructure a condition would need to be imposed requesting the
installation of a fire hydrant on the site
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
27
20 February 2014
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of Development
Highway Safety
Effects on the character and appearance of a Conservation Area
Scale of development in relation to impact on trees
Impact on neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
A Member site visit has been undertaken in respect of this proposal. The site is
located within a residential area of Fakenham within which the principle of erecting
new dwellings is acceptable, thus, in terms of policies SS1, SS3 and SS8 the
proposal complies with the adopted Core Strategy and paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
The development site forms a substantial portion of what is currently the rear garden
to Beech House, which is outside the Conservation Area. The house itself lies within
the Fakenham Conservation area and is an elegant mid-19th century dwelling with
well-balanced architectural detailing based upon precise classical principles. Despite
the development site per se lying outside the conservation area due to highway
safety issues the site can only be developed following structural changes to Beech
House. (The access driveway runs adjacent to the house).
The County Council Highway Authority considers that the existing arrangements at
the junction between the access drive and Hayes Lane is, due to the substandard
width of access and restricted levels of visibility to the west, unsuitable for any
intensification of use. However, subject to the access being widened and visibility
and parking being in accordance with the required standards the highway authority
has no sustainable reason to raise any highway objections.
Development Committee
28
20 February 2014
In order to achieve the access improvements the applicant proposes to demolish a
section of Beech House's northeast gable and part of the property's garden wall
(north and east elevations). The proposed demolition has generated several
objections from the general public and the Conservation and Design Officer.
However, as regrettable as the demolition is, recent changes to legislation have
removed the need for specific Conservation Area consent for demolition of the scale
proposed. Permitted Development Orders permits demolition which is less than 50%
of any one elevation, thus the demolition of the corner and perimeter wall of Beech
House is Permitted Development and is something over which the Council as Local
Planning Authority has no control.
Members will note the significant concerns raised by the Landscape Officer regarding
the ability to develop the site as proposed without significant detrimental impacts on
important amenity trees.
In response to the Landscape Officer‟s concerns a site visit was held between the
Landscape Officer, Planning Officer and the applicants' architect and landscape
architect. Following discussions at the site it was agreed that an updated
Arboricultural report to BS5837:2012 standards, incorporating a tree survey and Tree
Constraints Plan would be submitted to the LPA. The Landscape officer also
suggested that it would be useful to have any specialist construction methods that
may be required to implement the scheme without damaging the trees, as well as an
indication of any necessary removal, re-planting or landscape treatments.
At the time of writing this report, that further information is awaited. Members will be
updated orally.
Notwithstanding the objections received in respect of potential impacts on the
amenities of nearby residential properties, the indicative layout indicates an
arrangement which, subject to careful detailed designs in respect of window positions
etc could be acceptable in terms of loss of privacy and other amenity issues.
At the time of writing this report, the application details have failed to demonstrate
that the site could be developed satisfactorily in relation to the potential impacts on
important amenity trees and has to be recommended for refusal and accordingly is
contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegate to the Head of Planning to REFUSE the application on the basis that
the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development will not have a
significantly adverse impact on important amenity trees.
6.
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1463 - Erection of attached two-storey dwelling; Site
adjacent 11 Greenway Lane for Mr J Ward
Minor Development
- Target Date: 17 February 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Development Committee
29
20 February 2014
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030399 PF - Extension and conversion to provide two dwellings
Refused 06/05/2003
PLA/20031781 PF - Erection of extension and conversion of dwelling to provide
two dwellings
Approved 22/12/2003
PLA/20060705 PF - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of eight dwellings
Withdrawn 26/06/2006
PLA/20070112 PF - Erection of first floor side extension
Approved 12/03/2007
PLA/20070171 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling with accommodation in
roofspace
Withdrawn 23/10/2007
PLA/20070699 PF - Demolition of garage buildings and erection of 7 dwellings
Approved 15/06/2007
PLA/20080381 PF - Demolition of two dwellings and erection of four two-storey
terraced dwellings
Withdrawn 06/05/2008
PLA/20081008 PF - Demolition of two dwellings and erection of four two-storey
terraced dwellings
Approved 05/08/2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of an attached two storey dwelling.
The proposed dwelling would create a new end terrace to an existing row of six two
storey dwellings. Four of which were approved under application reference 08/1008.
The proposed dwelling would measure approximately 5.5m x 6.3m and 7m in height
to the ridge. The property would consist of two bedrooms. The joinery proposed
would be white PVC-U with a traditional Norfolk pantiled roof to match the adjoining
dwellings. The external walls are proposed to be painted render in a light green
colour.
Vehicular access is proposed off Claypit Lane to the west of the site with parking to
the rear (north). There would be a garden area to the north and east of the proposed
dwelling.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is related to an elected Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object. The Town Council is an adjacent landowner of the allotments and therefore
declares an interest in this application. The Council is concerned that any
development will undermine the bank alongside the allotments. It is vital that a
retaining wall should be built of sufficient strength and height alongside the allotment
area to prevent subsidence and this should be made a condition if approval is
granted.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions following the receipt
of amended plans indicating the provision of the vehicular access, visibility splays
and turning facilities as requested.
Development Committee
30
20 February 2014
Environmental Health - No objection. Advisory note required.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Residential Policy Area of Fakenham, where the
principle of new and appropriate residential development is acceptable providing it
accords with other relevant Development Plan policies.
The proposed dwelling would create a seventh dwelling to this row of terrace
properties. It would measure approximately 200mm higher than the ridge of the
adjoining terrace property. However, this reflects the slight change in the gradient of
Greenway Lane which increases when travelling eastwards. The existing four terrace
dwellings approved under application reference 08/1008 stand approximately 200mm
higher than what are the two original terrace properties. The height of the row of
terrace dwellings therefore increases eastwards. The design of the proposed
dwelling is in keeping with that of the other terrace properties. Dwellings 1 and 3 are
painted cream, 5 and 7 are painted blue render and 9 and 11 are brick. The plans
indicate that the external walls of the proposed dwelling would be a light green
painted render. The exact colour can be conditioned. The proposed dwelling would
have a larger garden area than the existing dwellings which only have a small area to
the rear (north). The proposed dwelling would also have some garden to the east.
Development Committee
31
20 February 2014
The relationship to the surrounding properties is considered to be acceptable with the
neighbouring dwellings to the south, on the opposite side of Greenway Lane to the
site, being some 25m away. There is a bus depot directly to the north and
immediately to the east and north east there is a steep bank leading to higher ground
where there are allotments.
The Town Council have objected to the application on the grounds that they have
concerns that any development would undermine the bank to the east which is
alongside the allotment area owned by the Town Council. The Town Council are
seeking a condition requiring that a retaining wall be constructed. However, it is
considered that this is a land ownership issue outside the control of planning
legislation and that any works of the nature proposed by the Town Council would be
addressed through the Building Regulations process.
Following the receipt of amended plans the Highway Authority have raised no
objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact upon the character of the area. The proposal is considered to be in
accordance with Development Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the following conditions;
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later
than the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this
permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section
51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2.This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plan (drawing
number: 01 Rev C) received by the Local Planning Authority on 29 January
2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. Notwithstanding the details submitted details of the external colour finish to
the render shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to its application. The development shall be completed in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of the
dwelling hereby permitted and no building, structure or means of enclosure
Development Committee
32
20 February 2014
within the curtilage of the dwelling shall be erected unless planning permission
has been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions and other structures within the curtilage must be controlled for the
benefit of the residential and the visual amenities of the locality, and in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. Prior to any works commencing on site the vehicular access shall be
retained in the position shown on the approved plan (drawing number: 01 Rev
C) and thereafter, in accordance with the highway specification (Dwg. No.
TRAD 1). Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be
intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or
onto the highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous
material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy
CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6. Prior to any works commencing on site the visibility splay measuring 25m X
2.4m shall be provided to each side of the access where it meets the highway
and such splays shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction
exceeding 1.05m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the
proposed access, on-site car parking and turning area shall be laid out,
demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved
plan and retained thereafter available for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7.
RUNTON - PF/13/1177 - Continued use of land as garden/storage and retention
of vehicular access, gates and fencing and the excavation of soil; Land
adjacent Sunray, Thains Lane, East Runton for Mr S Withers
Minor Development
- Target Date: 19 December 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
Development Committee
33
20 February 2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the continued use of the land as a garden and storage area and the retention
of vehicular access, gates and fencing. The land has also been excavated to allow
the vehicular access.
The gates are approximately 2.5m wide by 2.3m high.
The applicant has confirmed that the use of the land is for personal use only with no
commercial or business use.
Amended plans have been received to indicate the removal of the sections of fencing
above the gates and grade the sections of fencing on either side of the gates at an
angle down to the gates and to introduce planting to the banks.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for Members to visit the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to this application in its present form. It is out of keeping with the
pathway/quiet country lane. Normal fencing and a gate would suffice.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 representations have been received, comprising 3 objections and 1 support.
Objections (summarised)
This is a new access. Access should be erased and land returned to condition it
was prior to this unauthorised development;
Not required. Blight on the landscape. More modest intervention proposed.
Proposed that existing bank and rustic gates appropriate to area would be
appropriate to the area if required. Incompatible with proportions of bank, soft
landscape adjacent and North Norfolk Coast;
Ruined quiet, enclosed atmosphere of lane which only accesses two cottages
and provides a path through an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
Planning Policy in this location is for no further development that would lead to
increased traffic exiting onto the A149 Coast Road;
This application provides parking bays for two cars and a boat which would
breach policy;
No objection to principle of garden or amenity use for the land nor some sort of
discreet access off Thains Lane (preferably pedestrian). However, lane is an
ancient track providing link between East and West Runton and is ingrained
within the landscape.
Support (summarised)
Removal of hedging and erection of fence set back from roadway would help to
alleviate problems with delivery and emergency vehicles negotiating the lane and
getting access to property;
Building of sandbag wall prevents bank washing away.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - I am able to comment that in relation to highways
issues only, as this proposal is not for an access onto the adopted highway and does
not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic, that Norfolk County
Council does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.
Development Committee
34
20 February 2014
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Response to amended
plans: The amended plans indicate that the fencing above the gates will be removed
and the adjoining fence panels graded down to the height of the gates, as requested
in my previous correspondence. Furthermore, the plans illustrate the planting of ivy
and bramble above the sandbags and below the fence also as suggested. It is
considered that these amendments diminish the impact of the proposals to an
acceptable level and within the policy requirements of EN4 and therefore
Conservation, Design and Landscape remove any previous objection.
I would reiterate the need to remove permitted development rights with respect to
structures.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Design
3. Impact on the Lane, Undeveloped Coast and adjacent Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
4. Highway Issues
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting to enable Members
to visit the site.
Development Committee
35
20 February 2014
Principle of Development
In terms of Policy SS2, the proposed development does not strictly fall under one of
the activities permitted. The applicant has stated, however, that the land was used by
the previous owners of the adjacent property as garden. As such, it is considered that
the use is acceptable in this instance.
Design
The applicant has made the changes mentioned above to improve the scheme,
including the removal of the fencing above the access gates. The applicant has also
agreed to grade the fencing down to the gates, although this is something over which
the Local Planning Authority does not have control, as the General Permitted
Development Order allows the erection of fencing up to 2m in height in this instance.
As such, in terms of enclosure, the Local Planning Authority are only able to consider
the retention of the access gate, which, at 2.3m high are only 0.3m higher than could
be erected without planning permission.
It is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
Having regard to the amendments that have been made to the scheme, Officers
consider that the development is now compliant with Policy EN 4 of the adopted Core
Strategy.
Impact on the Lane, Undeveloped Coast and adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty
Given the size of the site and given that it is fairly well-screened, it is not considered
that the scheme as amended would have a significant detrimental impact on the rural
character and appearance of the wider landscape, Undeveloped Coast or adjacent
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Highway Issues
In the absence of Highway objections, it is not considered that the application could
be refused on Highway Safety grounds.
On the basis of the amended proposals the development would accord with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
1
Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision, the works shall be completed in
strict accordance with the amended plans, received by the Local Planning
Authority on 8 January 2014
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by
Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The land in question hereby approved shall be used as domestic garden area
only and shall not be used for any commercial or business use whatsoever.
Reason:
The building lies within an area of designated Countryside, where the Local
Planning Authority wishes to retain control of the use of the building in
accordance with Policies SS 2 and CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
36
20 February 2014
3
Notwithstanding details indicated on the originally submitted BLOCK PLAN
and the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting
that Order with or without modification) no garden shed, greenhouse,
summerhouse, garage or similar domestic outbuilding or additional means of
enclosure shall be erected within the area of land subject to this permission
unless planning permission has been first granted by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
In order to safeguard the character of the countryside in accordance with
Policy EN 2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8.
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1101 - Erection of first and second floor side extension
with rear balcony above first floor extension and installation of two dormer
windows; Westcliffe House, 17 Victoria Street for Mr & Mrs Kirkham
- Target Date: 08 November 2013
Case Officer: Miss E Reed
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20081500 PF - Erection of single-storey extension with balcony above
Approved 22/12/2008
PLA/19860807 PF - Formation of small flat
Approved 04/07/1986
THE APPLICATION
The amended plans seek to provide a first and second floor side extension and a first
floor rear extension with a balcony above. The proposal also seeks to install two
dormer windows on the east elevation and other fenestration changes. The original
plans included a front first floor balcony but this has now been withdrawn.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for Members to visit the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds that it is a major alteration with the visual aspect creating
overlooking and out of keeping with immediate dwellings.
REPRESENTATIONS
17 letters of objection have been received in total for both the original and amended
plans.
Comments on original plans:
Loss of privacy as a result of the rear balcony
Detrimental impact on the Conservation Area
Out of keeping in terms of scale and style
Will overlook kitchen window and bathroom roof light of 17 West Cliff
Will reduce the daylight into the communal garden
Development Committee
37
20 February 2014
The plans are poorly defined and not a true representation of the impact on
the adjoining properties
The plans are inaccurate with a great deal of ambiguity
The front balcony will impact on the privacy of 15 Victoria Street
Will alter an attractive street scene and an iconic public view
Will provoke complex private property rights
Issues of overlooking, access over the garden, drainage, overuse of
communal garden
No balustrade is shown on the plans for the front balcony
Will set a precedent for overriding the aims of objectives of the Conservation
Area policy
The porthole to be removed and replaced with French doors on the south
elevation is an iconic view
Following re-advertisement of amended plans, the following comments were
received:
The proposal is still inappropriate within a Conservation Area and excessively
large and thus oppressive, overbearing and visually intrusive.
Constitutes an invasion of privacy for 5 households by blocking sunlight and
daylight into the communal rear garden area.
The two buildings will merge instead of having unique identities.
The skyline views of the street will be detrimentally impacted upon
Will dominate the smaller and original adjacent flint cottages
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design Officer:
The site lies within the heart of the designated Sheringham Conservation Area.
Westcliffe House by virtue of its age, form, detailing and materials makes a
significant contribution to the prevailing character of the area. The building also holds
a prominent position within the public domain, fronting directly onto the promenade.
In regards to the proposal, the building has already been altered with the addition of
a rear extension, a large dormer window and numerous areas of hard cement render.
With this in mind the building is not sacrosanct to further change or adaptation.
The principle of extending the rear hip and reforming a gable end to fill the void
between the building and neighbouring dwelling raises no heritage course for
concern.
The long window proposed on the south elevation will be a bold addition and will
stand out as a contemporary addition, however there is no overriding cause for
concern; it sits relatively comfortably within the space.
In the event of the application being approved the following conditions should be
attached:Prior to their use on site, details of the brick and tiles shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA, the works shall then be carried out in strict
accordance with the approved plans.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
38
20 February 2014
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Impact on neighbour amenities
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for the Committee to
carry out a site visit.
This proposal seeks to provide a first and second floor side extension with a first floor
rear extension with a balcony above. The proposal also seeks to install two dormer
windows on the east elevation. Amended plans were submitted with changes in
designs, the most notable being the omission of a front balcony and retention of an,
albeit larger, porthole window on the east elevation.
The site is located within the Sheringham Settlement Boundary, where this form of
development could be acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant
Development Plan policies. The site also lies within the Sheringham Conservation
Area, where proposals should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
the area.
The dwelling is a three storey building that is currently split into two flats, but will be
reverting back to one dwelling. The south elevation faces onto Victoria Street with the
east elevation facing the promenade. There is a communal garden to the rear that is
shared by approximately six properties.
The proposal would see the existing dwelling extended westwards by approximately
1.3m and infill the gap between the host dwelling and the neighbouring 15 Victoria
Street. It is also being extended by approximately 2.3m to the rear. The rear
extension would be placed above an existing lean to extension. The balcony would
then be placed above this rear extension.
The materials proposed are painted render (colour of which is yet to be agreed) with
clay pantiles and a flat roof. These are considered to be acceptable and in keeping
with the surrounding area.
Development Committee
39
20 February 2014
On the plans it is indicated that several existing windows are being changed from
PVCu to powder coated aluminium. This is considered to be an improvement to the
existing dwelling and the streetscape.
It is not considered that the scale of the proposed extension would dominate the
original building, nor harm its architectural character. Although the dwelling is an
important building within the streetscene, it is considered that the proposals would
not be significantly detrimental to the building or the wider area. The proposal is
considered to be acceptable and compliant with the aims of Policy EN8 which aims to
preserve and enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
In terms of overlooking and impact on neighbouring amenity, there are several new
windows being proposed, as well as a balcony to the rear. However, it should be
noted that due to the nature of these properties and that they share a communal
garden, they already share a close relationship with one another.
The two new dormer windows, enlarged porthole and existing window being changed
to a door to provide access to the existing balcony on the east elevation are not
considered to lead to any significant issues of overlooking due to them facing the
promenade and not directly any neighbouring dwellings.
On the south elevation there is a large window proposed in the side extension as well
as a roof light. It is considered that as the large window will serve the staircase, as
well as complying with the Basic Amenity Criteria, that these are acceptable.
On the north elevation, a window serving a bedroom in the first floor rear extension
and a window serving a bedroom on the second floor are proposed. Although these
will look over the communal garden, as the host dwelling is set back from the main
communal area, it is considered that these are unlikely to cause significantly
additional detrimental issues of overlooking.
On the west elevation a window is proposed to be lengthened. In order for this
window to be considered acceptable, and to prevent access onto the flat roof above
the porch, this window should be unopenable. With regard to overlooking, as this
window already exists and does not look directly at any other window, it is considered
acceptable. There are also double doors proposed on the west elevation in order to
gain access to the rear balcony. These are also considered to be acceptable.
Although the proposed rear balcony will look over the communal garden, it is
considered that as the host dwelling is set back within the communal garden, this is
unlikely to cause significantly detrimental issues of overlooking.
The development is considered acceptable and accords with adopted Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including,
unopenable window on the west elevation, and render colour and bricks and
tiles to be submitted and agreed.
Development Committee
40
20 February 2014
9.
SLOLEY - PF/13/1481 - Conversion of workshop and store to two residential
dwellings; Woodstock, Low Street for Mr F Reader
- Target Date: 10 February 2014
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19991362 PF - Conversion of two former pig units into two holiday cottages
Refused 10/12/1999
PF/13/0423 PF - Change of use of workshop/store to residential dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 23/07/2013
THE APPLICATION
To change the use of a curtilage building currently used for the applicant's electrical
business into two two-bedroom dwellings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Ivory having regard to the following planning issue(s):
The Council does not have a five year land supply and so the Development Plan is
out of date. The benefits of providing smaller units for young families and the
contribution the proposal can make to the five year land supply are significant
benefits.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
A Planning Statement received from the agent is reproduced as Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways - If the commercial traffic from the electrical business is to cease then the
Highways Authority does not consider the proposal represents any detriment to
highway safety.
Planning Policy Manager - The Council is currently unable to demonstrate that it has
an adequate five year land supply. In such circumstances the NPPF states that the
development plan should be regarded as out of date in respect of housing provision
and a presumption in favour of sustainable residential development should apply. In
this case neither Sloley or Tunstead are identified in the Core Strategy as sustainable
locations for growth. Policy HO 9, reviewed following the publication of the NPPF,
allows for the conversion of buildings in the Countryside policy area to housing
provided the building in question is considered „worthy of retention‟. The conversion
of poor quality buildings, where there is no architectural, historical or landscape value
in their retention would represent an unsustainable form of development and
consequently the NPPF presumption if favour of sustainable development is not
complied with.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
41
20 February 2014
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Merit of retaining the building to be converted.
APPRAISAL
The property known as Woodstock is a dwelling set within substantial grounds, which
it appears historically formed a small holding. The site is set within the Countryside
policy area along a narrow, single lane road outside the small hamlet of Sloley. The
buildings proposed to be converted are located to the left and rear of the main
dwelling but would share its access. The proposal is not a conventional subdivision
of a garden plot as the site as outlined in the application would be surrounded by the
applicant's garden.
Policy HO 9 sets out the tests as to whether a building is suitable for its conversion
and re-use as a dwelling. Although it is normally desirable for commercial uses to be
retained wherever possible in this case the applicant is semi-retired and the highway
network in the vicinity of the site is very poor, therefore, other than holiday
accommodation this is not considered to be a suitable location for a commercial use
potentially generating higher levels of vehicular activity. Therefore the loss of the
commercial element is not considered as a reason to refuse the application.
Another crucial test is whether the building is worthy of retention due to its
appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value. According to the submitted
Planning Statement the building was constructed in 2000 of concrete block cavity
wall with a concrete pantile roof and domestic style UPVC windows. Though it
transpires from the Council aerial photographic records that the eastern half of the
building has been completely reconstructed since June 2010. It is a long functional
building with rendered exterior walls and a pantile roof of which each half is
constructed of different coloured concrete pantiles. The UPVC windows are domestic
in appearance. In terms of its existing appearance it is a functional building that is
considered to have little merit to commend its retention. Although the planning
statement explains the internal works to make it habitable, no external changes are
proposed that would enhance the appearance of the building.
Development Committee
42
20 February 2014
Regarding the 5 year land supply the response from the Planning Policy Manager to
this issue is reported above. He advises that in determining planning applications
where there is no 5 year land supply the National Planning Policy Framework
introduces a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Although the
National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration it clarifies the primary
status of the Development Plan as paragraph 12 states it 'does not change the
statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making.
The adopted Core Strategy is the starting point, and in particular Policy SS 1, in
setting out the sequential hierarchy of sustainable locations for housing including
conversions. Sloley, as a small Countryside village, lacking in services , is not
viewed as a sustainable location.
The 'worthy of retention' approach to building conversions is supported by Paragraph
17: Core Planning Principles of the National Planning Policy Framework which states
planning should 'always seek to secure high quality design'.
This policy approach and design standards to be applied is supported in terms of
both the Council's Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework by a
recent appeal decision which is reproduced as Appendix 2.
In relation to this specific proposal the Council's approved approach to rural building
conversions (produced after the publication of the National Planning Policy
Framework) basically states that isolated conversions in the Countryside would
represent unsustainable development by virtue of the buildings location and would
only represent sustainable development if the building is „worthy of retention‟.
Notwithstanding the lack of a 5 year land supply the development is not considered
to be a sustainable form of development and is therefore contrary to the National
Planning Policy Framework and the provisions of the Development Plan.
For these reasons the proposal fails to comply with the policies of the Development
Plan and refusal is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse
The site lies in an area defined as Countryside in the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy, is remote from day to day services and is outside of the areas defined in
revised policy HO9 as suitable locations for residential conversions. The building is
not considered worthy of retention due to its appearance, historical, architectural or
landscape value. The provisions of residential accommodation within such a building
in this location would constitute an unsustainable form of development contrary to the
stated objectives of the adopted Core Strategy and National Planning Policy
Framework. There are no other material considerations sufficient to justify a
departure from policy.
10.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1393 - Erection of replacement detached
garage with storage above; Stonipatch, Jolly Sailor Yard for Dr S Alexander
- Target Date: 15 January 2014
Case Officer: Mr C Mohtram
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Area
Development Committee
43
20 February 2014
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
The original proposal was for the erection of a replacement detached garage with
storage space above. The application was subsequently amended with the storage
space positioned to the south of the garage (to form an 'L' shaped building) as
opposed to being above it which has enabled its height to be reduced. The roof of
the garage will be hipped, sloping away from the adjacent property of East Haven to
the north. The proposal is positioned in the north eastern corner of Jolly Sailors Yard,
sitting a metre away from the boundary of the adjacent property. It will be constructed
of brick walls and roof pantiles to match host property, with timber doors and a velux
type rooflight on the east elevation. A gravel driveway will serve as hard standing and
vehicle access as it is currently.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the requests of both Councillors Terrington and Savoy with regard to the planning
matters; design impact on neighbouring properties, form and character of the area.
TOWN COUNCIL
No comment
REPRESENTATIONS
7 Letters of objection (to original amended plans) have been received in total from
two objectors, main points raised:
Height of the planned garage would overshadow and block out light to adjacent
property
Garage not in keeping with surrounding properties design wise and scale
Existing garage is constructed of asbestos material, concerned when removal
occurs.
Requests a Members' site visit.
Would object to a lower mono-pitched roof.
Has submitted sketches and photographs to seek to demonstrate the potential
loss of light.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Officer
In relation to Highways issues the proposal does not affect current traffic patterns or
the free flow of traffic, North Norfolk Country Council does not wish to restrict the
grant of consent.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
44
20 February 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1.Design
2. Impact on neighbour amenities
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The site lies within the residential area of Wells next to Sea and therefore applicable
to Policy SS1, of which it is acceptable under as a proposed new garage and storage
area.
Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Given the size of the proposal, its position in a residential area and given that it is
fairly well screened, it is not considered that the scheme as amended would have a
significant detrimental impact on the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
Design
The first plans submitted for the proposal did not comply with the basic amenity
criteria in the Design Guide, the garage was situated close to border of the adjacent
property East Haven, approximately 0.5m away which has facing windows.
Furthermore, its height was 5.5m which was considered too high, which would lead
to issues in regards to loss of light and overbearing impact going against Policy EN4.
An amended plan was submitted showing a reduction in height, the roof was also
hipped, lessening the visual impact upon the adjacent property. Following further
discussion it was amended again to site the garage further 0.5m away from the
boundary of the neighbouring property, making it 1m in total, this would help to
reduce visual impact and create less overshadowing. It also needs to be borne in
mind that there is currently an existing garage that occupies the site, this is
positioned at an angle to the adjacent property and not horizontal as the proposal will
be, however it highlights an existing relationship between the garage and the
adjacent property of East Haven in the North.
The design and siting are now considered to be acceptable and the proposal accords
with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to a condition referring to the amended plans and all other
conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
45
20 February 2014
11.
WITTON – PO/13/1113 – Demolition of industrial building and erection of two
one and a half storey dwellings; Workshop at Ash Tree Farm, Well Street for
Mrs C Leggett
Background
This application was considered by Development Committee on 19 December 2013,
a copy of the report presented to that Committee is attached as Appendix 3 together
with a copy of the appeal decision dated 9 October 2012 appended to that report. At
the 19 December meeting Members resolved:
“That consideration of this application be deferred to seek the views of the Monitoring
Officer and Section 151 Officer.”
In accordance with the above resolution this matter has referred to the Monitoring
Officer. A copy of his provisional report is attached as Appendix 3. The Monitoring
Officer will be in attendance at this meeting of the Committee to offer advice.
The Council‟s S151 Officer is aware of the situation and has no additional comments
to make.
In addition to the above, Members attention is drawn to the minutes of the meeting of
19 December which include:
“The Development Manager stated that the only difference between the two
applications (the current application and the one previously dismissed on appeal)
was the number of dwelling s proposed. In response to a comment he stated that he
understood that the Council had a five- year land supply of housing land.”
This is not correct. The Council land supply position (as published in April 2013) is
4.68 years.
In relation to the determination of planning applications paragraph 49 of the National
Planning Policy Framework states that where no five year supply is demonstrated the
Council‟s policies in relation to housing provision should be regarded as out of date
and in such circumstances a presumption in favour of sustainable development
should be applied irrespective of whether a site is earmarked for development in the
development plan or lies in an area designated as suitable for development.
Unsustainable development should continue to be resisted as this remains contrary
to both local and national policy irrespective of the land supply position. Attention is
drawn to the appeal decision dated 9 October 2012 (which related to the erection of
one single storey dwelling). At paragraph 4 the Inspector identified the main issue for
consideration as “whether the development would comply with local and national
planning policy that seeks to restrict sporadic residential development in the
countryside.” At paragraph 12 of the decision-letter, the Inspector acknowledged that
there was some local support for the proposal but concluded that “none of the factors
in favour of the proposal outweigh that the dwelling would be contrary to the thrust of
both local and national planning policy which seeks to restrict new isolated homes in
the countryside.”
The Officers recommendation therefore remains one of refusal for the reason set out
below.
Development Committee
46
20 February 2014
RECOMMENDED:
To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
The proposal result in sporadic residential development in an area which is
distant from day to day services and facilities and which is designated as
Countryside in the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. The erection of
dwellings in such locations constitutes unsustainable development contrary to
the provision of local and national planning policy.
12.
APPLICATIONS 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
applications. The applications 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.
HOLKHAM – PF/13/1294 – Erection of two-storey learning centre, site access
and associated landscaping/earthworks; land at Lady Anne’s Drive for Coke
Estates Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
CROMER – PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park
and ancillary works; land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road for Crematoria
Management Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
13.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - LA/13/1442 - Installation of en-suite bathroom, attic shower
room and roof light and installation of window to replace balcony door;
Thurgarton Lodge, School Road, Thurgarton, Norwich, NR11 7PG for Mr M
Barclay
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACTON - PF/13/1301 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Church Farm,
Rectory Road, Edingthorpe, North Walsham, NR28 9TN for Mr and Mrs Corrway
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/13/1472 - Erection of single storey front extension; 59 Newlands
Estate, Bacton, Norwich, NR12 0HP for Mr & Mrs R Rush
(Householder application)
Development Committee
47
20 February 2014
BACTON - PF/13/1402 - Installation of de-salination plant and associated
facilities and erection of power and equipment room; Shell (UK) Ltd, Bacton Gas
Plant, Paston Road, Bacton for Shell (UK) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - NMA1/12/0553 - Non-material amendment request for revisions
to dimensions of garage; Hayletts, Staithe Road, Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12
8AZ for Mr & Mrs Greenwood
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/1363 - Installation of dormer window; St. Patricks,
Church Close, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9QY for Mr M Allen
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1492 - Relaxation of Condition 8 of planning permission
reference; 13/1186 to allow construction of the dwelling without complying with
Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Anvil Court, New Road, Blakeney,
Holt, NR25 7NY for Mr & Mrs P Leane
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1528 - Relaxation of Condition 6 of planning permission ref:
12/0779 to delete requirement for Code Level 3 to be met.; Pippin House, Cley
Road, Blakeney, HOLT, NR25 7NL for Mr & Mrs Fardell
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/13/1354 - Installation of replacement windows and doors;
Bakery Cottage, High Street, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NX for Mrs A Guyton
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRININGHAM - PF/13/1495 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 02/1309 to permit full residential occupation; 4 Belle Vue Farm Barns,
Dereham Road, Briningham, Melton Constable, NR24 2QN for Mr & Mrs Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/13/1382 - Relaxation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference:12/0693 to allow construction of the dwelling wihout complying with
Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.; Land at rear 23 The Lane, Briston
for Mr & Mrs D Reynolds
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/13/1425 - Extension of existing outbuilding to provide detached
annexe; Beck Farm, Hell Pit Lane, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JJ for Mrs
P Chamberlain
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/13/1427 - Erection of first floor side extension; 3A Reepham
Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2LJ for Mr S Rayner
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1419 - Conversion and extension of garage to
provide annexe; Ingleside, High Street, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RG for
Ms C Loder
(Householder application)
Development Committee
48
20 February 2014
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0688 - Variation of Condition 2 of
planning permission reference: 11/0747 to permit revisions to design details;
Barn adjacent Manor House, Norwich Road, Corpusty for Mr L Walsh
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0627 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent to 8
Station Road, Cromer, NR27 0DX for Mr S Carpenter
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/1486 - Erection of double garage and boundary wall; 10 Cliff
Drive, Cromer, NR27 0AW for Mr D Crossley and Ms J Middlemas
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/13/1497 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 7 Cromwell Close,
Cromer for A G Brown (Builders) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - AI/13/1195 - Display of illuminated advertisement; 23 New Street,
Cromer, NR27 9HP for Coast Kebab
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - NMA1/12/0966 - Non-material amendment request for retention of
development as partially built (removal of additional section of wall to enlarge
opening); 11 New Street, Cromer, NR27 9HP for Mr J Parkin
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/13/1412 - Installation of replacement windows and doors; Flat
15a, Clevedon House, Prince Of Wales Road, Cromer, NR27 9HR for Total Home
(Householder application)
EAST BECKHAM - NP/13/1455 - Prior notification of intention to construct
agricultural access road; Land at Hall Farm, East Beckham for Mr R Batt
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
EAST BECKHAM - PF/13/1465 - Erection of attached garage; Easter Cottage, 4
The Loke, East Beckham, Norwich, NR11 8RP for Mrs S Burridge
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/1468 - Change of use from residential annexe to one unit
of holiday accommodation; Church View Cottage, Church Farm Road, East
Ruston, Norwich, NR12 9HJ for Miss P Norman
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/13/1479 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and front
porch; School House, Norwich Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2AS
for Mr & Mrs P Milford
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1391 - Erection of 5.9 metre high extension to steam extract
flue; Hain Frozen Foods, Holt Road, Fakenham, NR21 8EG for Hain Frozen
Foods
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1431 - Formation of vehicular access; 8 Greenway Lane,
Fakenham, NR21 8BZ for Mr S Lake
(Householder application)
Development Committee
49
20 February 2014
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1224 - Erection of stand alone conservatory; 13 George
Edwards Road, Fakenham, NR21 8NL for Marston & Langinger
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - AN/13/1428 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; The Hall,
Felbrigg Park, Felbrigg, Norwich, NR11 8PR for The National Trust
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
FELMINGHAM - PF/13/1344 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension to
provide annexe; The Cottage, Aylsham Road, Felmingham, North Walsham,
NR28 0LD for Mr and Mrs Woolston
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - NMA1/13/0575 - Non-material amendment request for revised
dimensions of rear extension; The Sheiling, Beacon Road, Trimingham,
Norwich, NR11 8DX for Mr N Armstrong
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GREAT SNORING - PF/13/1423 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
link to existing outbuilding; The School Next The Church, The Street, Great
Snoring, Fakenham, NR21 0AH for Mr J Bailey
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - NMA1/12/0826 - Non-material amendment request for
revised door and window arrangements, revised porch design and enlargement
of bin store; The Bungalow, Thorpland, Great Snoring, Fakenham, NR21 0HE for
Thorpland Hall Farm Partnership
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GREAT SNORING - PF/13/1475 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
replacement garage; Lazy Toad, Thursford Road, Great Snoring, Fakenham,
NR21 0HN for Mr C Holman
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/13/1221 - Installation of air source heat pump; Chapel Piece,
Field Dalling Road, Bale, Fakenham, NR21 0QS for Ms A Courtney
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/13/1441 - Change of use from B1 (light industrial) to a mixed
use of B1 (light industrial) and A1 (retail); Hanworth Timber Co, White Post
Road, Hanworth, Norwich, NR11 7HN for Hanworth Timber Co. Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/1324 - Erection of education building; Holt Station,
Cromer Road, High Kelling, HOLT, NR25 6AJ for North Norfolk Railway
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/1373 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
detached car port; Heathfield, Vale Road, High Kelling, Holt, NR25 6RA for Mr &
Mrs T Bailey
(Householder application)
Development Committee
50
20 February 2014
HOLT - PF/13/1457 - Relaxation of Condition 8 of planning permission reference:
12/1164 requiring Code Level 3 to be achieved for new build dwellings; The
Railway Tavern, 2 Station Road, Holt, NR25 6BS for Capricorn Estates
Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/13/1140 - Non-material amendment request to permit the retention
of first floor level south east elevation window.; 12 Town Close, Holt, NR25 6JN
for Mr & Mrs D Gardner
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOLT - NMA1/13/0911 - Non material amendment request to permit glazing to
roof and north and west elevations of rear porch; Old Rose Cottage, 2
Letheringsett Hill, Holt, NR25 6BJ for Mr & Mrs R Daniels
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOLT - PF/13/1334 - Erection of extension to tea rooms; The Folly Tearoom, 4
Hoppers Yard, Bull Street, Holt, NR25 6LN for Mrs J West
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/13/1387 - Erection of detached garden room; Land at 5 Pearson
Road, Holt, Norfolk, NR25 6EJ for Mrs E Hawkins
(Full Planning Permission)
HORSEY - PF/13/1305 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension and
raising the roof height of the existing dwelling; Mere Sea, 5 Binsley Close,
Horsey, Great Yarmouth, NR29 4EG for Mr M Garman
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/13/0434 - Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding, erection
of replacement dwelling, detached garage and formation of vehicular access
and drive; Ivy House, Lessingham Road, Ingham Corner, Norwich, NR12 0TE for
Mr & Mrs Gamble
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - NMA1/13/0498 - Non material amendment request to permit change
from red brick to flint work to front elevation of side/rear extension; Sunny
Cottage, The Street, Kelling, Holt, NR25 7EL for Mr K Foster
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
KNAPTON - PF/13/1415 - Demolition of garage and erection of one and a half
storey garage/annexe; The Spinney, Mundesley Road, Knapton, North Walsham,
NR28 0RY for Mr I Healey
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - PF/13/1416 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Sunnydene,
The Street, Knapton, North Walsham, NR28 0AD for Mr Aldridge and Mrs Settle
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/13/1411 - Erection of garden store; Glen Hay Barn, Holt Road,
Langham, Holt, NR25 7BX for Mr M Coe
(Householder application)
Development Committee
51
20 February 2014
LUDHAM - PF/13/1443 - Retention and modification of partially constructed rear
conservatory; 44 School Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5QN for Mr
Symonds
(Householder application)
MATLASKE - PF/13/1516 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 04/1238 to permit full residential occupation; Hell Hole Barn, Upwood
Farm, Green Lane, North Barningham, NORWICH, NR11 7LA for C J C Lee
(Saxthorpe) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/1507 - Erection of detached outbuilding; 2 Paston Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8BN for Mr M Duggan
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/1401 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extensions; 18
Beckmeadow Way, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8LP for Mr & Mrs C Whitby
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/1476 - Retention of mobile home; 12 Cromer Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8BE for Mr H C Truong
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - PF/13/1254 - Conversion and extension of agricultural building
to provide two units of holiday accommodation; Neatishead Hall, Hall Road,
Neatishead, Norwich, NR12 8XX for J H & P E Nicholson Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - LA/13/1255 - Alterations to agricultural building to facilitate
conversion to two units of holiday accommodation; Neatishead Hall, Hall Road,
Neatishead, Norwich, NR12 8XX for J H & P E Nicholson Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1444 - Erection of single-storey front and rear
extensions and detached garage; 25 Yarmouth Road, North Walsham, NR28 9AT
for Mr & Mrs A Dowling
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1265 - Construction of replacement caravan bases,
tarmac access roads, gabion retaining wall and associated earthworks.; Norfolk
Park Homes, Bacton Road, North Walsham for Dream Lodge Group
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1537 - Conversion of attached double garage to
habitable accommodation with pitched roof; Hunters Moon, Field Lane, North
Walsham, NR28 9LW for Mr & Mrs Plummer
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0984 - Change of use of amenity area to garden and
retention of 1.8m high boundary fence; 1 Shepheard Close, North Walsham,
NR28 0LY for Miss S Lee
(Householder application)
Development Committee
52
20 February 2014
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1418 - Change of use of first floor from hairdressing
salon (A1) to museum (D1); First Floor, 22A Market Street, North Walsham,
NR28 9BZ for Heatherdown Properties (E.A) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1439 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; St
Kilda, 67 Bacton Road, North Walsham, NR28 9DS for Mr C Stonehouse
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/13/1364 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage;
Oakfield, 77 Cromer Road, North Walsham, NR28 0HB for Mr H Harvey
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1370 - Installation of containment walls and bunds to
storage tank and rail car areas; British Pipeline Agency, Station Yard, Norwich
Road, North Walsham, NR28 0DS for British Pipeline Agency Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1422 - Construction of pitched roof within ruined
tower, with belfry above; St Nicholas Church, Market Place, North Walsham,
NR28 9BT for PCC of St Nicholas Church North Walsham
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - NMA1/13/1047 - Non-material amendment request for revised
window arrangements; Holmwood, Norwich Road, Cromer, NR27 0HG for Mr &
Mrs M Bentley
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PM/13/0106 - Erection of eight dwellings; Land between
Creg Na Baa and Leisure Hour, Station Road, Potter Heigham for Alan C Bracey
Limited
(Reserved Matters)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/13/1413 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
single-storey rear extension; 1 Ladysmith Villas, Bridge Road, Potter Heigham,
Great Yarmouth, NR29 5JB for Mr M Thompson
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/13/1536 - Erection of rear, side extensions and attached garage;
34 Renwick Park East, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9LY for Mr J Evans
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/13/1213 - Erection of replacement canopy and fuel pumps
and installation of replacement underground tanks; Shell Fakenham, Creake
Road, Sculthorpe, Fakenham, NR21 9HT for Shell UK Retail
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/13/0403 - Retention of front extension; Newhaven, Waxham
Road, Sea Palling, Norwich, NR12 0UX for Mr M Mancini
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1445 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
19 Common Lane, Sheringham, NR26 8PN for Mr M J Cotterell
(Householder application)
Development Committee
53
20 February 2014
SHERINGHAM - PU/13/1460 - Notification of intention to the change of use from
B1 (offices) to residential dwelling; 3 Augusta Street, Sheringham, NR26 8LA for
Mr S Kerr
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1488 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and
alterations to garage/car port; 23 Common Lane, Sheringham, NR26 8PN for Mr
& Mrs Edwards
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1420 - Erection of replacement garage; 10 St Austins
Grove, Sheringham, NR26 8DF for Ms J Guise
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1379 - Relaxation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 11/0171 to allow construction of the dwelling without complying with
Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.; Half Acre, 2 Weston Terrace,
Sheringham, NR26 8ER for Mr R Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0663 - Formation of vehicular access; 26 Chapel Street,
Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8NW for Mr & Mrs M Tetlow
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/1467 - Erection of garden room; Land at 25 Allen Meale Way,
Stalham, Norfolk, NR12 9JJ for Flagship Housing Group
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/1407 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 03/2011 to permit full residential occupation; Barn 3 West End Farm,
Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9EJ for Mr J Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/1433 - Variation of Condition 2 of application ref: PF/12/0054
to permit alterations to partially completed dwellings comprising installation of
additional windows and solar panels, erection of sheds, fences and revised
boundary walls; 1-6 Tithe Cottages, Brumstead Road, Stalham for Mr G Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/1438 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference 03/2011 to permit permanent residential occupation; Barn 2 West End
Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9EJ for Mr J
Messent
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/13/1409 - Erection of single-storey side extension with
accommodation in roof-space and balcony, installation of front and rear dormer
windows and rendering of external walls; Hillcrest, 36 Wells Road, Stiffkey,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AJ for Ms G Delaney
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/13/1063 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 03/1484 to permit permanent residential occupation; Maple Barn,
Hickling Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SH for Ms L Knights
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
54
20 February 2014
TATTERSETT - PF/13/1341 - Installation of window; Wensum Barn, Wicken
Pond Farm, Tattersett Road, Syderstone, King's Lynn, PE31 8SA for Mr & Mrs J
Crinnion
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/13/1394 - Retention of vehicular access; Liberty Cottage, 13
Church Street, Trimingham, Norwich, NR11 8AL for Mrs C Wilkins
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1286 - Installation of French doors; Windmill Farm,
Folgate Lane, Walsingham for Ms F Pitcher
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1458 - Erection of rear conservatory; Wells
Community Hospital, Mill Road, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1RF for Wells
Community Hospital
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1266 - Conversion of part first floor to two
residential flats; The Barn Flat, The Barn, Staithe Street, Wells-next-the-Sea,
NR23 1AQ for Mr P Walsingham
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1480 - Continued use as A1 (retail)/A3
(restaurant/cafe); 57 Staithe Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AN for Ms H Nott
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1429 - Demolition of outbuilding and
conservatory and erection of two-storey side and rear extensions, partial
demolition/re-building of boundary wall and construction of new chimney; 6
Burnt Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HR for Mr & Mrs Greenhill
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/13/1452 - Erection of single-storey side extension and rear
conservatory; 40 Pine Walk, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7HJ for Mr D Brooks
(Householder application)
WICKMERE - PF/13/1244 - Erection of first foor side extension and single-storey
side extension; 3 Squallham Cottages, Wickmere Road, Wickmere, Norwich,
NR11 7LT for Mrs V Tomczynska
(Householder application)
WITTON - LA/13/1169 - Installation of three replacement windows and raising
height of chimney; Church Barn, Happisburgh Road, Ridlington, North
Walsham, NR28 9GA for Mr A Perryman
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/13/1432 - Retention of converted barn used as guest annexe;
Whitehouse Barn, Old Hall Road, Witton, NORTH WALSHAM, NR28 9UG for Mr R
Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
55
20 February 2014
WIVETON - PF/13/1404 - Construction of pitched roof to flat-roofed extension
and installation of first floor side window; Sunny Corner, Chapel Street,
Wiveton, Holt, NR25 7TQ for Mr J Bevan
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/13/1469 - Erection of single-storey side extensions, installation of
replacement dormer windows and alterations to roof; Glaven Acres, The Street,
Wiveton, Holt, NR25 7TH for Mr & Mrs R Inglis-Reeves
(Householder application)
14.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/1191 - Removal of conditions 5, 6 and 7 of planning
permission reference 12/0425 to permit permanent residential occupation;
Boundary Stables, Grub Street, Happisburgh, Norwich, NR12 0RX for Mr J
Burns
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/13/1456 - Variation of Condition 13 of planning permission ref:
12/1397 to permit revised access/visibility details; Bay Cottage, The Green,
Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0XR for Anne Thorne Architects LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PO/13/1385 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Rose Villa, Horning Road West, Hoveton,
Norwich, NR12 8QH for Mrs Joyce
(Outline Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/1296 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Woodside, 24 Danish House Gardens,
Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0PD for Mr R Porter
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PO/13/1459 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
East Court, Abbey Road, Sheringham, NR26 8HH for EMC Land
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1466 - Retention of replacement shop front; 27 High
Street, Sheringham, NR26 8DS for Mr I Denizli
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
15.
NEW APPEALS
BRISTON - PF/13/0980 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to create selfcontained annexe; Pine View, Gloucester Place, Briston, Melton Constable,
NR24 2LD for Mr K Graves
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
HOVETON - PO/13/1385 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Rose Villa, Horning Road West, Hoveton,
Norwich, NR12 8QH for Mrs Joyce
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
56
20 February 2014
16.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road,
Cromer, NR27 9EB for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road, Cromer,
NR27 9EB for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
17.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane, Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8TP for Mr T Field
BRISTON - PF/13/0980 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to create selfcontained annexe; Pine View, Gloucester Place, Briston, Melton Constable,
NR24 2LD for Mr K Graves
18.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0937 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include rooflights and bay window, insertion of
dormer windows, rooflights and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay
Cottage, The Quay, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NF for Mr & Mrs Bertram
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
The appeal Inspector summarised the development proposed as a two-storey
extension and alterations to Quay Cottage, “a range of interconnected buildings of
different forms and ages”.
The main issue was stated to be the effect of the proposal on the character and
appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area, including its impact on
the character and appearance of the Blakeney Conservation Area and the special
interest and setting of adjacent listed buildings. In a comprehensive decision letter
the Inspector assessed the various elements of the proposed development in relation
to the building itself, the Conservation Area and the listed buildings in the vicinity by
reference to the Council‟s stated reasons for refusal.
The Inspector concluded that the scale, massing and overall appearance of the
proposed development would be compatible with the existing property and would not
cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal
would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the Blakeney
Conservation Area and would preserve the special interest of the listed buildings. As
such, the Inspector found no conflict with Policies SS1, EN 4 and EN 8 of the
Council‟s Core Strategy. Additionally the Inspector concluded that the proposal
would be consistent with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework in
relation the promotion of good design, the appropriate conservation of heritage
assets and the conservation of the landscape and scenic beauty of AONBs.
The Inspector therefore allowed the appeal and granted planning permission, subject
to conditions detailed in the decision letter.
Development Committee
57
20 February 2014
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31
Norwich Road, Cromer, NR27 0BA for The Royal British Legion
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Application PF/13/0438 was for a free-standing glazed canopy/covered walkway in
front of the main entrance to Halsey House. The application was refused due to
concern that the proposed plain metal and glass structure would obscure the
imposing Baroque entrance to Halsey House, within the Cromer Conservation Area.
The main issue for the appeal Inspector was whether the proposed canopy would
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
In an interesting decision the Inspector noted that the proposed canopy would
obstruct views of the main entrance to Halsey House and would therefore not
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The
Inspector therefore agreed with the Council‟s case that the canopy would conflict with
policies EN4 (design) and EN 8 (Conservation Areas) of the Core Strategy.
The Inspector then went on to assess whether the identified harm to the
Conservation Area would be “substantial”. He noted that Halsey House is on the
periphery of the Conservation Area and that its setting is compromised to some
extent by more recent buildings of limited architectural merit. He also commented
that the canopy would be free-standing and so would not cause physical damage to
the architectural detailing of the existing doorway to Halsey House.
Taking these factors into account, the Inspector concluded that the harm caused to
the character or appearance of the Conservation Area would be “less than
substantial”. This conclusion engages the public benefit test set out in paragraph
134 of the National Planning Policy Framework; where development will lead to less
that substantial harm to a designated heritage asset (the Conservation Area in this
case), the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The
Inspector concluded that the public benefit of providing shelter from the elements for
the vulnerable residents of the nursing home outweighs the less than substantial
harm to the Conservation Area.
The Inspector therefore allowed the appeal.
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane, Potter Heigham, Great
Yarmouth, NR29 5LP for Mr S Hill
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED IN PART
This appeal related to a condition imposed on permission PF/12/1141. The condition
in dispute restricted the approved use to 08:00 to 18:00 on Monday to Friday, 08:00
to 12:00 on Saturday with no activity on Sundays/Bank Holidays.
The main issue identified by the Inspector was the effect of variation of the condition
under appeal on the living conditions of neighbours, with particular regard to noise
and disturbance.
The Inspector summarised the respective cases put forward by the parties and had
regard to the appellant‟s argument that overly restrictive hours could prevent use of
the units by his tenants, due to their employment elsewhere during the working week.
The Inspector also noted that this needs to be balanced against the possible impact
on neighbours and the nearby church if longer hours of use were to be allowed.
Development Committee
58
20 February 2014
After assessing the competing issues the Inspector concluded that the hours of use
could be extended, without causing unacceptable noise/disturbance to neighbours.
She concluded that this would be in accordance with the relevant Core Strategy
policies and meet the aims of paragraphs 17 and 123 of the National Planning Policy
Framework. The appeal was therefore allowed in part and a new condition
substituted, extending the hours of use of the building to 08:00 to 18:00 on Monday
to Friday, 08:00 to 16:00 on Saturdays and 10:00 to 16:00 on Sundays and Bank
Holidays.
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1419 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0874 to permit installation of opening lights in glazed screen;
Barn 3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road, Suffield, NORWICH, NR11 7EW for D & M
Hickling Properties Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Planning application PF/12/1419 sought permission for retention of the building as
constructed, subject to alterations to provide for a total of eight units of holiday
accommodation, courtyard walls and installation of LPG tanks, without complying
with a condition on permission 08/0874. The disputed condition required the
development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In summary
the appeal related to proposed amendments to an existing fixed (non-opening) fourlight glazed screen in Barn 3, so that the central two lights would open inwards. The
Inspector concluded that the main issue in this appeal was the effect of the proposed
alteration to the glazed screen on the character and appearance of these former
barns and their setting.
The appeal decision comprises a detailed assessment of the development under
consideration with the Inspector concluding that the effect of the alterations on the
appearance of the appeal building would be limited but that there would be
“significant harm” to the overall character of this group of rural buildings and to their
setting. As such the proposal would be contrary to policies in the Council‟s Core
Strategy and to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1330 - Retention of extension to terrace, installation of
steps and raise height of restaurant extension roof; The White Lady, Front
Street, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9RW for Mr D Gilligan
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal related to a partly retrospective application for planning permission and
the Inspector noted that some of the development had already been carried out,
although a wall and steps to a decked area were not as shown on the submitted
details. As a preliminary matter, the Inspector therefore treated the appeal as being
for the scheme shown on a specified drawing, reference 309/78.
The main issue in the appeal was the effect of the development on the living
conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook, noise and disturbance.
The Inspector assessed the position of the public house in relation to its surroundings
and then the specific effect of the development on neighbouring property. She
concluded that the screening proposed alongside the terrace would have a
significantly detrimental impact on their outlook. The Inspector also assessed the
likelihood of unacceptable noise or disturbance being caused to neighbours but
concluded that it had not been demonstrated that this would be significantly greater
than that which could occur in any event through the use of the large beer garden.
Development Committee
59
20 February 2014
In summary therefore the Inspector concluded that the development would not have
an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers by reason of noise/disturbance
but would be visually unacceptable. As such the development would not be in
accordance with Core Strategy policy EN 4 (design), nor with paragraph 17 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
The appeal was dismissed.
19.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (1) and David Mack (2)
Planning application PF/11/0983 for the proposed erection of a wind turbine,
maximum hub height 60m and maximum tip height 86.5m and associated
infrastructure was refused by the District Council on 30 August 2012. That decision
was the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State and the Inspector, Mr Alan
Novitzky, allowed the appeal and granted permission for the proposed turbine. The
appeal
decision
letter
was
issued
on
8
April
2013
(reference
APP/Y2620/A/12/2184043).
The Council has initiated a legal challenge against the Inspector’s decision under
section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This challenge was heard in
the High Court on 22 January 2014.
Judgment was reserved and will be reported to the meeting on 20 February if then
published.
Development Committee
60
20 February 2014