OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 20 JANUARY 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control 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
1.
SIDESTRAND – TPO 12 Starling Rise
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
An application was received to fell a large Austrian Pine at Starling Rise on safety
grounds. The Austrian Pine is a significant landscape feature in the area and
contributes to the amenity of the area and the neighbourhood. The Officer assessing
the application considered that the tree was not a significant risk and a TPO was
served to protect the tree on 20 July 2010.
The owner of the tree subsequently applied to fell the tree under the TPO guidelines
and following refusal of consent submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. It
was considered expedient to wait for the decision of the Inspector before confirming
the TPO.
The Inspector dismissed the appeal, concluding that there is currently insufficient
justification for the removal of the Pine tree. (Appeal decision attached at Appendix
1).
Representations
Five letters of objection to the Order have been received based on safety grounds
(Appendix 1).
Human Rights Implications
The serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8 Human Rights Act:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individuals human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is considered that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Appraisal
The points raised in the letters of objection have been addressed by the Inspector’s
report (see appeal decision).
Development Control Committee
1
20 January 2011
Main Issues for Consideration
(1) Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy?
It is considered that the proper procedures were followed when serving the Order.
(2) Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order?
The Inspector’s report demonstrates that the tree is not unstable and is not at an
increased risk of failure due to the rooting environment. It is considered that the
Austrian Pine covered by the Order makes a significant contribution to the setting
and character of the site and the surrounding area. The removal of the Austrian Pine
tree would clearly be detrimental to the amenity of the area and the neighbourhood.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: Simon Case, Landscape Officer Ext 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1305 - Removal of condition 1 of
planning permission reference PF/09/0907 to permit permanent erection of
agricultural/horticultural buildings, wind turbine and bund; Woodfruits, Locks
Farm Road, Corpusty for Mr A Den Engelse
Minor Development
Target Date: 10 January 2011
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
See also PF/10/1137 below
CONSTRAINTS
Contaminated Land Buffer
County Wildlife Site
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
National Air Traffic Service - Application for Wind Turbines
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19931309 PF - Removal of agricultural occupancy condition
Approved 15/02/1994
PLA/20090398
PF - Siting of timber dwelling for
agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry unit
Withdrawn 22/07/2009
Development Control Committee
2
supervisor
of
20 January 2011
PLA/20090467 PF - Erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings and wind turbine
and construction of roads, terraces and soil bund
Withdrawn 22/07/2009
PLA/20090906
PF - Use of Land for Siting Timber Dwelling for Supervisor of
Agricultural/Horticultural/Agro-Forestry Unit
Refused 04/05/2010
PLA/20090907 PF - Erection of Agricultural/Horticultural Buildings, Wind Turbine
and Bund
Approved 25/03/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to remove Condition 1 of planning application reference 09/0907 to permit the
permanent erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings, wind turbine and bund.
Details of the structures are as follows:
1. Office and pack room.
2. Mushroom production building.
3. 2 x workshops.
4. Storage area.
5. Dutch barn.
6. Compost toilet.
7. Potting shed.
8. Greenhouse.
9. Wind turbine.
10. Residential dwelling (not subject to this permission - see 10/1137).
11. Power structure in form of a buried generator.
The structures include a static caravan, 2 x recycled lorry bodies, 2 x containers and
a refrigerated lorry body. These, along with the other proposed structures, would be
clad in softwood featheredge boarding and have either steel sheet or felt roofs, on a
timber frame.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control given the planning
history and policy issues relating to the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
1. Should remain temporary until 2013 or be refused
2. 2013 is ample time for business to prove itself
3. Unfortunate that even a temporary permission was granted on this site.
4. Appeal on 09/0906 should be determined before a decision is made on this
application.
5. The dwelling and buildings applications should be considered as one application,
not two.
A copy of the applicant's supporting statement and letter from his agent correcting an
error in the statement are attached in Appendix 2.
Development Control Committee
3
20 January 2011
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection
County Council (Highways) - Awaiting comments
County Rights of Way Officer - Awaiting comments
Economic and Tourism Development Manager - Awaiting comments
Environmental Health - No objection
National Air Traffic Services - Awaiting comments
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Awaiting comments
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Awaiting comments
Norwich International Airport - No objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and 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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside location.
2. Landscape impact.
3. Highway safety
Development Control Committee
4
20 January 2011
APPRAISAL
Some Members of the Committee may be familiar with this site following the
consideration of previous applications by the former Development Control Committee
(West) and having visited the site.
A temporary three year permission was granted for this proposal by the Development
Control Committee (West) in October 2009. The reason for the temporary permission
was to enable the effects of the development on the visual amenities of the
surrounding area to be properly established.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area, where development is limited
to that which requires a rural location. Agriculture and forestry uses are included
under this policy and therefore, the principle of the proposal is considered to be
acceptable in this location.
The application referred to in this report (10/1305) is to allow a permanent permission
to be granted for all the structures/buildings, wind turbine and bund which the
applicant requires in order to develop his business. The viability of the applicant's
agricultural/horticultural and forestry business is not for consideration under this
application.
The Committee will note from the agenda that application reference 10/1137 for the
stationing of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling at this site is also being
considered at this meeting. It is under that application that it will be established if the
business is financially viable.
The applicant has stated in support of his application that investment in temporary
buildings would make the business unviable. In order for the business to become
sustainable and viable the permission needs to be implemented as soon as possible.
If finance were required through a bank loan or grant this would only be approved
subject to a permanent permission.
The Committee will note from the applicant's supporting statement in Appendix 2
that a number of structures are proposed across the site, including a mushroom
production building and structures primarily for storage for tools, materials,
packaging, the products for sale and dry store biomass for the boiler. No objections
have been received from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager or
Environmental Protection Officer.
In relation to this application a static caravan (office and pack room), a timber clad
lorry body (workshop) and a further recycled lorry body in the storage area are
already on site.
The structures would either be constructed or clad in timber and weatherboarding,
which would screen the lorry bodies, containers, static caravan and refrigerated lorry
body. Furthermore, given the proposed location of structures behind the mature trees
in the centre of the site, and in the storage area behind the bund and their minimal
height of approximately 3m it is considered that they would be fairly well screened on
the site and would blend in with the surroundings. The potting shed, polytunnel and
greenhouse would be located on a terrace which is at a significantly lower level than
the rest of the site.
It is not therefore considered that the buildings and structures would be prominent in
the landscape. It is not considered that what is proposed would be of a high quality
design as required by Policy EN 4. This shortcoming could in itself constitute a
Development Control Committee
5
20 January 2011
reason for refusal. However, due to the minimal visual impact that the buildings and
structures would have on the site and given that local businesses in the countryside
are encouraged in order to support the economy it is considered that on balance the
proposal would be acceptable in this location.
It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the rural character or landscape of the area. Given the location of the
proposal and distance from neighbouring dwellings it is considered that the proposal
would not have a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the
occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.
Therefore, subject to no objections from outstanding consultees, on balance it is
considered that the proposal is acceptable and in general accordance with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1137 - Use of land for the stationing of
temporary agricultural workers dwelling; Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road,
Corpusty for Mr A den Engelse
Minor Development
Target Date: 29 November 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
See also PF/10/1395 above
CONSTRAINTS
Public Rights of Way
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
County Wildlife Site
Countryside
Relevant Planning History
PLA/19931309 PF - Removal of agricultural occupancy condition
Approved 15/02/1994
PLA/20090398
PF - Siting of timber dwelling for supervisor of
agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry unit
Withdrawn 22/07/2009
PLA/20090467 PF - Erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings and wind turbine
and construction of roads, terraces and soil bund
Withdrawn 22/07/2009
PLA/20090906
PF - Use of Land for Siting Timber Dwelling for Supervisor of
Agricultural/Horticultural/Agro-Forestry Unit
Refused 04/05/2010
PLA/20090907 PF - Erection of Agricultural/Horticultural Buildings, Wind Turbine
and Bund
Approved 25/03/2010
Development Control Committee
6
20 January 2011
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the siting of a timber dwelling for the applicant and his family as
supervisor of the agricultural/horticultural and agro-forestry unit.
The proposed timber structure would consist of a living room, bathroom, three
bedrooms and decking area measuring approximately 12m x 7.5m and 4.5m in
height, and a lean - to attached to the main structure containing a kitchen/dining
room and utility room measuring approximately 10m x 3.5m and 3m in height.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control given the planning
history and complex policy issues involved.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object
REPRESENTATIONS
Eleven letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
1. Permission already refused
2. Trying to get dwelling by back door
3. Application should be refused on same grounds as before
4. Would set a precedent if approved
5. A family house is not essential
6. Places Farm at Tunstead works remotely growing bean sprouts why can't
mushrooms be likewise supervised.
7. No evidence of agricultural work being carried out
8. No sign of significant business development
9. Intention is to build house for owner and always has been
10. No change from previous application
11. Outside development boundary
12. Other applications with greater credibility have failed
13. No one supporting lives in Corpusty
14. Not financially viable
15. Inconsistencies in Acorus Report
A petition in support of the application has been received with 198 signatures.
100 letters of support have been received.
A supporting statement has been submitted by the applicant and is contained in
Appendix 2.
Additional supporting information has been provided by the applicant regarding the
layout of the fruiting room and costs and details of installing a fully automated
heating, irrigation and alarm system (see Appendix 2).
CONSULTATIONS
A copy of the report received from the Council's consultant in agricultural
development and land use is contained in Appendix 2.
Environmental Health - No objections
County Rights of Way Officer - Awaiting comments
Economic and Tourism Development Manager - Awaiting comments
Development Control Committee
7
20 January 2011
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Awaiting comments
Building Control Manager - Awaiting comments
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Awaiting comments
County Council Highways - The stationing of the proposed temporary dwelling has
the propensity to reduce the number of vehicle movements into the site by reducing
journeys from the site to the home address which would be viewed positively.
Therefore, there are no highway objections subject to the dwelling being covered by
an agricultural occupancy restriction.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Landscape comments
on previous applications at this site for a dwelling indicated that there would not be a
significant negative impact on the landscape or negative impact on biodiversity
(except for some possible increase in light levels around the new dwelling affecting
nocturnal foraging fauna).
However, there were concerns raised about the
permanence of the structure and urbanisation of the site. This application does not
introduce any new features to the dwelling that would appear to influence the
previous comments other than it would be a temporary dwelling. The proposed
dwelling remains located between a copse of trees and the former railway cutting,
obscured from public view by the topography of the land. No objection to a
temporary permission with the removal of permitted development rights.
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.
Further consideration to this issue will be given at the meeting.
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 5: Agricultural, forestry and essential worker dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the requirements for provision of new agricultural, forestry and essential
worker dwellings in the Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and 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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Development Control Committee
8
20 January 2011
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area
2. Functional and financial tests
3. Landscape impact
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
Some Members of the Committee may be familiar with this site having considered a
previous application for this proposal under application reference 09/0906 last year
and having carried out a site visit. The Committee resolved to refuse that application
on the following grounds:
"The site lies within the Countryside Policy area where, under Policy SS 2,
development is limited to that which requires a rural location.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis to warrant
the granting of a temporary permission for the occupation of the proposed dwelling
within the Countryside Policy area.
Accordingly the proposal fails to meet the requirements of the financial test as set out
in Policy HO 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Annex A of PPS 7:
Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
Without clear substantive justification, a dwelling in this location would be contrary to
Policy SS 2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
There are considered to be no material circumstances that would outweigh the
conflict with Development Plan Policy in this case."
The applicant has lodged an appeal against that decision. This will be through an
informal hearing process. At the time of writing this report confirmation of the date of
the hearing was awaited.
Members of the former West Area Committee may also recall considering application
09/0907 for the erection of agricultural/horticultural buildings, wind turbine and bund
in October 2009. That Committee resolved to give the Head of Planning and Building
Control delegated authority to approve that application on a three year temporary
permission subject to no objections from outstanding consultees. No objections were
received from outstanding consultees and that application was approved.
Since that approval the applicant has submitted a further planning application, also
for consideration on this agenda under application reference 10/1305 (see above).
That application is seeking to remove Condition 1 of application 09/0907, which
granted permission on a temporary three year basis, to allow the permanent siting of
the buildings, structures, wind turbine and bund.
However, the current application is for the siting of a temporary agricultural workers
dwelling. The proposed temporary dwelling has been slightly amended and no longer
includes the unauthorised motor home in which the applicant and his family are
currently living. The proposed temporary dwelling is now entirely a timber structure.
Development Control Committee
9
20 January 2011
The figures provided in terms of the amount of mushrooms that would be produced
and consequently the financial supporting information differ slightly from those
previously submitted and indicate a more profitable business than previously.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where development is limited to
that which requires a rural location. Agriculture and forestry uses are included under
this policy but it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that a dwelling in
association with the proposed agricultural/horticultural/agro-forestry business
complies with the functional and financial requirements covered by Policy HO 5 of the
Core Strategy and Annex A of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
regarding Agricultural, Forestry and other Occupational Dwellings in the Countryside.
In accordance with paragraph 4 of Annex A in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in
Rural Areas, a functional test is necessary to establish whether it is essential for the
proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at
most times. Such a requirement might arise, for example, if workers need to be on
hand day and night:
(i) in case of animals or agricultural processes which require essential care at short
notice
(ii) to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of crops
or products, for example, by frost damage or the failure of automatic systems.
In the applicant's supporting statement three functional requirements are suggested
to explain why it would be essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for a
worker to be readily available on site at most times. They are in relation to
horticulture, security and mushroom production. (Charcoal production was included
as one of the functional requirements; however, this has now been withdrawn
following the receipt of an email from the agent.)
It is considered that horticulture, described in the applicant's supporting statement as
husbandry tasks including seed germination and propagation of salad crops, potting,
planting, pruning weeding, irrigating, pest control, loading and unloading of stock,
deliveries and harvesting, lacks the necessary functional justification that would
warrant the need for a dwelling in this location. Furthermore, security grounds are
also considered to be insufficient to justify a new dwelling.
However, mushroom production requires a combination of changes in the cropping
environment as carbon dioxide levels, temperature and humidity levels to be
monitored and adjusted, as well as the requirement to monitor power and heat
systems. It is considered that this part of the proposal could fulfil a functional need on
the site.
The applicant has advised in the supporting statement prepared by his agricultural
consultants that, owing to the size of the enterprise, a fully automated heating and
irrigation system cannot be justified; therefore someone needs to be on hand to
ensure the systems are working correctly. The applicant intends to install a weather
forecast monitor, which would monitor wind speed/direction, humidity, temperature,
atmospheric pressure and rainfall. This system would allow the applicant to attach
sensors to the mushroom grow room, which would be hard wired into a data
processor which would data log and raise an alarm. The audio alarm would be in the
office and the dwelling, but not outside and would sound if the set parameters are not
achieved or are exceeded. The system should also forewarn of high wind speeds,
which would affect the biomass boiler, and frosts affecting the poly tunnel and
vegetable beds, as well as low wind speeds affecting the power supply.
Development Control Committee
10
20 January 2011
The applicant has stated that there are no existing dwellings on the site that could
fulfil the functional need, and the applicant has advised that there are no available
dwellings within sight and sound of the unit.
The applicant and his family currently occupy a motor home on the site without the
benefit of planning permission. In principle this could meet the need for temporary
accommodation, but the applicant has indicated that this is very basic and does not
meet the needs of his family. This facility is the subject of a current enforcement
appeal.
In terms of alarm systems, the applicant's agent has advised that an alarm system
could be connected to a modem and so monitored remotely. However, the
adjustments are all manual controls and so the need is to be on site to manage to
react to prevailing conditions. The applicant has provided further information in terms
of the cost of installing a fully automated heating, irrigation and alarm system. The
capacity for remote monitoring and necessary infrastructure upgrades and
investment are estimated to cost in the region of £53,300.
The applicant's agent has advised that commercial horticulture and mushroom
producers can substantially reduce their labour input by installing fully automated
systems and the financial yield is of a scale that can justify this cost over time. In
these situations these systems are installed as a labour saving tool rather than for
remote monitoring. Whilst a remote monitoring system could inform the applicant if
the conditions are not adequate it cannot adjust the conditions or correct emergency
breakdowns. Although a fully automated system is available it is not an appropriate
system given the scale of the proposed enterprise.
In order to help assess this application, the District Council has again sought
independent expert advice from an agricultural development and land use consultant.
He has assessed the information submitted in support of the application and a copy
of his report is attached as Appendix 2.
In terms of compliance with the functional test of Annex A PPS 7, and the functional
requirements of Policy HO5, the Committee will note from the consultants report in
Appendix 2 that, based on the information submitted with the application, the
consultant has assessed the labour requirements for the proposal and considers that
some attendance outside normal working hours for the reasons explained would be
required along with the need to monitor the growing environment. The advice
received from the consultant is that the proposal satisfies the functional test. This
does not differ from the independent opinion given under 09/0906. It is therefore
considered that there is a functional need for an agricultural worker to live on the site.
In terms of financial viability the figures provided in the supporting statement are only
based on projections over three years, but indicate an increasing profit. The
independent consultant's report states that it is not unreasonable to say that the
revised proposal is of marginal viability with some potential to fully meet the financial
test as set out in Annex A of PPS 7. The viability is dependent to a certain degree on
the successful marketing and sales via the niche market outlets identified in the
market research.
Policy HO 5 states that in relation to newly created enterprises where there has been
insufficient time to demonstrate financial soundness permission may be granted for a
temporary dwelling in the form of a caravan or wooden structure which can easily be
dismantled and removed from the site. The applicant has provided further information
in terms of the proposed temporary structure and it is considered that this information
is acceptable and the structure would comply with the requirements of Policy HO 5.
Development Control Committee
11
20 January 2011
It is therefore considered that whilst the proposal may not currently fully comply with
the financial test set out in Annex A of PPS 7, Policy HO5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy allows for newly created enterprises to demonstrate financial
soundness by granting temporary permission for accommodation on the site.
The Committee will note that no objections have been received from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. It is not considered that the
proposed temporary dwelling would have a significant detrimental impact upon the
rural character of the area.
No objection has been received from Environmental Health or the Highway Authority.
In conclusion, however, there needs to be a further site visit by Officers to assess the
structures and development which has so far taken place on the site. Clearly there
needs to be significant investment on the site prior to the need for a dwelling on the
site being justified, particularly bearing in mind the marginal viability of the proposals.
The applicant is being requested to give an undertaking to implement the necessary
work for full mushroom production prior to the construction of the temporary dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting.
4.
FELMINGHAM - PF/10/1379 - Erection of 8 dwellings (extension of period for
commencement of planning ref: 07/1437); Land at Goulders Lane off North
Walsham Road for Circle Anglia
Minor Development
Target Date: 26 January 2011
Case Officer: Mrs T Armitage
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071437 PF - Erection of eight dwellings
Approved 07/01/2008
THE APPLICATION
For the extension of period for commencement of planning application ref. 07/1437 in
relation to the erection of eight affordable houses, comprising:1 x 2 bed, 3 person bungalow
2 x 2, 3 person flats
3 x 2 bed, 4 person terraced houses
2 x 3 bed, 5 person houses
The proposal included off-site highway improvements including widening of Goulders
Lane/footway provision and junction improvements with the B1145.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Wilkins having regard to the following planning issue:
The loss of allotment land
Development Control Committee
12
20 January 2011
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application. The Parish Council is fully supportive of affordable housing
being provided in the parish but are vehemently against this application for the
following reasons;
1) Access to the development on a dangerous corner of the B1145 whatever
measures are taken will increase the certainty of accidents at what is already a
collision point.
2) The perceived shortage of car parking on the proposed site.
3) The proposed development is totally out of character to the surrounding area, it
provides for at the least 31 occupants on an area similar to other properties nearby of
three bedrooms.
4) It removes allotment land from the parish, at a stroke removing access to the
largest allotment rendering it difficulty to access the remainder of this plot.
5) There are other sites in the parish which should be explored.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection - concerns over highway safety, the road junction is
dangerous, ambiguous and the proposed changes to the junction totally
unsatisfactory, lack of on-site parking.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Housing - Strategic Housing supports extension of period for
commencement of the planning permission, as the development will help meet the
identified affordable housing need in Felmingham and the adjoining civil parishes.
Highway Authority - Given the site has the benefit of an existing planning consent I
would not offer an objection from a highways aspect. I would reiterate my comments
to planning application 2007/1437 and would request re-imposition of all standard
highway conditions imposed under that 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.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
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).
Development Control Committee
13
20 January 2011
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether in the context of the Core Strategy the development remains compliant with
relevant policies.
APPRAISAL
The site is located to the north of Felmingham, fronting Goulders Lane, a narrow
country lane. The site (0.19ha) is currently used for agricultural purposes and forms
the north-eastern corner of a 3.65ha area of land leased to Felmingham Parish
Council by the County Council as allotments.
Planning permission was granted in January 2008 for eight affordable housing on the
site. The proposal complied with Local Plan policy at the time that allowed for
affordable housing schemes to be developed in the countryside, adjacent to the
settlement boundaries of the Selected Small Villages. Commencement in relation to
this permission has been delayed given the precautionary position taken by the
Norfolk County Council to seek the Secretary of State's consent for disposal of a
portion of land in current allotment use. Given this delay the application seeks to
extend the period of time to implement the permission and key to determination is
whether in the context of the Core Strategy the development remains compliant with
relevant policies.
Under the Core Strategy the site and the adjacent village of Felmingham lie within
the Countryside Policy area. Policy SS1 restricts development in the Countryside to
particular types to support the rural economy, meet affordable housing needs and
provide renewable energy. Policy HO3 allows for the development of affordable
housing in the countryside, as an exception to the normal policy of constraint, subject
to a number of qualifying criteria. The proposed scheme for Felmingham meets these
criteria, given the eight dwellings proposed and the edge of village site location, that
far exceeds the minimum criterion of adjoining an existing group of 10 dwellings.
Strategic Housing have confirmed that there is a local housing need in Felmingham
and the adjoining parishes and that this scheme has been designed to specifically
address that local need and support this application.
The allotment issue was considered as part of the assessment of application 07/1437
given that Local Plan Policy 106 sought to safeguard against the loss of allotment
land. Development Control Committee East considered the nature of allotment use
and the scale of loss (5%) against the benefit of providing affordable housing in
proven need in the locality and permission was granted on that basis. It was at the
time and remains unclear as to the status of the allotments but Norfolk County
Council (the landowners) as a precaution following the granting of permission, sought
formal Secretary of State (SOS) approval for the disposal of the land (under the
Allotments Act 1925).
In July 2010 formal SOS consent was given for the transfer of the freehold title of the
0.19hectares of allotment land to a housing association for the purposes of affordable
housing. The letter from the responsible Government Office is appended (Appendix
3) and sets out in some detail their formal assessment against five criteria for
consent. Para. 12 of the letter concludes 'The Secretary of State has carefully
considered all the information before him. Although the land is not surplus to
Development Control Committee
14
20 January 2011
requirements and there is a demand for allotments in the area, the Secretary of State
has taken account of the fact that the plot holders' (seven in total) 'would retain
relatively large plots and that the demand is for more traditional allotments rather
than agricultural allotments affected in this case. He is also satisfied that the Council
has made efforts to provide replacement land and that the local authorities in the
area are seeking to address the demand for allotments in the area. The Secretary of
State is also satisfied that the Council has considered the implications of disposal for
other relevant policies. In the circumstances the Secretary of State does not consider
withholding consent would be appropriate.' It is considered that this assessment
endorses the view previously taken by Development Control Committee East in
relation to this issue.
The layout, design and parking provision are considered to comply with the relevant
policies of the Core Strategy and the Highway Authority continues to raise no
objection in relation to the scheme.
On the basis of the above there is no policy objection to the extension of time for the
commencement of this previously approved scheme for 8 affordable houses, subject
to the re-imposition of previous conditions and having regard to Policy EN8, a new
planning condition requiring construction standards to meet Sustainable Construction
Code Level 3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
5.
HOLT - PF/10/1333 - Erection of single-storey extension; Budgens Store,
Kerridge Way for C T Baker Ltd
Minor Development
Target Date: 13 January 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
Residential Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19841052 PF - Supermarket, bank and two lock-up shop units
Approved 28/09/1984
PLA/19851467 P - Retail food supermarket
Approved 25/10/1985
PLA/19871107 PF - Extension to car park for 50 no. spaces
Approved 23/07/1987
PLA/19882847 PF - Units 2 & 3 to be used as wines & spirits department, an
extension to adj. supermarket
Approved 16/01/1989
PLA/19883154 PF - Extension to existing supermarket
Approved 21/02/1989
PLA/19980712
PF - Alterations to shopfront and installation of atm room and
machines
Approved 02/07/1998
Development Control Committee
15
20 January 2011
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a single-storey extension to increase the net sales area of
the supermarket from approximately 770sqm to 1,200 sqm (using the National Retail
Planning Forum definition of sales area).
The extension would be constructed using facing brickwork on the southern elevation
together with brick piers and brown steel sheeting within the brick piers for the
remainder. The roof would also be clad with brown steel sheeting behind a brick
parapet wall on the southern elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The Managing Director of the applicant Company is an Elected Member of the
District Council
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of comment, as summarised:
1. The applicant does not properly address Policy EC 5 in respect of the size of the
store, which exceeds the 750sqm limit in a small town centre;
2. The proposal does not comply with Policy CT 6 in respect of parking provision;
3. The proposal would, if approved, set a precedent for future applications for large
retail outlets in Holt;
4. The town has acute parking problems already and they should be resolved
before any significant increase in retail floorspace is approved;
5. The proposal will create additional parking pressures.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions - On the basis that the proposed extension would
have little impact upon the surrounding heritage assets, Conservation & Design can
have no objections to this application.
Whilst the south-facing wall could perhaps benefit from some modelling and a more
substantial coping detail, the functional nature of the area does not justify making this
an absolute requirement. Certainly, there is nothing proposed which will harm the
significance of the adjoining conservation areas.
In the event of the application being approved, please condition that the bricks to be
used in the new build do indeed match those on the main store.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to condition relating to compliance
with Policy EN 6.
County Council (Highways) - No objection. Given the site's town centre location,
existing use and access to ample parking provision, as this proposal does not affect
the traffic patterns, Norfolk County Council, as Highway Authority, does not wish to
restrict the grant of permission.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
16
20 January 2011
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 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).
Planning Policy Statements of relevance include:
Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location
2. Impact on the vitality and viability of Holt town centre and compliance with PPS 4
3. Highway safety implications/parking
4. Design considerations
5. Impact on Conservation Area or Heritage Assets
6. Impact on neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
Under the Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk, Holt is defined as a Principal Settlement
and is defined as having a Small Town Centre. As such, there would be no objection
in principle to expansion of an existing retail unit, subject to compliance with other
relevant Development Plan policies.
The site is located within the defined Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of
Holt where Core Strategy Policy EC 5 would generally allow retail units with a net
sales area of 500-749 sq.m. The existing retail unit currently has a net sales area of
approximately 770sqm (using the National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition)
and the applicant proposes to increase the size of the net sales area to 1,200sqm
(again using the NRPF definition). Core Strategy Policy EC 5 sates that, where
proposals exceed the stated maximum size for retail sales areas, it should be
demonstrated that:
•
a need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed; and
Development Control Committee
17
20 January 2011
•
•
•
no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with town
centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations), and
the proposed development would not, individually or cumulatively, have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres or
nearby Service Villages or Coastal Service Villages; and
the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of
transport, including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.
Core Strategy Policy EC 5 was superseded in some respects by the publication of
Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, published
in December 2009; this sets out the Government's objectives when considering main
town centre uses (which includes extensions to A1 (retail) supermarkets) and
amongst other things it has taken away the requirement to demonstrate need.
The key Development Management Policy within PPS 4 which is relevant to the
proposed development is Policy EC14: Supporting Evidence for Planning
Applications for Main Town Centre Uses. In accordance with paragraphs EC14.5 and
EC14.6 of Policy EC14, the proposed development, whilst being less than 2,500
square metres in size, is located within the Primary Shopping Area of Holt and
therefore classed as being "in-centre". The proposal would also be in general
accordance with the Development Plan. As such, neither an impact assessment nor
a sequential assessment are required in this instance and the proposal would accord
with PPS 4 which seeks to direct retail development to town centre locations.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the increase in size of the A1 retail supermarket is
likely to increase the attraction of Holt centre for the purchase of convenience goods,
it is not considered that this would have any significantly adverse impact on any other
centres, the nearest of which is Sheringham, where planning permission was granted
recently for a retail supermarket with a net sales area of 1,429 sqm (using the
National Retail Planning Forum definition). The current supermarket has no planning
restrictions in respect of the amount of comparisons goods that can be sold. Despite
this, currently very little if any comparison goods are sold from the store. This could
change in the future with an enlarged store and it would therefore be prudent to
ensure that the potential for any adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of the
town centre of Holt is limited by restricting the amount or percentage of net sales
area to be given over to the sale of comparison goods. A maximum figure of 15%
comparison goods (180sqm) is suggested in this instance, and a response is awaited
from the applicant.
In respect of highway safety and parking implications the supermarket, once
extended, would require 108 vehicle parking spaces. The existing supermarket car
park has a maximum stay of two hours and currently has parking provision for 152
vehicles, including 7 disabled spaces and 4 parent and child spaces, together with
space for 14 staff vehicles. Access for delivery vehicles is at the side of the
supermarket and 8-10 vehicle spaces to the rear of the existing building, which would
be lost.
Whilst the concern raised in representations in respect of the acute parking problems
currently afflicting Holt is noted, it could be argued that the supermarket car park has
a dual function in providing town centre parking for other retail units and it is not
considered that there would be sufficient grounds to refuse planning permission for
the proposed extension on the grounds of lack of parking when the proposal provides
parking spaces in excess of adopted standards.
Development Control Committee
18
20 January 2011
In respect of design, whilst the extension would be functional in appearance and
could be improved in respect of its coping detail, it is not considered that this would
detract from the character and appearance of the area nor would it have any adverse
impact on the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Areas (Holt and
Glaven Valley). It is also considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact
on heritage assets.
It is not considered that the proposal would have any adverse impacts on
neighbouring amenity.
Summary
The proposal is sited in the Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of Holt and,
because of the limited size of the extension, Planning Policy Statement 4 does not
require either a sequential assessment or impact assessment. Whilst it is
acknowledged that the increase in size of the A1 retail supermarket is likely to
increase the attraction of Holt centre for the purchase of convenience goods, it is not
considered that this would have any significantly adverse impact on any other nearby
centres. It would be likely to benefit the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre.
There are no highway safety implications and the proposals would be unlikely to
have any impact on designated assets or neighbouring amenity.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would accord with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to appropriate conditions.
6.
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/1045 - Retention of rear extension; White Horse Public
House, 34 High Street for Mr D A Walsgrove
Minor Development
Target Date: 03 November 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061859 PF - Construction of access ramp and installation of new entrance
door and canopy
Approved 25/01/2007
PLA/20090931 PF - Erection of single-storey rear extension, conversion of barn to
restaurant and retention of umbrella to front of premises
Approved 28/10/2009
NMA1/09/0931 - Non-material amendment request to permit revisions to fenestration,
roof height and projection and materials
Refused 05/07/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to retain an extension to the public house as constructed rather than in
compliance with the plan approved under application PF 09/0931.
Development Control Committee
19
20 January 2011
The differences between what is constructed and the approved extension are as
follows;
The enclosed area of the building is approximately 1m deeper with the overall height
increased by 0.3m.
There are changes to the detailing of the building, the number and the proportions of
the windows; the oversailing roof is now unsupported, but was previously supported
on posts; and the boarding detail on the gable has been replaced by a chevron
pattern.
The substitution of materials; colourwashed render instead of matching facing bricks;
slate effect roof instead of clay pantiles; and increased number and depth of
windows.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects, the slate roof is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings and the
structure is substantially changed from the original plan.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection from local residents on grounds of:
1. The extension as built differs significantly from that approved. As built it is out of
character with the barn which it is built onto and the public house to the detriment of
the appearance of the public house and the Conservation Area.
2. While internally the pub may be contemporary, externally it is Victorian and this
extension is out of place.
3. The applicant has failed to comply with a condition of the planning permission to
seek the prior approval of an over bright, intrusive light installed above the entrance.
4. More light is emitted from the six windows where there should only be four.
One letter of support on grounds that the newly converted barn adds to the local
economy. Considers the extension has not had an adverse impact on the character
or appearance of the building.
Twenty-two letters of support have been received from local residents on grounds as
follows:
1. Social and economic benefits of the White Horse
2. Buildings in the area are constructed in a variety of materials so those used on the
extension do not look out of place.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager The White Horse Public House is a traditional late 18th/early 19th century building
which makes a significant contribution to the prevailing character and appearance of
the village. The building holds a prominent position in the street scene being located
on the junction of High Street and Cliff Road. Furthermore it is recognised in the draft
Overstrand Conservation Area Appraisal as being worthy of local listing.
The extension as constructed has a harmful impact on the significance of the host
building and Conservation Area for the following reasons:-
Development Control Committee
20
20 January 2011
None of the materials used on the extension comply with those submitted as part of
the application. Colourwashed render has been used instead of facing bricks to
match the existing; slate affect roof covering used instead of clay pantiles; white
uPVC fenestration used instead of timber. As a result of these departures from the
approved details the extension has lost its connection/relationship with the host
building and wider architectural context. The extension has a stark and harsh
appearance which contrasts with the host building and its general character.
The window proportions on both the north and east elevations have been altered; the
timber boarding on the gable apex has been changed; and the overhanging eaves
with timber posts have been entirely left out of the scheme.
The extension can be clearly seen from the public domain from Cliff Road.
Furthermore the site is overlooked on the north and east boundary. For these
reasons it can be perceived as having a visual impact on the Conservation Area.
The length, height and footprint of the extension has been enlarged; this has resulted
in engendering a less subservient relationship with the host building.
In conclusion, it is considered that the extension has both an adverse impact on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the appearance and design
of the White Horse itself.
Further comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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):
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of extension on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and
relationship with the principal building.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous meeting to allow negotiation for
improvements to the extension as built.
Development Control Committee
21
20 January 2011
The White Horse public house lies within the centre of Overstrand village and the
Overstrand Conservation Area where extensions to commercial premises may be
permissible providing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is at
least preserved.
An extension was approved in October 2009 in conjunction with a scheme to convert
an outbuilding to a restaurant. The extension approved provided vestibule access
from the pub garden to the restaurant and public house. The extension as
constructed deviates in many respects, apart from siting, from the approved scheme.
While the building is a little larger than approved, it is the different construction
materials, altered fenestration and detailing on the building which it is considered has
resulted in the greatest visual harm. The consequence is an extension that has little
in common with the period building and has an alien appearance that fails either to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the public house or the
Overstrand Conservation Area.
Subsequent to the deferral a number of changes were discussed with the applicant
and his agents as to how the appearance of the extension might be improved.
However, the applicant has only agreed to the following changes; painting the
bargeboards black, to match the public house; and painting the render a neutral
colour. The applicant has declined the single most crucial improvement which is to
replace the modern imitation slate tiles with clay pantiles to match those on the
building to which it is attached, citing reasons of cost and design for his reluctance to
change the tiles. This is more fully explained in communications from the agent
attached as Appendix 4.
Whilst the changes put forward are welcomed, the most inappropriate element, ie.
the imitation slate tiles, remains and it is considered that insufficient improvement is
proposed for the extension as to justify recommending the application for approval
and the proposal remains contrary to the policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the Development
Plan.
If the recommendation below is agreed it will be necessary for the Committee to
consider follow-up action. In view of the significant discrepancies between the
approved extension and that as built and the detrimental impact on the Conservation
Area, enforcement action is recommended but with a period of compliance of six
months, taking into account the potential economic consequences on this business.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Refuse permission for application PF/10/1045, for reasons relating to design,
impact on the Conservation Area and related policies.
The Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to instigate
enforcement action to secure compliance with the approved scheme, for the
reasons set out above, and with a period of compliance of six months.
Development Control Committee
22
20 January 2011
7.
RYBURGH - PF/09/0966 - Erection of 2 silos construction of lorry park with
wash bay, associated surface water balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage
container, office, staff car park and associated earthworks and landscaping;
Land at Crisp Maltings, Fakenham Road for Crisp Malting Group Ltd
Major Development
Target Date: 15 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Contaminated Land
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Wensum Valley Project Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19970549 PF - Alterations and improvement of gate 1 entrance from highway
into site and replace two existing elevators by one
Approved 24/07/1997
PLA/19751548 HR - Retention of workshop cum store
Approved 19/12/1975
PLA/19890984 PF - Replacement of existing malt process plant, new offices and
laboratory
Approved 07/06/1989
PLA/20080266 PF - Siting of three malt outloading bins and one malt kiln stripping
bin
Approved 21/08/2008
PLA/19871828 PF - Erection of malt silos
Approved 29/10/1987
PLA/19890311 PF - Replacement of existing malt process plant and new office and
laboratory complex
Approved 23/05/1989
PLA/19740536 HR - Erection of grain intake and storage bins
Approved 09/08/1974
PLA/19850623 PF - Erection of malt silos
Approved 22/10/1985
PLA/19840109 HR - Erection of 2 x 2500 ton barley storage silos
Approved 06/03/1984
PLA/19751564 HR - Erection of office extension
Approved 05/12/1975
PLA/19771792 HR - Conversion of existing to barley steeping room
Approved 20/01/1978
PLA/19950191 PF - Erection of two malt storage bins, three barley intake bins, one
pre-steep bin and one additional weighbridge
Approved 25/04/1995
PLA/19980056 PO - Erection of single-storey building for the storage of dry cereals
prior to malting and/or storage of malted cereals
Approved 22/09/1998
PLA/19930989 PF - Erection of single storey laboratory building
Approved 25/10/1993
THE APPLICATION
Seeks erection of two silos, construction of lorry park with wash bay, bunded fuel
tank, storage container, office, staff car park and associated surface water balancing
pond, earthworks and landscaping on a site area of approximately 4 hectares.
Development Control Committee
23
20 January 2011
The application has been amended to reflect updated reports including those related
to Flood Risk and Ecology, the principal amendment being in relation to the
balancing pond at the rear of the site.
The proposed galvanised steel silos would have a diameter of approximately 7m and
a maximum height of approximately 24m. The lorry park would contain 25 HGV
spaces and car parking for approximately 20 vehicles. The proposed wash bay would
be approximately 5.5m tall, 22m long and constructed using a galvanised steel frame
with side cladding. The proposed office would be 9m long, 3.7m wide with a height of
2.9m, the proposed steel container would be 12m long, approximately 2.5m wide and
2.5m tall. The proposed bunded fuel tank would be 8.6m long and 2.2m high. The
proposed attenuation lagoon would be sited to the north of the site. The site would be
surrounded by a 1.8m high chain link fence.
Vehicular access to the site would be via the existing maltings entrance from
Fakenham Road (Gate 1) and HGVs and cars would enter the lorry park by crossing
Common Lane.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee (for a site visit).
PARISH COUNCIL
Objection on grounds of further light and noise pollution and concern over size of
development on greenfield land.
REPRESENTATIONS
84 Letters have been received in respect of the original and first amended proposal,
64 objecting and 20 in support.
The following comments have been received objecting to the proposal:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Too many lorries already cause considerable impact on the village
Wildlife will be impacted upon
Habitats will be destroyed
Owls need to be protected
The SW wind direction will push noise and pollution over Little Ryburgh
There is already a lot of noise, light, air and other forms of pollution associated
with this site and the proposal will just increase this
7. Will adversely affect health of residents
8. The site has grown incrementally over time out of all proportion with the village
and its infrastructure
9. This is a huge increase in the size of the site
10. Lorries here will create more noise and disturbance, particularly when they warmup early in the morning
11. There is no net benefit to the community from this proposal
12. No further jobs are being created
13. The site is totally out of character and has grown out of all proportion
14. Have reason to doubt the stated reduction in vehicle numbers (3 per day) and
vehicle numbers could in fact rise
15. Little is to be gained and much is to be lost
16. Will cause irreparable damage to the area
17. Will increase light pollution
18. Traffic is a danger to pedestrians
19. More silos means more lorries
20. Will cause damage to Wensum Valley
Development Control Committee
24
20 January 2011
21. Water pollution is a big risk, particularly if there is an accident
22. The proposal is contrary to Development Plan
23. Will have a detrimental impact on residential amenity
24. Owls will no longer quarter the field and its hunting ground will be lost
25. Will detrimentally affect property values in the area
26. Lorries and vehicles to and fro from the site from 6.00am to 5.30pm Mon-Fri
27. The was significant objection at the local consultation event
28. The proposed lorry park has 25 bays although the Maltings fleet is only 16
29. A huge amount of concrete is proposed
30. The road infrastructure is not suitable for increased traffic movements
31. Similar proposals have been refused in the past
32. Current restrictions are not always observed
33. Will generate a lot of construction traffic, especially with all that concrete
34. Great Ryburgh is treated as the poor relation and dumping ground of North
Norfolk - would anything like this happen in the Holt area? Seriously doubt it
35. The proposal will encourage operations outside of the designated times
36. Will have a significant impact on special designated landscape and wildlife
37. Will change the status from green to brownfield land
38. The visual impact will be significant
39. Dark skies will be lost
40. Common land would be lost
41. The Maltings has reached its limit - No Further expansion
42. There could be Great Crested Newts in the area
43. Reptile mitigation measures will be required
44. Similar proposal to expand the CMG site was dismissed by the Inspector as part
of the 1996 Local Plan review
45. There is no substantive justification for the proposal
46. Object to metal fencing proposed
Two further letters of objection have been received in respect of the latest amended
plans. Summary of comments received:
1. Access to the maltings is very poor and hardly more than a country road;
2. There would be a large number of vehicles involved in the construction of the
lorry park;
3. The proposal would ruin the view of an attractive rural valley and would have a
greater impact on residents of a considerable part of the village;
4. The proposal would be likely to lead to further expansion of the maltings
5. The proposal should be refused;
6. The applicant did not consult with environmental stakeholders before submitting
these plans;
7. The ecosystem of the green field will be lost forever;
8. The proposal will be clearly seen and have a detrimental impact on residents in
Great Ryburgh;
9. The proposal will increase light, sound and chemical pollution and potential for
adverse impacts
10. The net gain for Crisp Maltings is far outweighed by the damage to the village
and its ecosystem
11. It would be far better for Crisp Maltings to retain the lorry park at Hempton,
improve security and for Crisp Maltings to secure its tenure on this location for its
lorry park.
The following comments have been received in support of the proposal:
1. Will reduce traffic movements (especially lorry movements)
2. The changes in vehicle movements will benefit the environment
3. Will help secure jobs
Development Control Committee
25
20 January 2011
4. Could potentially provide new jobs in the future
5. Will help support local amenities including pub and shop
6. The proposal will help support the agricultural industry
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control - No comment
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Original Comments Objected on a number of grounds (see Appendix 5).
Further comments following receipt of amended plans - Following the recent
submission of additional information and plans, CDL now remove any previous
objections to the application subject to the provision of adequate conditions to protect
and enhance the biodiversity interests of the site and surrounding area and the
landscape character.
Countryside Access Officer - I have checked the Definitive Map and it shows that
there are no registered public rights of way on Common Lane.
County Council (Highways) - Original Comments - The County Council is already on
record as stating that we would not support any application that seeks to significantly
increase traffic movements at this site. When assessing this application, I have taken
that factor into account.
The transport statement attached to this application identifies the operational
capacity being limited to an output of 115,000t. The applicants have stated that this
application seeks to address the manner in which the site is accessed rather than
aimed at increasing capacity, which will remain constant at a maximum of 115,000t.
This application comprises two elements:1. The erection of 2 new grain silos
2. The creation of a new lorry park
1. At present 49,000t of barley are stored on site at Great Ryburgh. On average it
takes 1.25t of barley to produce 1t of malt product and accordingly additional barley
is shipped into the site from a variety of locations.
The new grain silos will increase storage capacity on site and replace storage
facilities based at Foulsham airfield. This grain currently undergoes the following
movements:- (a) the barley is transported to Great Ryburgh from the grower, where it
is cleaned and dried and then (b) transported in an HGV to Foulsham airfield. When
it's needed the barley is then (c) re-loaded onto HGV's and transported back to Great
Ryburgh for processing. The new grain silos will enable more barley to be stored on
site and therefore reduce or remove movements between Great Ryburgh and off-site
storage at Foulsham.
Given that the total output capacity of the site remains constant at 115,000t and will
not be increased, then there are benefits from this proposal in terms of reduced traffic
movements. Accordingly I have no highway objection.
2. The applicant states that HGVs unloading late in the day unload but do not have
adequate time to re-load. Accordingly they have to drive empty to Hempton Park
overnight and then return to site to re-commence loading. This gives rise to
unnecessary trips.
Development Control Committee
26
20 January 2011
The applicants identify at paragraph 3.3.18 [of the Transport Statement] that there
would be on average 19 occasions a week when HGV's currently travel between
Great Ryburgh and Hempton and back again which would not occur following the
relocation of the lorry park to Great Ryburgh.
It is recognised that there would be a consequential increase in private cars arising
from journeys by the lorry drivers driving to/from work.
Loss of HGV movements from this site is welcomed and accordingly I would not wish
to raise an objection.
The County Council would not wish to see the creation of a separate business
operating from this lorry park in the future. Accordingly we would only support this
application subject to the imposition of a suitably worded condition requiring a legal
agreement to bind the lorry park to the sole use of Crisp Maltings and also to bind it
for the use applied for.
Additional comments on amended plans - I have no new highway comments or
observations to make.
Environmental Health - Original comments - Had concerns and requested further
information (see Appendix 5).
Further updated comments in light of amended plans/details - I have noted the
further information submitted by the applicant dated 22 November.
As discussed, I would be pleased to comment on your draft conditions. I would
suggest that the following items are required:
The drawing submitted to show the bund and additional 3 metre close boarded fence
is satisfactory and a condition is required to ensure that these works are completed
prior to operation of the lorry park.
Plant and noise control details are required for the silos.
An "hours of use" is required for the washbay installation.
Details of the wash bay type are also sought. I have noted that the nose survey
measurements were undertaken at Hempton and would seek to clarify that the same
or comparable equipment is installed at Great Ryburgh
Please could these conditions be monitored – (with the exception of the hours of use
condition for the wash bay.)
Environment Agency - Original comments - The proposed development is greater
than 1 hectare in size. Therefore, in accordance with PPS 25, the application must be
supported by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate how surface
water will be managed.
In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we object for the
following reasons:
The FRA submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements set
out in Annex E, paragraph E3 of Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25). The
submitted FRA does not therefore, provide a suitable basis for assessment to be
made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development.
Development Control Committee
27
20 January 2011
In particular, the submitted FRA fails to be supported by appropriate data and
information on infiltration tests and the design of the infiltration basin.
Updated comments - The proposed development will only be acceptable if the
following measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this
application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any
planning permission.
(Recommends conditions to cover the above).
Natural England - Original comment - Objection as there is insufficient information to
advise whether the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the European
site in accordance with the Habitat regulations. - Concern regarding hydrological
connectivity between the drain system adjacent to the proposed lorry park and the
river (particularly in respect of diesel spillage and pollution run-off) Impacts on
protected species should also be considered. The site may also have biodiversity
potential.
Updated Comments - This letter also represents our consultation response under
Regulation 61(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2010.
The Flood Risk Assessment and Pollution Prevention Strategy, dated July 2010, and
the Phase II Ecology Survey and Ecological Assessment, also dated July 2010 have
addressed satisfactorily the concerns raised in our previous letter. Based on the
information provided, Natural England withdraws its objection to the proposed
development.
Further update following receipt of further amended plans - No additional comments
to add.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - Original comment - The proposed development
site comprises a large area (in excess of 3ha.) of unknown archaeological
potential which is located adjacent to a tributary of the River Wensum. Further
information is required to assess whether archaeological remains are present at the
site before an informed planning decision can be made.
We therefore ask that the applicant be asked to withdraw this application and resubmit with the results of an archaeological evaluation (in accordance with Planning
Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) policies. HE6.1 6.3), so that an informed and reasonable planning decision can be taken when the
results of the evaluation have been considered. Norfolk Landscape Archaeology will
provide a brief for the archaeological evaluation on request.
Updated comments - Norfolk Historic Environment Service has received and
approved the report on the archaeological evaluation at the above development site.
The results of the evaluation were largely negative and no further archaeological
work will be required. Consequently we do not wish to make recommendations for
any conditions on this application.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Original Comments - We support the recommendations of the
Ecology survey in that new surveys will be supplied before a decision is made and
that mitigation and enhancement conditions are required.
Updated Comments - On the basis of the information provided, we have no objection
to this application, on condition that the mitigation and enhancement measures as set
out in the ecological report are put in place.
Development Control Committee
28
20 January 2011
Planning Policy Manager - The site is within an area which is designated as
"Countryside" in the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. This designation is subject
to a specific policy (SS2) which restricts developments to those uses which require a
countryside location and fall into specific categories of use which are listed within the
policy. The intention is to protect the Countryside for its own sake and ensure that
when development proposals are made the location of the development is properly
justified. The policy does however allow for extensions to existing businesses. Policy
EC3 -extension to existing businesses in the countryside requires such proposals to
be of a scale appropriate to the existing development and to not have a detrimental
effect on the character of the area. In broad spatial planning terms this proposal
appears acceptable in principle subject to satisfactory compliance with other Core
Strategy policies particularly in relation to design, landscape, transport impact and
biodiversity.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No comments
Wensum Valley Project - Original comments - Objection in respect of concern about
pollution and potential impact on River Wensum SAC. Other wildlife would also be
affected including barn owls, bats, badgers etc. Light pollution would affect some
species. Proposal would be out of context with Wensum Valley, particularly the
proposed bund.
Further comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
Development Control Committee
29
20 January 2011
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 in this location
2. Impact on highway safety
3. Impact on wildlife and designated sites
4. Impact on residential amenity
5. Economic impact
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Policy SS 2 would allow,
in principle, extensions to existing business in the Countryside policy area, where
Policy EC3 allows for extension to existing businesses where it is of a scale
appropriate to the existing development and would not have a detrimental effect on
the character of the area.
In this instance, whilst the proposed development would extend the area of the
maltings site, the basis of the proposal according to the applicant is to improve the
operating efficiency by removing unwanted and unnecessary vehicle movements to
and from the site through addition of the two 3,000t silos and relocating HGV's
currently stored at Hempton on the site.
In respect of highway safety implications, the Highway Authority considers, on the
basis that the capacity of the maltings remain at 115,000t annual output of malt, the
proposal would be likely to reduce HGV movements to and from the site and, as
such, there would be no highway objections to the proposal. It has requested a legal
agreement to ensure that the lorry park is only used by the maltings and not by other
operators, which could negate the reduction in traffic movements. The applicant has
submitted a Unilateral Obligation which fulfils the requirements of the Highway
Authority. As such, subject to the Unilateral Obligation being signed, there would be
no highway objection to the proposed development.
In respect of impact on wildlife and designated sites, the site is located within the
valley of the River Wensum, the river being recognised nationally as a Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI) and internationally as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
because of, amongst other things, its outstanding chalk stream fauna including whiteclawed crayfish, Desmoulin's whorl snail, otters, and a large number of
dragonfly/damsel fly species; as well as the relatively unspoiled nature of its
catchment and the quality of its aquatic flora. Being located within the Wensum
Valley, natural drainage from the application site and adjoining sites feed into the
River Wensum and there is therefore a hydrological connection between the
application site and the River Wensum. This is important in relation to the proposed
development because any pollution entering into the Wensum associated with the
proposed development could have a significantly adverse impact on protected
species.
Whilst there were initially a significant number of concerns in relation to the impact of
the proposed lorry park on the River Wensum SAC and SSSI, primarily in relation to
the way in which any pollution from the lorry park would be captured and prevented
from entering the drainage and river system, the applicant has made a number of
amendments to the scheme which have overcome those initial concerns. As such,
subject to the imposition of conditions, neither Natural England nor the Council's
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager have objected to the proposal in
relation to impact on the SSSI or SAC.
Development Control Committee
30
20 January 2011
In respect of impact on other wildlife, it is considered that the erection of a concrete
lorry park with a surface area in excess of 13,000sqm over an existing green field
would have some impact. However, following further survey work, the applicant has
proposed a number of mitigation measures and, subject to these measures being
carried out in accordance with the submitted details and subject to the imposition of
other appropriate conditions, it is considered that the impact on wildlife would be
acceptable.
In respect of impact on residential amenity, the closest neighbours are those who
back onto the site along Fakenham Road. The boundaries of these properties would
be approximately 30m from the edge of the application site, approximately 50m from
the lorry park and 75-80m from the proposed new silos. The applicant has proposed
to erect a 3m high earth bund along the southern and part of the western boundary
between the edge of the application site and the proposed lorry park. This is
designed primarily to reduce any noise impacts from the lorry park but would also act
as a visual screen over time in conjunction with a 6m wide tree planting zone on the
southern boundary.
In respect of noise, there are many potential sources of noise which, if not properly
considered, could impact upon the occupiers of nearby residents. These potential
noise sources, amongst other things, include the proposed silos, HGV movements,
HGV engine idling, vehicle doors slamming, reversing alarms and use of the vehicle
wash-down facility. The Environmental Health Officer has requested further data to
establish whether such potential noise sources could cause issues of noise nuisance
and a further noise survey and noise impact assessment has been submitted.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure that noise does not have a
detrimental impact, on balance it is considered that the proposal would accord with
Development Plan policy in relation to noise.
In respect of lighting, the applicant has proposed a number of lights to serve the lorry
park and these are proposed to be located on 12m high columns. In this location it is
critical to ensure that any lighting is necessary, kept to a minimum and does not
"spill" beyond the site or be too strong beyond what is required. As such,
notwithstanding the submitted information, a condition would be imposed requiring
the submission of a lighting scheme to be approved.
In respect of visual impact, it is considered that the proposal would be most visible
during daylight hours to neighbours living in properties which immediately back onto
the site and would also be visible between gaps in development from Fakenham
Road. Over time the visual impact of the site would lessen as planting matures but
this is likely to take some time. At night, the greatest potential for visual impact would
be any proposed lighting and, as discussed above, it is critical to ensure that the
lighting is appropriate for a rural setting. However, whilst there would undoubtedly be
some loss of views for some residents, which has been reflected in numerous
representations, there would be no overshadowing or overbearing impact as a result
of the proposed development and therefore there is insubstantial justification to
refuse the proposal on visual grounds alone. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has not raised any object to the landscape impact of the
proposal subject to the imposition of conditions. Therefore, subject to the imposition
of conditions, it is considered that there would be limited impact on residential
amenity.
In terms of economic impact, the proposal would enable this business to maintain
employment at the site, improve the operating efficiency of the business and
contribute to its long-term viability to the overall benefit of the local economy.
Development Control Committee
31
20 January 2011
Summary
The proposed development, whilst likely to have some impact on the local landscape
is considered to have a broadly acceptable impact under policies SS2 and EC3
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The justification for the proposed
development is based on improving the efficiency of the maltings by reducing
unnecessary HGV movements to and from related sites without increasing the overall
output of 115,000t per annum. Based on Development Plan Policy, there are no
substantive grounds to object to the proposed development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and subject to the
applicant signing the Unilateral Obligation in relation to the use of the site, as
requested by the Highway Authority.
8.
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/1276 - Erection of extension and raising the height of
boatstore and conversion to annexe; Drift Cottage, Coast Road for Mr & Mrs D
McDonald
Target Date: 28 December 2010
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to increase the depth of the boatstore by approximately 2.9m to 8.9m, and
raise the height by approximately 1.5m to 5.5m. The width would increase marginally
by 0.4m to 4.4m. The second part of the application seeks to convert the boatstore to
an annexe. The annexe would have a studio and bathroom at ground floor level and
a balcony at first floor level.
Amended plan received adding a mullion to a first floor window.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux having regard to the following planning issue:
Design and the size of the proposed north elevation window.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds that the upper floor north-facing window is too large and will
cause unnecessary light pollution.
They also comment that all exterior surfaces should be of flint to be in keeping with
the character of the village.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) As the proposed alterations and conversion should at least preserve, and most
probably will enhance this secluded part of the Salthouse Conservation Area, there
can be no Conservation or Design objections to this application.
Development Control Committee
32
20 January 2011
The large glazed window in the north gable would benefit from at least one mullion to
improve its proportions, however, it is not considered that this would make or break
the design success of the scheme.
If the application were to be approved, need prior approval of the bricks and tiles to
be used.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Requires submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement prior to the
commencement of the development to show how trees close to site would be
protected during construction.
Environmental Health - No objection
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No comment
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).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 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. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact on landscape including Conservation Area and AONB
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where extensions to dwellings
are considered acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant Development
Plan policies. In this case, an existing boatstore would be extended, the roof raised
and used as an annexe.
Drift Cottage is a detached dwelling occupying a large plot fronting onto the Coast
Road. The boatstore is sited approximately 18m away from the principal dwelling and
would share the same vehicular access point.
Development Control Committee
33
20 January 2011
The annexe would have a footprint of approximately 39sqm. In comparison, Drift
Cottage has a footprint of approximately 115sqm. On this basis, it is considered that
the proposed annexe would be clearly subordinate to the main dwelling.
There is no evidence to suggest that there is an intention to create a separate
residential dwelling; the agent has confirmed in the Design and Access Statement
that the additional space would create a guest lodge for staying guests and family
friends.
The site is located within the Salthouse Conservation Area, where proposals are
required to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. The
proposed alterations are considered to be in keeping with the host building and
existing boatstore. The amended plan includes a central mullion to improve the large
north elevation window as requested by the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager. The use of reclaimed Norfolk red facing bricks, flints and reclaimed Norfolk
pantiles and timber windows and doors have been proposed. The proposals would
preserve, if not enhance, the character of the Conservation Area.
The Parish Council have also raised concerns over the size of the proposed northfacing window and any resultant light pollution. Given these concerns, the Council's
Environmental Health team were consulted but do not have any objections to the
proposals. The design including the size of the proposed window is considered to be
acceptable.
It is not considered that there would be any significant detrimental impact on the
landscape character, especially given that the boatstore already exists. The site is
well-screened by existing trees and not overly visible from the Coast Road or within
the Conservation Area.
Subject to the use of appropriate external materials, it is considered that the
proposed development would not adversely impact on the special qualities of the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
It is considered that the proposals would accord with adopted Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new grounds of objection
resulting from re-advertisement and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including requiring the prior approval of bricks and tiles, the
submission of an adequate Arboricultural Method Statement and restriction of
the annexe to ancillary residential use.
9.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1235 - Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit,
three flats and one maisonette; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
Minor Development
Target Date: 29 December 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
See also application LE/10/1236 below.
Development Control Committee
34
20 January 2011
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19841554 HR - Extensions to provide additional living space & garaging
Approved 31/12/1985
PLA/19841553 HR - Bedroom & garage block extension
Approved 31/12/1984
PLA/19961190
LA - Alterations to facilitate conversion of part ground floor to
restaurant and part of first floor to restaurant manager's accommodation
Approved 24/01/1997
PLA/19961189 PF - Conversion of part of ground floor to restaurant and part of first
floor to restaurant manager's accommodation
Approved 03/02/1997
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish all existing buildings on site and replace with a three and four
storey development comprising A3 (cafe) and A1 (restaurant), parking for five
vehicles, bin storage and access to residential units at ground floor, three number 2/3
bed flats on the first, second and third floors and, at the rear, a one bed dwelling set
across the second and third floors.
In respect of design, the applicant proposes a contemporary proposal with a mixture
of external materials including brick, flint and timber elevations, profiled steel roof,
aluminium/stainless steel windows and doors and gravel parking areas to the rear.
The elevation to The Quay proposes a gable above a vehicular access on the
western side with recessed balconies to the central section and timber cladding to
the east. The western gable would be approximately 13.7m high to ridge with the
remainder of the front elevation being 11.2m high to eaves and 12.7m high to ridge.
To the rear a wing projects at 12.5 m high to ridge, stepping down to 9.2m high to
ridge adjacent to Catesby Court.
An associated application for the demolition of the existing buildings on this site
(Conservation Area Consent) is also on this agenda.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee (for a site visit).
TOWN COUNCIL - Objection - Whilst we would like to see this site developed, the
fact that we have so far waited for almost 6 years means that we would rather see
the right design in place than "rush" the matter now. We believe that this proposal is
at least one storey too high (and should not be higher than the Golden Fleece [public
house]) and we also believe that the modernistic design is not in keeping with the
ancient Quayside of Wells. We also have concerns with regard to access through the
archway in that far more traffic would be using it under these proposals than was the
case formerly and [we have concerns] because of the limited visibility splay which will
cause problems during times of high pedestrian and vehicular use of the Quay
(approx 8 months per year).
Development Control Committee
35
20 January 2011
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection have been received, summarised as follows:
1. Height and scale of the proposed building is unjustified and exceeds the height
stated in the Design Brief produced by the Council;
2. No precedent and no need for 3rd floor other than to increase the density;
3. This is an important site for Wells quayside and has been a disgrace since the
fire;
4. The proposal is unneighbourly development which will unduly block light to
neighbouring properties;
5. The building should be no higher than the Golden Fleece;
6. Very concerned about "piece-meal" development and the impact that this scheme
could have on development of the larger site next door;
7. The height of the proposal would be detrimental to the visual impact of the
Granary;
8. Concerned about impact of the proposal on the wider setting of the Quay;
9. The proposal needs to take account of its relationship with listed buildings to the
rear of the site;
10. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area;
11. The proposed roof material is inappropriate;
12. The proposal will interrupt the rhythm of the Quay;
13. The buildings would compete with the existing hierarchy;
14. The proposal fails to have regard for local context;
15. The proposal will affect redevelopment of the adjacent derelict site;
16. This proposal should not be judged on the promise of prompt delivery.
Consideration should be driven by design considerations in the best interests of
the town;
17. Height and mass are inappropriate to its surroundings in the Conservation Area;
18. Will have adverse impact on adjacent properties, some of which are listed
buildings;
19. The proposal intensifies residential use on the site;
20. Access to the rear parking area is poor with inadequate visibility splays and
limited parking resulting in increasing parking pressure in the area;
21. The proposal should be refused and a two-storey scheme considered instead;
22. The site is of significant importance to the Community of Wells and needs to be
determined in an open and transparent way;
23. The site is a continuing eyesore that attracts vermin and is a site that local
residents have had to look at for over five years;
24. Nothing has been done to the buildings since the fire and there are problems
caused by a lack of guttering and excessive weeds;
25. The number of separate dwellings and the number of additional windows looking
towards neighbouring property is unacceptable;
26. The scheme is too big so close to a listed building;
27. There would be significant comings and goings through the archway as a result
of this proposal, to the detriment of amenity;
28. The proposal will have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of the
occupiers of Catesby Court to the rear of the site;
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency Original Comments - The site is shown by our Flood Zone Map to fall within Flood
Zone 3a, defined in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 as the zone of high
probability flood risk. This zone comprises land assessed as having 0.5% (1 in 200
year) or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea.
Development Control Committee
36
20 January 2011
The proposals include residential dwellings which are considered by table D.2 of PPS
25 to be 'more vulnerable' land use. Therefore any future planning applications must
pass the PPS 25 Sequential and Exception Test, including being supported by a site
specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
The Council need to consider whether the Sequential and Exception Test are to be
passed. Without this information we must object to the planning application.
Further to this, the nature of our comments with regards to the flood risk assessment
are completely dependent upon whether the development is considered to be
replacement of a fire damaged building and whether the replacement is like-for-like;
or whether the proposal is to be viewed as "new development".
The FRA submitted does not clearly identify what the existing development
comprised and if there is to be intensification in the number of residential units. The
FRA also considers the proposed development to be 'less vulnerable', however, this
is not the case as the 'more vulnerable' residential usage must be considered as the
worst case scenario.
You should also be aware that the FRA does not include a Flood Response and
Evacuation Plan, and the characteristics of flooding have not been considered i.e.
rate of rise, rate of onset, duration, depth/velocity, distance to dry land. This is
essential if the safety of the development and passing Part C of the exception test is
to be considered. Currently, betterment from the existing situation has not been
proposed.
In respect of Sustainable Construction, with new information becoming available on
the impacts of climate change it is important that the new development is carried out
in as sustainable manner as possible. This is in line with the objectives of Planning
Policy Statement 1.
Further comments following receipt of Council's response regarding PPS 25
Sequential and Exception Tests - You have advised us that the Council do not
consider the Sequential Test needs to be applied given the nature and reasons of the
application. This is a decision for the Council and therefore, provided you are
satisfied that you have sufficient evidence to support this decision, we have no
further comment to make. We look forward to receiving further information from the
applicant in due course.
County Council (Highways) - Objection - This development site was the subject of
previous informal advice where the proposed access from The Quay, was
highlighted as being unsuitable for intensification of vehicular use, due to its
restricted width and limited visibility.
The existing building appears to have originally been two storey with amusements on
the lower floor, whereas the proposed building is of a greater scale with four storeys
consisting of 3no 2/3 bedroom units, 1no 1 bedroom unit over 2 floors and a
retail/café unit, which is considered to intensify the use of the site.
The road network in the vicinity is well controlled, by means of a comprehensive
scheme of various waiting restrictions, the scale of the parking provision of 5 spaces
for the 4 units is considered to be more in line with that which would be envisaged
and is commensurate with the level of alternative parking provision, available in the
vicinity, however there is still some imbalance regarding allocation per unit.
Development Control Committee
37
20 January 2011
It was detailed previously that the improved access should, at this location, provide
access visibility onto The Quay of 43m x 2.4m x 43m (Manual for Streets) and be of a
width of 4.5m for at least the first 6m into the site from the adjacent nearside edge of
the highway carriageway.
I would wish to give the opportunity for the applicant to address the shortcomings in
the accesses width and visibility to levels suitable to cater for the intensification of
use proposed, in preference to making a recommendation of refusal, at this time.
Upon the receipt and consideration of amended plans, I would be able to formally
respond
Environmental Health - No objection subject to imposition of conditions relating to
Demolition, Noise and Hours of Use
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - As you
are aware the context for consideration of this application should be its conformity
with the adopted Wells Quay Outline Development Brief, general planning policy as
contained in the Local Development Framework (LDF) and the draft Wells
Conservation Area Appraisal.
The site of the proposed development is a prominent one within the Wells
Conservation Area. Consequently the need for a high quality re-development and
architectural design is vital. The ‘infill’ development proposed falls marginally outside
the height guidelines as indicated in the Brief. However I consider that the slight
increase in height to be insufficient reason to object on this ground. The townscape
and the overall façade of buildings fronting on to the Quay tend to vary in height and
scale and this development would follow that pattern.
Probably of more concern is the impact and affect of the proposal on any adjoining
infill re-development (in other words the rest of the Development Brief area). An
argument could be put forward for a more comprehensive and integrated
development of the whole ‘development brief site’. In respect of the impact on the
setting of the two adjacent Grade II Listed Buildings, Catesby Court and Crugmeer, I
consider that their setting will not be seriously affected. Both properties are
contemporary with the site of the proposed development and views of Catesby Court
in particular have always been restricted. Matters of general amenity for neighbouring
residents are better considered by you as part of the consultation process. Of more
substantial concern is the architectural design. The building proposed seems to have
three quite disparate vertical elements with a varied pattern of fenestration. The
design of the building needs to be more coherent and to fundamentally read as one
unit, whether its emphasis is vertical or horizontal. Furthermore some linkage with
local architectural character or distinctiveness should be made or at least attempted.
As it stands the design will not make a positive contribution to the setting and
character of the Wells Conservation Area and therefore for this reason the
application should be refused in accordance with Policies 4 & 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk LDF.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
38
20 January 2011
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 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.
Further, it is considered that approval of this application may have an unacceptable
impact on the Human Rights of an individual who has objected to the proposal.
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 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues)
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 5: Public realm (proposals should enhance the appearance and usability of
these areas).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
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).
The other document of importance in the consideration of this application is the
"Outline Development Brief for The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea" as approved by
Cabinet on 4 May 2010, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 6.
Development Control Committee
39
20 January 2011
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location
2. Flood risk implications
3. Highway safety considerations
4. Design, height and scale of proposed development
5. Impact on Conservation Area
6. Impact on adjacent Listed Buildings
7. Impact on neighbouring amenity
8. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
APPRAISAL
On 24 January 2005 the application site and adjoining buildings to the east were the
subject of a serious fire which caused substantial damage to both properties. The
buildings are located in a prominent position next to one of the most photographed
buildings in Wells-next-the-Sea (The Granary) and since the date of the fire the
buildings have remained in a derelict fire-damaged state and have continued to
detract from the character and appearance of The Quay. Members of Committee
have visited the site in order to appreciate the context of the development.
The site is located within the development boundary of Wells-next-the-Sea and the
Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area where there would be no objection to the
principle of erecting residential and commercial development which is subject to
satisfactory compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies.
In respect of Flood Risk implications, the Environment Agency has confirmed that the
application site is shown to fall within Flood Zone 3a on the Flood Zone Map and has
a 0.5% (1 in 200 year) or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea. The
Environment Agency has asked the Local Planning Authority to carry out a
Sequential and Exception Test in accordance with PPS25: Development and Flood
Risk. A copy of the assessment produced by the District Council is attached at
Appendix 6. The Environment Agency consider that the Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA) submitted by the applicant does not clearly identify what the existing
development comprised and if there is to be intensification in the number of
residential units. They also consider that the Flood Risk Assessment does not
include a Flood Response and Evacuation Plan, and the characteristics of flooding
have not been considered i.e. rate of rise, rate of onset, duration, depth/velocity,
distance to dry land. This is essential if the safety of the development and passing
the exception test is to be considered. The concerns raised by the Environment
Agency have been put to the applicant and a response is awaited. However, based
on the submitted information, it is considered that until such time as the applicant
satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised by the Environment Agency, a
recommendation of refusal on grounds of Flood Risk should be maintained.
With regard to highway safety considerations, the Highway Authority has raised
concerns that the proposal would intensify the amount of development on site and,
as a result, would intensify the use of a substandard vehicular access onto the Quay,
which suffers from poor visibility and restricted width. The applicant has been
forwarded the comments of the Highway Authority and a response is awaited.
However, it is considered that, in order to overcome the concerns of the Highway
Authority the applicant would need to amend substantially the submitted proposal. As
such, it is considered that until such time as the applicant can overcome the
concerns of the Highway Authority, a recommendation of refusal on highway safety
grounds should be maintained.
Development Control Committee
40
20 January 2011
Concerning design, the Council produced an Outline Development Brief for The
Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea, which was approved by Cabinet in May 2010. This
document set the context and framework explaining how the Council envisaged
redevelopment of these fire damaged buildings.
Whilst the applicant has put forward a scheme which would be taller than the
indicative maximum set within the Outline Development Brief, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager considers this to be slight compared with the outline
brief and not a reason for refusal which could be relied upon by the Local Planning
Authority at appeal. This is primarily because the townscape and overall facade of
buildings fronting onto The Quay tend to vary in height and scale and the proposed
development would follow this pattern. Of greater concern to the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager is the impact and effect of the proposal on any
adjoining infill re-development for the remainder of the Outline Development Brief site
and a case could be put forward for a more comprehensive and integrated
development of the whole of the Outline Development Brief site, rather than
individual piecemeal redevelopment.
Furthermore, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the
proposed development seems to have three quite disparate vertical elements and a
varied pattern of fenestration which lacks coherence and fundamentally needs to be
read as one unit, whether its emphasis is vertical or horizontal. The proposal lacks
any linkages with local architectural character or distinctiveness and, as it stands, the
design would not make a positive contribution to the setting or character of Wells
Conservation Area and would fail to comply with Core Strategy Polices EN 4 and EN
8.
With regard to impact on adjacent listed buildings, the closest of these is the grade II
listed Catesby Court, which is situated immediately south of the application site with
the grade II listed Crugmeer located to the east behind and physically attached to the
adjacent burnt out buildings that do not form part of this application. Whilst Officers
consider that the proposed development would have some impact, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager does not consider that the proposal would seriously
affect the setting of either of the adjacent listed properties such to warrant refusal on
impact grounds alone.
With regard to impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties, the site
is located north of neighbours and therefore the impact of overshadowing would be
limited. However, at this stage, it is not clear what the proposed form of development
would be on the adjacent fired-damaged site and the rear projecting element of the
proposed development could therefore have some impact on the availability of
sunlight to this site. This gives greater weight to the desirability of seeking a coordinated development approach across both fire-damaged sites.
In respect of the potential for overbearing impact and loss of daylight, concern has
been expressed by the owner of adjacent Catesby Court regarding the height of the
proposed development and the overbearing impact and loss of daylight that would
result. Catesby Court currently has 10 windows facing the application site, four
ground floor being primary windows serving sitting and dining rooms and six windows
at first floor level serving two bedrooms and an en-suite bathroom.
Whilst the proposed development would replace existing development on site, the
proposal would sit higher than the previous structure by approximately 4m-4.7m at
the front adjacent The Quay. It is understood from the applicant's supporting design
and access statement that the previous building "comprised a 2 storey building
Development Control Committee
41
20 January 2011
fronting the Quayside and containing retail premises, garaging and commercial
storage within the ground floor, and 12 bedroom accommodation (including loft
accommodation) within the upper floors". The building contained three windows at
first floor level facing the Quay and three windows facing towards the rear courtyard.
No information in respect of whether rooflights existed has been submitted.
Given the size of the existing building, it is considered surprising if the building would
have been capable of providing 12 bedrooms within the first and second floors, as
suggested by the applicant, but there is no evidence to question this assertion.
However, the applicant has been asked to verify the amount of accommodation that
previously existed, which is also necessary to address the concerns raised by the
Environment Agency and the Highway Authority. Committee will be updated in this
respect.
In respect of the proposed development, a total of 19 windows are proposed which
would face towards the rear courtyard. Under the Council's adopted Design Guide, of
the 19 proposed windows, four would be classed as primary, eleven as secondary
and four as tertiary windows. Whilst it is accepted that the existing courtyard already
has a number of windows overlooking it and the character of Wells is one of closeknit development, the proposal would nonetheless significantly increase the number
of primary and secondary windows facing the courtyard and, after allowing for the
height of the building, it is evident that the proposal would not comply with the basic
amenity criteria in both its relationship with Catesby Court and its relationship with
properties to the west. In addition, given the scale of the proposed building and the
position of windows, the neighbours at Catesby Court would be likely to suffer a
significant overbearing impact and loss of amenity and northern daylight as a result
of the proposed development.
As such, whilst it is considered that the Council cannot object to the principle of redevelopment, it is the amount of development proposed and resultant impact on
adjoining neighbours which would give rise to significant concerns in this instance.
In respect of impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), it is
considered that the proposed development would be viewed against the backdrop of
existing development within Wells and therefore the proposal would be unlikely to
harm the special character of the AONB.
Summary
Having taken into account the development that existed on site before the fire in
January 2005 and, whilst being mindful of the need to see this and the adjacent site
re-developed as a matter of urgency, it is considered that the proposed development
by virtue of its scale and amount of development proposed gives rise to concerns
with regard to highway safety, flood risk and impact on adjoining neighbours in terms
of overbearing impact and loss of amenity. In addition, there are concerns with
regard to the quality of design submitted and its impact on the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area of Wells.
Whilst the applicant has been advised of the concerns raised above and is likely to
comment and provide additional information in due course, until such time as this
information is received, it is considered that refusal of the proposed development
should be recommended for the reasons outlined above, and in accordance with any
further reasons for refusal which may be advanced by consultees.
Development Control Committee
42
20 January 2011
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
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).
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the applicant has failed to submit an
appropriate Flood Risk Assessment which demonstrates that the proposed
development would be safe in the event of a flood event, nor has the applicant
demonstrated that the flooding characteristics of the site have been considered.
Without this information, the Local Planning Authority is unable to confirm that the
development is acceptable under the Exception Test within Planning Policy
Statement 25 - Development and Flood Risk.
In addition, in view of the amount of development proposed, the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that the proposal would provide adequate visibility splays onto The
Quay or that the access is of a suitable width to cater for both vehicular and
pedestrian access. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would be
detrimental to highway safety.
Furthermore it is considered that the proposed building, by virtue of its three
disparate vertical elements and lack of local distinctiveness, would fail to make a
positive contribution to the setting and appearance of the Conservation Area of
Wells, contrary to the above Development Plan Policy.
Moreover, it is considered that given the scale of the proposed building and the
position of windows, the proposal would have a significantly overbearing impact on
and result in the significant loss of amenity and daylight to the occupiers of residential
properties to the south, contrary to the above Development Plan Policy.
10.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/10/1236 - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged
building; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
Target Date: 21 December 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Conservation Area Demolition
See also PF/10/1235 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
Development Control Committee
43
20 January 2011
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19841554 HR - Extensions to provide additional living space & garaging
Approved 31/12/1985
PLA/19841553 HR - Bedroom & garage block extension
Approved 31/12/1984
PLA/19961190
LA - Alterations to facilitate conversion of part ground floor to
restaurant and part of first floor to restaurant manager's accommodation
Approved 24/01/1997
PLA/19961189 PF - Conversion of part of ground floor to restaurant and part of first
floor to restaurant manager's accommodation
Approved 03/02/1997
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish all existing remains of fire-damaged buildings on site to enable
replacement with a three and four storey development comprising A3 (cafe) and A1
(restaurant), vehicle parking for five vehicles, bin storage and access to residential
units at ground floor, three number 2/3 bed flats on the first, second and third floors
and, at the rear, a one bed dwelling set across the second and third floors.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control in the light of the
consideration of application PF/10/1235 above.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objection - Whilst we would like to see this site developed, the fact that we have so
far waited for almost 6 years means that we would rather see the right design in
place than "rush" the matter now. We believe that this proposal is at least one storey
too high (and should not be higher than the Golden Fleece [public house]) and we
also believe that the modernistic design is not in keeping with the ancient Quayside
of Wells. We also have concerns with regard to access through the archway in that
far more traffic would be using it under these proposals than was the case formerly
and [we have concerns] because of the limited visibility splay which will cause
problems during times of high pedestrian and vehicular use of the Quay (approx 8
months per year).
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Awaiting Comments
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Objection - There is no doubt that the current condition and appearance of the
building concerned detracts from the character and appearance of the Quay at Wells.
Together with the adjoining premises and some land to the rear the site forms part of
the District Council’s Outline Development Brief for the re-development of the area. A
quality infill development is envisaged.
Of course removal of the building could be considered a visual enhancement.
However demolition without an agreed scheme is not advisable. The resulting
‘flattened’ site could become an even worse ‘eyesore’. On balance it is considered
that it would be better to retain the existing structure until such time as satisfactory
re-development is approved. Should the latter materialise then in any event a
condition on any consent will be needed requiring the temporary enclosure and
screening of the site pending the commencement of any works.
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 Control Committee
44
20 January 2011
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area
Risks associated with demolition
APPRAISAL
On 24 January 2005 the application site and adjoining buildings to the east were the
subject of a serious fire which caused substantial damage to both properties. The
buildings are located in a prominent position next to one of the most photographed
buildings in Wells-next-the-Sea (The Granary) and since the date of the fire the
buildings have remained in a derelict fire-damaged state and have continued to
detract from the character and appearance of The Quay. Members of Committee
have visited the site in order to appreciate the context of the development.
The appearance of the buildings affected by the fire has significantly detracted from
the character and appearance of the area and has impacted on the setting of
adjacent listed buildings and the wider Conservation Area. However, in view of the
concerns regarding the proposed replacement development submitted under
planning reference PF/10/1235 demolition ahead of an approved replacement
scheme would be unwise and could cause greater visual harm to the area whilst an
appropriate solution is sought.
In addition, in view of the potentially unstable nature of the fire-damaged building
structures, it may not be possible to demolish the application site buildings only
without causing possible localised collapse of buildings on the adjacent site. As such,
should Committee be minded to approve demolition, a demolition method statement
and associated risk assessment would need to be carried out to ensure localised
collapse of buildings on the adjacent site does not occur.
It is considered that it would be more effective and efficient to demolish buildings on
both fire-damaged sites at the same time and this option is currently being pursued in
tandem with a request for a co-ordinated redevelopment of both sites, although this is
clearly subject to agreement with owners of both sites.
Summary
In view of concerns regarding the proposed replacement development and the risks
associated with demolition, refusal of the request for consent to demolish is
recommended.
Development Control Committee
45
20 January 2011
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal for the following reasons.
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, without an acceptable replacement
scheme, demolition of the existing building could cause greater harm to the setting of
adjacent listed buildings and the character of the Conservation Area than retention of
the fire-damaged buildings ahead of an appropriate replacement development being
approved.
In addition, the Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that demolition of the buildings would not lead to partial or substantial
collapse of adjacent fire-damaged buildings located immediately to the east, which
would be to the further detriment of the visual appearance of the area ahead of an
appropriate replacement development being approved.
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - NMA1/05/0274 - Non-material amendment request to
include a conventional gabled roof; St Judes Cottage, 6 Thwaite Common,
Erpingham for Mr and Mrs S Lewin
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
ALDBOROUGH - LA/10/1203 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension; Fernleigh House, The Green for Mr J Broughton
(Listed Building Alterations)
AYLMERTON - PF/10/1214 - Conversion of games room/car port to 2 units of
holiday accommodation; Britons Wood, Sandy Lane, West Runton for Mr &
Mrs M Tucker
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/10/1228 - Change of use of barn to residential dwelling
(extension of period for commencement of planning ref: 07/1371); Street Farm
Barn, The Street for Mr I Watkins
(Full Planning Permission)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/10/1243 - Erection of cart shed garages and storage
shed; Dales House, The Street for Mr J Cooper
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/10/1130 - Erection of double garage; Rosemary Cottage, Keswick
Road for Mr H Brown
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
46
20 January 2011
BACTON - LA/10/1181 - Alterations to facilitate conversion of outbuilding to one
unit of holiday accommodation; Manor House, Church Road for Mrs S Lee
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACTON - PF/10/1198 - Conversion of outbuilding to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Bacton Hall, Church Road for Mr D Mace
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - LA/10/1227 - Retention of flue; 3 Thatched Cottage, Church Lane,
Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs R Jenkins
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACTON - PF/10/1248 - Erection of replacement garage; Monks Lawn, Priory
Road for Mr E Howard
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/10/1253 - Erection of detached double garage; Pennygate
Barn, Pennygate Lane for Mr D Thwaites
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/1340 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2
Meadow Cottages, Beeston Common for Mr G Gotts
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/10/1196 - Variation of condition 4 of planning ref: 05/1705 to permit
holiday unit to be occupied as residential annexe; Old Barn Farm Bungalow,
Binham Road, Wighton for Mr D Cooke
(Full Planning Permission)
BRININGHAM - PF/10/1300 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The
Gatehouse, Gunthorpe Lane for Mrs Duffield
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - NMA1/10/0506 - Non-material amendment request for
alterations to ground floor windows and installation of roof light; 2 Hilltop for Mr
C Wright
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
COLBY - PO/10/1252 - Erection of detached single-storey annexe; The Old
Cottage, Colby Corner for Mr Clarke
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/0961 - Conversion of barn to 2 units of
holiday accommodation and erection of garages (extension of period for
commencement of 05/0573); Manor Farm Barn, Norwich Road for Mr P Edney
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1030 - Conversion of barn to dwelling;
The Barn, The Street, Saxthorpe for Mr R Head
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1251 - Erection of single-storey rear
extension and detached garage; Half Acre, Post Office Lane, Saxthorpe, for Mr
& Mrs G Pearson
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
47
20 January 2011
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1258 - Formation of vehicular access;
Foundry Bungalow, Matlask Road, Saxthorpe for Executors for Mrs P Custerson
(Dec'd)
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - NP/10/1388 - Prior notification of intention to
erect lean-to agricultural building; Church Farm, Cromer Road, Saxthorpe for Mr
N Last
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CROMER - PM/10/0671 - Erection of ten dwellings; Land at Jubilee Lane and
Station Road for Grand Homes Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
CROMER - PF/10/1028 - Use of land for siting portable building; Cromer Crab
Factory, 33 Holt Road for The Seafood Company
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/1215 - Construction of 2 dormer windows; 17 Harbord Road for
Mr J Baker
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/1238 - Conversion of one dwelling into two dwellings and
construction of dormer window; 1 Cross Street for Mr & Mrs Massingham
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/1176 - Conversion of barns to dwelling and one unit of
holiday accommodation and ancillary residential outbuildings; Lowes Farm,
Hunworth Road for Stody Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/1199 - Conversion of barns to residential annexe and two
units of holdiay accommodation; Street Farm, Ramsgate Street for Mrs Pointen
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/1343 - Retention of garden shed; Curve House, Ramsgate
Street for Mrs D Mitchell
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/08/0273 - Non-material amendment request for
transposition of window and patio doors and installation of horizontal glazing
bars to front windows; Land adjacent 10 Sandy Lane for Ponyspeed Builders
Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1259 - Erection of builders merchant's sales and storage
buildings; Unit 6, Land off Clipbush Lane for Travis Perkins
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1265 - Erection of single-storey front and side extensions;
31 Cranmer Court for Broadland Housing Association
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
48
20 January 2011
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1280 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of three
dwellings; 204 Norwich Road for Mrs Y Douglas
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1294 - Retention of side window; 19 Baxter Close for Mrs S
Neale
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/1341 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 10/0726 to permit erection of smaller front extension; Evermore,
Heath Lane for Mr V Nicholson
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/1109 - Erection of four two-storey dwellings and relocation of play space; Land at Hindolveston Road for Broadland Housing
Association Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - NMA1/10/0675 - Non-material amendment request to infill
existing window and two doors (ground floor), extend the sliding glazed
screens to full length of extension and convert window to door (first floor);
Highbury Barn, The Street, Barney for Mr Armstrong
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GIMINGHAM - PF/10/1103 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Barn at Hall Farm, Hall Road for Peters Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/1233 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Old
School House, The Street for Mrs R Maxwell
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/10/1285 - Installation of rooflights to facilitate conversion
of loft space to habitable accommodation; Three Farthings, 48 The Street for Mr
P Howlett
(Householder application)
HICKLING - NMA1/10/0193 - Non-material amendment request for revised roof
lights; Path Cottage, Staithe Road for Mr Povall
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HICKLING - NMA1/10/0645 - Non-material amendment request for change of
materials and colour of garage doors and window frames; Nether Hall, Ouse
Lane for Mr S Lambard
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/0773 - Construction of two dormer windows and garage
block; Birkfield House, Bridge Road for Mr & Mrs Gebbett
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/1220 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 4 Avenue
Road for Mr J Newman
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
49
20 January 2011
HOLT - PF/10/1245 - Construction of rear dormer window; 1 Norwich Road for
Mrs A B Barrett
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/10/1246 - Construction of rear dormer window; 1 Norwich Road for
Mrs A B Barrett
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - LA/10/1369 - Internal alterations to kitchen areas; Byfords, 1-3A Shirehall
Plain for Byfords
(Listed Building Alterations)
HORNING - PF/10/1221 - Erection of two-storey/first floor rear extension; The
Old Police House, Ropes Hill for Mr M Suckling & Ms S Vallance
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/10/1313 - Erection of raised walls at entrance; The Old Vicarage,
Mill Road for Mr & Mrs Costello
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/10/1290 - Installation of 2 dormer windows (re-submission);
The Old Barn Farmhouse, 45 The Street for Mr & Mrs Hollier
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - LA/10/1291 - Installation of 2 dormer windows (re-submission)
and alterations to roof space (retrospective); The Old Barn Farmhouse, 45 The
Street for Mr & Mrs Hollier
(Listed Building Alterations)
KETTLESTONE - PF/10/1310 - Erection of agricultural cattle shed; Home
Paddock, Pensthorpe Nature Reserve, Fakenham Road for Porter & Makins Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/10/1183 - Conversion of barns to four dwellings; Barns at,
Church Farm, The Streetfor Norman May (Knapton) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - LA/10/1184 - Demolition of lean-to and conversion of barns to four
dwellings; Barns at, Church Farm, The Street for Norman May (Knapton) Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
KNAPTON - PF/10/1262 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Ratcatchers
Cottage, The Street for Mr & Mrs Midlane
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - NP/10/1354 - Prior notification of intention to install solar panels to
agricultural building and erect grain store; Farm off Langham/Blakeney Road
(B1156) for Allen Farms
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/10/1242 - Conversion and extension
of former agricultural building to A1 (retail); Manor Farm Barns, Wiveton Road,
Glandford for Bayfield Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
50
20 January 2011
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/10/1323 - Conversion of outbuilding
to ancillary living accommodation; 1 Post Yard, Thornage Road, Little Thornage
for Mr & Mrs Virtue
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/10/1299 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Eversley,
Catfield Road for Mr Clarke
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/1217 - Erection of detached outbuilding; The Cart
Shed, Burgh Parva Barns for Mr & Mrs Jones
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1240 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions; 21
Beckmeadow Way for Mr & Mrs Crawshaw
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1272 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 9 Beach
Road for Mr D Jones
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1297 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning ref: E3975 to
permit occupancy from 1 March to 15 January; 11, 12,13, 16, 44, 45 & 77
Seaward Crest Chalets, Links Road for Mr J Burgoine
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/1278 - Erection of rear conservatory and side porch; 10
Bracken Avenue for Ms S Roe
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/1293 - Erection of front and rear extensions; 35 Pauls
Lane for Ms Val Woodhouse
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - NMA1/10/0501 - Non-material amendment request for revised
touring area layout; Ivy Farm Holiday Park, 1 High Street for W Reynolds & Sons
Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
ROUGHTON - PF/10/1229 - Erection of single-storey annexe with covered link
and construction of pitched roofs to flat-roofed extensions; Molen Huis, Cromer
Road for Mrs P Moy
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/10/1304 - Erection of single-storey side extension to garage to
form annexe; Whitethorns, Heath Lane for Mr & Mrs Mayes
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/1204 - Erection of rear conservatory; 10 Renwick Park East,
West Runton for Mr N Barrett
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/1213 - Erection of two-storey side extension and first floor
side extension; Cookies, Coast Road for Mr & Mrs P Mc Knespiey
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
51
20 January 2011
SCOTTOW - PF/10/0828 - Change of use of land from agricultural to cemetery;
Land adjacent The Cemetery for Scottow Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - AN/10/1301 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement and 2 flag
advertisements; Land adjacent to 1 Cromes Place, Badersfield for Annington
Homes Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1292 - Erection of single-storey rear extension (extension
of period for commencement of planning ref: 07/1541); 5 Knowle Road for Mr &
Mrs D Smith
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1324 - Erection of side extension; 18 Holt Road for Mr &
Mrs Hudson
(Householder application)
STIBBARD - PF/10/1325 - Erection of bus shelter; Land at Norwich Road for
Stibbard Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/1271 - Conversion of holiday units to one residential
dwelling; Cart shed adjacent to The Barn, Common Lane for Mr A Witmond
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - LA/10/1288 - Alterations to outbuildings to facilitate
conversion to residential; Cart shed adjacent to The Barn, Common Lane for Mr
A Witmond
(Listed Building Alterations)
THURSFORD - PF/10/1337 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions;
6 Station Road for Buck
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - NMA1/10/0626 - Non-material amendment request for omission of
utility room, door and window; West Barn, Brick Kiln Farm, Mundesley Road for
Mr & Mrs Gramlick
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/1226 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 18 Fletcher
Close for Mr & Mrs Marshall
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/10/1023 - Erection of two-storey office building with
associated warehouse; Land at North Creake Airfield Business Park, Bunkers
Hill, Wells Road, Egmere for Scira Offshore Energy
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0922 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to mixed
use A1 (retail) and A3 (restaurant/cafe); 57 Staithe Street for Miss H Nott
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
52
20 January 2011
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1224 - Continued siting of smoking shelter; War
Memorial Institute, Theatre Road for War Memorial Club
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1268 - Erection of two-storey side extension;
Fair Green, Warham Road for Ms S Keynejad & Mr J Bishop
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/10/0668 - Non-material amendment request for
alterations to fenestration; Mill Lodge, Polka Road for Mr J Stannard
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/1231 - Change of use from agricultural land to garden and
construction of a tennis court.; Field House, Sheringham Road for Dr P
Roebuck
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/1289 - Erection of dog kennel, boundary wall, gates and
installation of roof light; 2 Church Farm Barns, Church Street for Mr & Mrs
Bradley
(Householder application)
WICKMERE - PF/10/1315 - Erection of two-storey extension and single-storey
link extension and installation of dormer windows; The Old Rectory, Watery
Lane for Mr Buchan
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/10/1126 - Erection of two front extensions; The Old Stables, 5
Marsh Lane for Mr Gould
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/10/1254 - Erection of boarding kennels; The Lodge,
Foulsham Road for Mr G Larter
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/10/1286 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home;
Mobile Home, Old Fire Station Site, Foulsham Airfield, Foulsham Road for
Thomas and Money Haulage
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/1314 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
Westacre, Yarmouth Road, Bengate for Mr & Mrs Marjoram
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/1322 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning ref: 07/1976 to
permit erection of smaller dwelling; Laurel Farmhouse, Front Street for
Worstead Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BINHAM - PF/10/1287 - Erection of cart-shed/garage; Barn 1, Westgate Barns,
Warham Road for Mr A Perren
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
53
20 January 2011
CROMER - PF/10/1255 - Installation of fire escape stairs; Buddies, Holt Road for
Mr G Armstrong
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/1273 - Erection of first floor in-fill extension; 12 Cromer
Road for Mr H Trong
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - NMA1/08/1164 - Non-material amendment request for omission of
porch, re-location of entrance to side elevation and alterations to the roof height
and fenestration to the rear extension; Gospel Hall, St Johns Road for Mr J
MacMillan
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
No items
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING 01 December 2010
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/09/0906 - Use of Land for Siting Timber
Dwelling for Supervisor of Agricultural/Horticultural/Agro-Forestry Unit;
Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road for Mr Den Engelse
INFORMAL HEARING
BEESTON REGIS - ENF/09/0011 - Development not in accordance with approved
plans; Heath Barn, Britons Lane
INFORMAL HEARING 14 December 2010
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - ENQ/10/0098 - Without Planning Permission the
Material Change of use of the land from Agricultural to a Mixed Use of
Agricultural and the Stationing of a Motorhome for Residential Purposes;
Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road, Corpusty
INFORMAL HEARING
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0936 - Change of use from a mixed use of A1
(retail)/residential to residential and alterations to front elevation; Providence
Place, The Street for Mr A Cannon
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0818 - Erection of first floor side extension and detached
two-storey dwelling; 1 Jubilee Close for Mr P Young
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
Development Control Committee
54
20 January 2011
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0023 - Conversion of barn to two units of holiday
accommodation; Row Hill Farm Barns, Walsingham Road for Norfolk County
Council
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
STIFFKEY - PF/10/0432 - Erection of one and a half-storey side extension; Rose
Cottage, 82A Wells Road, Stiffkey for Mr Hickey
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee
55
20 January 2011