OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 20 MAY 2010
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 – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
This report outlines the need to establish a Judging Panel for this year’s Graham
Allen Award for Conservation and Design and to agree the proposed dates for the
judging and presentation of the awards.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design was inaugurated in 1982 as a
memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk District
Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the scheme
considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment within
the District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of historic
properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make innovative use
of traditional building forms and detailing.
A Judging Panel has to be set up to consider, evaluate and judge submissions under
the award scheme, and make awards accordingly. Membership of this Panel will be
drawn from the combined Development Control Committee. As resolved at Full
Council last year, it no longer has to be politically balanced. The Panel shall comprise
nine Members (one of whom will be elected Chairman), the relevant Portfolio
Member, and Mr Edward Allen, Graham Allen’s eldest son, who once again has
kindly agreed to be the permanent representative from the Allen family. The closing
date for entries is 30th June 2010.
It is suggested that the Judging Panel convenes on 23rd July 2010 at the Council
Offices to consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will
commence with a short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by
a tour of those short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the
Council Chamber on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with members
of the Judging Panel voting on the entries. The awards will then be presented at a
ceremony later in the year. At the time of writing this report, two possible dates are
proposed pending confirmation of Edward Allen’s availability. These are the 23rd
September or 21st October 2010, both after Development Control Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:1.
That Members nominate a total of nine Councillors from the
Development Control Committee to form the Graham Allen Award
Judging Panel, one of whom will be elected Chairman.
2.
That the date for judging the entries be accepted and that the dates for
the presentation be noted pending final confirmation.
(Source: Chris Young, Extn: 6138 – File Reference: GA Award)
Development Control Committee
1
20 May 2010
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.
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0301 - Variation of condition 3 planning permission
reference: 00/1685 to permit continued use of annexe for holiday
accommodation; Beech Cottage, Bittern Crescent for Mr T Ringwood
Minor Development - Target Date: 14 May 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson/Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20001685 - (Full Planning Permission) - Erection of two-storey house and garage
and outbuilding (to be used as temporary residential accommodation)
Approved 28 March 2001
THE APPLICATION
The proposal refers to a single storey timber building in the rear garden of an existing
dwelling. The building measures 5m by 9m and is constructed of white painted timber
boarding with a grey felt roof. It was first approved under planning permission
20001685 as an outbuilding which the owner intended occupying during construction
of the house on the site. Condition 3 of the permission stated as follows:
"Within two months of the occupation of the house hereby permitted the "outbuilding"
hereby permitted shall cease to be occupied as a separate dwelling and shall
thereafter be used solely for purposes which are incidental to the enjoyment of the
new house."
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor McGoun on the following planning issues:
Relationship with Policy EC 2 and noise and disturbance issues.
PARISH COUNCIL
Originally raised no objection, but have subsequently retracted that comment. Now
expresses concern that the building has been used as a holiday cottage for a number
of years and that this has been without any planning permission.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection received from residents of four nearby dwellings concerned about
the noise and disturbance created by the use of the building as a holiday cottage
immediately at the rear of their gardens.
One objection suggests that if permission is granted it should be conditional upon the
erection of a substantial screen fence as well as a limit on the length of the holiday
letting period.
Letter from applicants explaining that building is constructed with heavy insulation
and that other neighbours very close to the site have not made any complaints, and
that building was let out by previous owner.
Development Control Committee
2
20 May 2010
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No response.
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 EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EN 4: Design ( includes the need for proposals to avoid a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers )
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of holiday use.
2. Impact on residential amenity.
APPRAISAL
The site is in an area subject to Countryside Policy SS 2 which allows the principle of
developments for recreation and tourism purposes. The proposal is clearly a form of
tourist development. Furthermore, the building is currently, and apparently for
several years, has been advertised for rent as a holiday unit.
Policy EC 2 allows for the conversion of buildings in the countryside to commercial
uses (including holiday accommodation), subject to a number of criteria. These
include the requirement that the building be soundly built and suitable for the
proposed use without substantial re-building or extension, and any alterations should
protect or enhance the character of the building and its setting. In this case the
proposal does not involve any physical alterations to the exterior of the building, and
the fact that it was used originally as an annexe and subsequently for holiday
purposes demonstrates that it is suitable for the proposed use without substantial rebuilding.
Policy EC2 also requires that proposals accord with other Core Strategy policies to
protect amenity and the character of the area. Policy EN 4 states that proposals
should not have a significantly detrimental effect on residential amenity of nearby
occupiers. The building is approximately 25m from the applicant's house in the northwestern corner of its curtilage. It abuts the rear gardens of three neighbouring
properties. The nearest neighbour's house is some 20m to the north-west. Whilst the
whole site forms part of a residential garden where the normal range of domestic
activities can be expected to take place, the presence of the building in the
northwestern corner would focus some of these activities in a position where the
potential disturbance to neighbours could be increased. There are 1.8m screen
fences on both side boundaries of the building.
Development Control Committee
3
20 May 2010
It appears from comments made by the objectors that the use has caused some
degree of noise and disturbance in the past and if permission is to be granted it is
considered that the provision of some additional boundary screening on the northern
boundary would be justified. Policy EC 9 states that conditions should be placed on
new unserviced holiday accommodation requiring that they are available for holiday
letting for at least 140 days a year and that a register of lettings is maintained.
However in this case given the concerns of neighbours and the indication that the
building is only let for holiday use on an occasional basis at present, it is not
considered appropriate to impose such a condition which potentially would
encourage greater use of the building. Instead it is recommended that the building is
restricted to just holiday letting purposes or as ancillary accommodation to the
dwelling. It is considered that the granting of permission on this basis would comply
with the policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to the following conditions:
1) The building subject to this permission shall only be used for holiday letting
purposes or as ancillary residential accommodation to the use of Beech Cottage, and
shall not be used as the sole or main residence of the occupiers.
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt and because the site is located in an area designated as
Countryside in the North Norfolk Core Strategy where the Local Planning Authority
would not normally permit permanent residential accommodation, in accordance with
Policies SS 2, EC 10 and EC 2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2) A register of lettings, occupation and advertising shall be maintained at all times
and shall be made available for inspection to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the accommodation is restricted to holiday use only and not used as
permanent residential accommodation in accordance with Policy EC 9 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3) Within three months of the date of this permission a detailed scheme for
additional screening and planting on the northern boundary of the site shall be
submitted to the LPA for approval. The scheme as approved shall be implemented in
full within six months of its approval and shall thereafter be retained to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To minimise the impact of the use on nearby dwellings in accordance with Policy EN
4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
4
20 May 2010
3.
CROMER - PF/10/0296 - Enclosing of canopy to form entrance lobby and
retention of 3m high screen fence; Buddies Bar and Lounge, Holt Road for G R
Armstrong Ltd
Minor Development - Target Date: 13 May 2010
Case Officer: Miss K Hall
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Employment Area
Rural Buildings
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19971430 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use of former station building to
bar/restaurant with function room (Class A3) and manager's flat
Approved 19 Dec 1997
THE APPLICATION
To enclose an open glazed roof canopy at the entrance to a public house ('Buddies') to
form an entrance lobby constructed with timber framed windows and doors, and a low
rendered plinth wall capped with brickwork.
An amended plan has been submitted indicating minor design revisions. In addition
the retention of a 3m high acoustic fence adjacent to the east gable end of the
building, used to reduce the noise from an external smoking area, is proposed.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Johnson and Cabbell Manners due to the level of public
interest and concerns regarding appearance of the development and noise.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection subject to the materials being suitable for the Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection received from a local resident, Cromer Railway Signalling Society
and Cromer Preservation Society on the grounds of:
1. Concern that the extension of the outdoor seating will increase late night noise
levels.
2. Design does not enhance the entrance or preserve the character of the building.
3. Too many small square lights above transom, detracting from the ironwork of the
spandrels.
4. Glazing bars are too thick and too numerous, windows bear no relation to existing
fine glazing bars.
5. Rendered brick plinth too heavy in appearance.
6. Too awkward and too imposing.
7. Lack of information regarding how the porch would be attached to the canopy.
8. Would prefer an entirely glazed structure with no glazing bars.
9. Use of plastic fenestration.
A supporting letter submitted with the application is attached in Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Support. The lobby would be an important measure in
controlling noise escaping when the front doors are open as it can act as a sound trap.
It is required to protect local residents from potential noise nuisance.
Development Control Committee
5
20 May 2010
The 3m acoustic fence is another means to protect local residents. The height and
material are an important feature in minimising the escape of noise from this area.
Initial feedback from local residents following the erection of the fence has been
positive. It has significantly reduced the amount of noise emanating from the outside
'smoking' area.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - No objection. The
proposed lobby is less than ideal in design terms as it could not be in a more
prominent location. However it would be housed within the footprint of the canopy and
would be visually lightweight, preventing it from looking like a conservatory with the
use of matching detailing including complimentary framing. Set as it is, within the
canopy, it would be reversible and retain a degree of subordination.
The fence does not enhance the setting of the building. However, unlike other acoustic
fences it is designed to look like a garden fence. From the front perspective it is
unfortunate that the fence comes out as far as the principal elevation. Due to the
orientation of the building and the angled approach to it, the fence however occupies a
relatively withdrawn location, partially screened by the bin store in front. From the east
side (approaching the site from the town) an area of planting softens the impact,
allowing only the top third to be visible. The fence has replaced an approx 1.8m fence
and dilapidated shed, therefore there is little substantive difference. The fence is not
considered sufficiently injurious to merit a sustainable objection.
There is clearly a balance to be struck between vitality of the business and visual
impact. It is felt that the submitted scheme just manages to strike that balance and
would not result in any real harm within this part of Cromer's Conservation Area. As
such Conservation and Design have no sustainable grounds on which to object.
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 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 SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design.
2. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
3. Reduction of noise pollution
APPRAISAL
The building subject to this application is the former Cromer Railway Station building,
now used as a public house.
Development Control Committee
6
20 May 2010
The two elements of the proposal are aimed at managing the business more
effectively and reducing the potential for noise pollution in the immediate area. There
are residential properties in the near vicinity, the closest being on the opposite side of
Holt Road.
The enclosed lobby would be sited within the area of the existing canopy by the front
doors on the building's principal elevation. The design reflects the existing windows
and black rendered plinths either side of the entrance. The lobby is to be constructed
within, but not attached to the canopy. It is to have a separate flat roof. The proposed
windows are to be white timber with complementary framing.
The 3m high acoustic fence has been erected prior to applying for planning permission
for reasons explained in the applicant's letter (Appendix 1). It is clearly not an ideal
addition to a building of architectural interest, but it is considered to be acceptable. The
location, on the side (east) elevation, allows the fence to remain somewhat recessive
from the principal elevation. From the east the fence is partially shielded by vegetation,
and from the south by a lower fence for the bin store. The nature of the fence ensures
that it can easily be removed in the future if required.
Core Strategy Policy EN13 states that all development proposals should minimise, and
where possible reduce, all forms of pollution, including noise pollution. Both aspects of
the proposal comply with this policy. Since its erection, the acoustic fence has
evidently reduced the amount of late evening noise nuisance. The lobby should have a
similar beneficial effect.
An external seating area, although included on the submitted plan, and referred to by
objectors, does not require planning permission.
In conclusion it is considered that the proposals subject to this application provide an
acceptable balance in terms of addressing noise impacts on local residents and
protecting the character and appearance of the building and Conservation Area, whilst
allowing the business to continue. Accordingly it is considered that the proposals
comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to materials.
4.
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/0236 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 4 Foxhill
Road, East Ruston for Mr S Fulcher
Target Date: 29 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19841650 - (Full Planning Permission) - Extensions to bedroom and kitchen
Approved 07 Dec 1984
19900804 - (Full Planning Permission) - Living room extension
Approved 24 Jul 1990
Development Control Committee
7
20 May 2010
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a single-storey 'lean to' extension to the rear of a two-storey semidetached house. The extension is to accommodate a 'day room', utility room and
WC. The dimensions of the extension would be 5.3m wide x 3.27m deep. It is
proposed to be constructed of matching brickwork with a red pantile roof.
An amended plan has been submitted which deletes a parapet to the side wall
adjacent to the neighbouring property.
As part of the proposal, an existing outbuilding which is shared with the adjoining
neighbour (no.3) would be partly demolished. The amended plans indicate the walls
and roof of the neighbour's half of the outbuilding to be 'made good' (although these
works in themselves do not require planning permission).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Northam on the grounds of loss of light to the adjoining
properties.
PARISH COUNCIL
Strongly object due to the loss of privacy, the intrusion of the building on neighbouring
properties and the position of the outflow pipe.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection have been received from residents of neighbouring properties,
No.3 Foxhill Road (adjoining semi) and No. 5 Foxhill Road. The grounds of objection
are as follows:
1. Not being notified under the Party Wall etc Act 1996.
2. Contradiction in the plans regarding whether or not the party wall in the outbuilding
will be demolished.
3. Height of the side wall and the visual impact of it (to number 3, the adjoining semi).
4. Loss of privacy (to number 5) in relation to the additional window on the north east
elevation.
5. Loss of light (to number 5).
6. Proximity to shared septic tanks.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Development Control Committee
8
20 May 2010
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The application property is one of a small group of 6 semi-detached two-storey
dwellings located in an isolated part of the countryside. The proposal is for a 'lean to'
type single-storey extension to the rear of the property approximately 17sq.m in area.
The property has been previously extended (two-storey) to the rear and the proposal
is an addition to this extension. There is currently an outbuilding which is shared with
the neighbour and the application (as amended) indicates the neighbour's half of the
building to be retained and 'made good'. The proposed extension would follow the
line of the side wall of the existing dwelling which is on the boundary with the
neighbour.
Whilst the application is for yet a further extension to this property, which has been
fairly extensively extended already, it is not considered that the proposal would cause
any significant harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Being only
single storey and due north of the existing semi, it will not cause any loss of light.
Neither would there result in any loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties. The
main windows would look down the applicant's garden with only a small WC window
on the northern side, which can be conditioned to be obscure glazed thereby
preventing any potential loss of privacy to the neighbouring property.
The amended plans which delete an originally proposed parapet to the side wall,
have the effect of marginally lowering the height of the wall and its impact on the
neighbouring property (no.3).
In terms of design the proposal would complement the existing dwelling.
It is considered that the proposed extension would accord with Policies EN4 and HO8
of the adopted Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.
2) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed intentions
of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3) Materials to be used on the permitted extension shall match those of the existing
building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Development Control Committee
9
20 May 2010
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily with
its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
4) The window on the north east elevation of the extension hereby permitted shall be
installed with obscured glazing with a degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington
level 5. The glazing shall thereafter be retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs
3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5.
GIMINGHAM - PF/10/0203 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and
garage; Land Adjacent Treeside, School Lane for Mr S Colbourne
Minor Development - Target Date: 05 May 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson/Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20070089 - (Outline Planning Application) - Erection of single-storey dwelling and
garage
Approved 12 April 2007
THE APPLICATION
Erection of a one-and-a- half-storey dwelling (incorporating two bedrooms and
bathroom facilities within the roof space) and a detached two bay open fronted
garage and attached workshop.
Amended plans submitted omit originally proposed timber cladding in favour of flint
elevations all round, and reduce the height of both the eaves (now 2.85m) and the
ridge of the roof (now 6.1m)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At request of Councillor Jones on grounds of impact of building on character of area
due to its scale.
PARISH COUNCIL
Strongly object – visual impact, roofline too high, materials out of character, one and
a half storey differs from original application. In the event of permission being
granted requests that permitted development rights be withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIONS
Immediate neighbours have objected on the grounds of visual impact and loss of
privacy (full comments at Appendix 2).
In addition there are letters from twelve other nearby residents concerned about the
visual impact of the proposal and possible contamination of the site.
Development Control Committee
10
20 May 2010
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Coordinator – No objections subject to conditions ensuring compliance
with the Code for Sustainable Homes.
County Council (Highways) – Notes that the outline planning permission was granted
contrary to highways advice. Makes no further comments other than requesting full
construction details of passing bay (and retaining wall) prior to work starting on site.
Environmental Health – Awaiting comments.
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 EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development in this location.
2. Scale and design of building.
3. Impact on neighbour.
APPRAISAL
The site has the benefit of outline planning permission for a single-storey dwelling
and garage granted in 2007. Gimingham is no longer identified as a settlement for
further residential development, but the principle of development stemming from the
outline permission on this site remains valid for the duration of that permission. The
current proposal is submitted as a full planning application as it is not for a single
storey dwelling.
In terms of scale the ground floor area of the proposed building would cover 190sq.m
compared with approximately 180sq.m shown at the outline stage. The proposal
therefore represents a slight increase in ground area. The eaves height of the
proposed dwelling (now reduced to 2.85m) would be only slightly higher than would
be expected of a conventional bungalow. Therefore the scale of the building would
be only marginally greater than that envisaged by the outline permission. The design
is intended to mimic the style of a Norfolk barn with flint walls and gables and
pantile roof. This, it is considered, would produce an attractive building appropriate to
its rural setting which, despite its size, would not be damaging to the appearance of
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Development Control Committee
11
20 May 2010
The ground level of the application site is 1m below the neighbouring property and
the proposed dwelling would be sited so that it would not obscure the neighbouring
property's view as much as the previous (outline planning permission) scheme would
have done. In addition the height of the proposed building has now been reduced
such that the ridge height would be 0.5m below that of the adjacent bungalow. The
northern elevation of the proposed dwelling which would face towards the
neighbour's main windows would only include two doors and a pantry window at a
distance of approx 15m away. This degree of separation would ensure no
overlooking and would comply with the requirements of the Design Guide basic
amenity criteria.
Withdrawing permitted development rights for windows and extensions would ensure
that no uncontrolled alterations in the future would adversely impact on the amenities
of the neighbours.
Granting permission for this application would accord with the relevant policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of conditions to include reference to the
amended plans; details of passing bay and visibility splay; a reduced
implementation time limit to accord with the outline permission; withdrawal of
permitted development rights for windows and extensions; and materials.
6.
HOLT - PF/09/1059 - Display of Non-Illuminated Banner Advertisements; Holt
Country Park, Norwich Road for North Norfolk District Council
Target Date: 22 December 2009
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Advertisement Non-Illuminated
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Special Advertising Control
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the display of six non-illuminated banner advertisements.
Each banner measures approximately 2.4m in height and 0.9m wide. The height from
the ground to the base of the advertisement is 0.6m.
The banners are made of a pvc coated cloth, and are blue/green/brown in colour with
white writing of 0.2m in height.
Amended plans have been received regarding the siting of the 2 banner
advertisements originally proposed on the roadside. They have been relocated to
approximately 30m into the site close to the other four.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker on the following planning reasons:
The proposal will commercialise 300 acres of wildlife woodland.
Development Control Committee
12
20 May 2010
TOWN COUNCIL
Original Comments: Object to the application - Banners will distract drivers.
Comments on amended plans: Object - Inappropriate for site and area.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Original Comments
summarised as follows: Concerns raised over the proposed location of two of the
banners shown directly adjacent to the main entrance on the Norwich Road. The
concerns are in relation to impact upon the rural landscape and the harmful effects
these features would have on the wooded landscape that defines this part of the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area. It is suggested that these two banners be
repositioned further back into the site where they would have less visual intrusion.
Subject to amendments to the position of the two banners would recommend approval
of this application.
Comments on amended plans: No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Original
comments summarised as follows: In terms of design the signs do have a quirky eye
catching approach, which would help bring the park into the 21st century and
appealing to a broader target audience. However, concerned that the two
advertisements on the highway entrance to the park are too prominent and a distinct
move away from the traditional park signage prevalent throughout the District. It is
considered that if these two entrance signs were relocated or removed from the
scheme it would be much more appropriate given the sensitive context of the site. The
four remaining signs have a less intrusive effect with the woodland backdrop and being
set within the grounds.
Comments on amended plans: No objections.
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 Design Guide (Adopted December 2008): paragraphs 8.3.1 to 8.3.10
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on visual amenity and Conservation Area.
2. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The original plans submitted with the application proposed two banners on the
roadside either side of the entrance, and four further banners approximately 30m back
into the site.
Development Control Committee
13
20 May 2010
The Committee will note the original comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager regarding the location of the banners to the roadside, and that
their location would have had a detrimental visual impact on the rural landscape and
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
The Committee will also note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection.
Section 8.3 of the North Norfolk Design Guide provides guidance on the acceptability
of different types of advertisements. Paragraph 8.3.8 covers Advance Warning or
Directional Signs and states that these types of signs are rarely allowed on the basis
that they can create inappropriate visual clutter, particularly in rural areas and are likely
to be a distraction to drivers and could prejudice highway safety. It is therefore
considered that the two banners by the roadside would not be acceptable.
Discussions have taken place between the applicant and Officers regarding the
relocation of the two banners by the roadside. The applicant has agreed to relocate the
two banners alongside the proposed four banners, and amended plans have been
submitted. The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager no longer has an objection.
It is therefore considered that the amended proposal, involving relocation of two of the
banners, would not have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the
area or Glaven Valley Conservation Area, nor is it considered that they could be
classed as advance warning or directional signs given that they would be located
some 30m back into the site and would not be clearly visible from the north or south
due to existing tree cover. It is considered that the only point from where they would be
viewed clearly is on entering the site.
The design of the banners is considered to be acceptable and the colouring indicated
recessive, which would blend in well with their surroundings.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of the North
Norfolk Design Guide.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7.
PASTON - PF/10/0141 - Construction of on-shore gas processing facilities,
including pipeline connections to off-shore storage and 100m emergency vent
stack; Perenco UK Ltd, Paston Road, Bacton for Bacton Storage Company Ltd
Major Development - Target Date: 31 May 2010
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Coastal Erosion Risk Area - 100 years
Major Hazard Zone
Undeveloped Coast
Contaminated Land
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Development Control Committee
14
20 May 2010
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for the development of buildings and plant at the Perenco premises
(part of Bacton Gas Terminal), together with sections of onshore gas pipelines. The
development would form the onshore gas storage and processing facilities associated
with an offshore natural gas storage facility based at the largely depleted Baird gas
field situated in the southern North Sea, some 86 miles (140 km) off the coastline.
Development within the existing terminal boundary would take place mostly on existing
undeveloped land. The principal elements would comprise:
• A compressor building (66m x 30m), 14.5m high with three exhaust stacks (21m
high).
• Four new storage tanks (16m high approx).
• Various new plant and pipework.
• 100m high vent stack.
• Extensions to control room (single storey).
Pipeline connections to the site include:
• A 965mm natural gas pipeline and 114mm mono-ethylene glycol pipeline from
the adjacent beach mean low water mark. The pipelines would come ashore
some 330 metres due east of the Perenco site (adjacent to the neighbouring
Shell UK premises) and connect to the terminal by a 'shaft and tunnel, comprising
a vertical (25m approx) shaft within the terminal with the pipelines tunnelled
below beach level.
• A 914mm natural gas pipeline from the Perenco site crossing beneath Paston
Road to connect with the National Grid gas distribution site.
The submitted plans identify a temporary construction and laydown area on part of the
beach and land on the eastern side of the terminal.
Documents accompanying the planning application include the following:
Full Environmental Statement
Design and Access Statement.
Planning Statement.
Transport Assessment
Flood Risk Assessment.
Foul Sewerage and Utilities Assessment
Contamination Study.
Statement of Community Involvement.
The Executive Summary to the Environmental Statement which provides a background
and explanation of the project, together with a commentary on the topics covered in
the statement is attached in Appendix 3.
It has been previously indicated that, subject to all the necessary approvals,
construction on the project would take approximately two years beginning in early
summer 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the national
significance of the proposal combined with other proposed developments at the gas
terminal.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
Development Control Committee
15
20 May 2010
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter received from planning consultants on behalf of Shell (UK) Ltd. The letter draws
attention to the fact that part of the application site (specifically land proposed for a
construction compound and the existing beach ramp) is owned by Shell (UK) Ltd. The
letter states that in view of Shell's own development proposals (which have planning
permission) it is unlikely that the land would be made available in the timeframe the
Bacton Storage Company are wanting to undertake their construction works and
therefore suggests alternative locations should be considered by the applicants for
their construction compound. Concerns are also raised regarding the proposed
pipeline route. Suggests conditions in the event of planning permission being granted.
CONSULTATIONS
Bacton Parish Council - No objection.
Mundesley Parish Council - No objection.
Knapton Parish Council - No objection.
Walcott Parish Council - No objection.
Swafield Parish Council - Expresses concerns about possible extra traffic through the
village and queries why no survey has been carried out on the impact of extra traffic on
the by roads.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
Coast Protection Engineer - Raises concerns in relation to the pipeline construction on
the beach with regard to the temporary interruptions of sediment transport and
degradation of coast structures. Requests further details. Requires any coastal
structures (i.e. groynes/revetments) which are temporarily removed to be rebuilt using
all new materials of a similar grade and specification as the originals.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions requiring prior
agreement to a management plan and access route for construction traffic and prior
agreement to a park and ride system for construction workers.
Environment Agency - Objects to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment on the basis
that it does not comply with requirements set out in Planning Policy Statement 25.
Specifies in detail the further information required.
Anglian Water - No comments received.
Health and Safety Executive - Does not advise, on safety grounds, against the
granting of planning permission.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - No objection subject to a condition requiring the
securing of a programme of archaeological work.
Ministry of Defence - No safeguarding objections
Natural England - Concludes that there will be no impact upon the cliff habitat
(Mundesley Cliffs SSSI). Shares concerns of NNDC Coast Protection Engineer
regarding potential effects upon coastal processes as a result of the beach
construction activities.
Development Control Committee
16
20 May 2010
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Notes that all of the proposed development is outside the
AONB but that there could be visual impacts both during the development stage and
following completion. The main concern is the proposed 100m high vent stack.
Although this would not be the only very high structure on the site, or even the tallest, it
would be likely to add significantly to the visual impact of the complex from some
distance, which includes the eastern parts of the main AONB area east of Bacton (as
well as from surrounding countryside outside the AONB). Given the national
importance of the development, there is no objection to this aspect alone, but it would
be appropriate, given the national importance of the AONB, if the vent stack design
was carefully considered to ensure that the impacts could be reduced to the minimum
possible.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Raises no objection,
with the following comments:
- The proposal requires the removal of a significant proportion of plantation woodland
and two small sections of hedgerow adjacent to Paston Road. The woodland provides
a limited amount of screening and is of some beneficial value. It is proposed to retain
higher value trees where possible and to provide some understorey planting (which it
is recommended should be subject to a condition.
- There are potential impacts upon the adjacent North Norfolk Coast AONB,
particularly the 100m emergency vent stack. It is hoped that this could be minimised
through the careful selection of materials and design. In addition, there will be a minor
temporary adverse impact during the construction phase of the project; however given
the national importance of the project and temporary nature of the disturbance this can
be tolerated.
- In view of the proposed tunnelling method for laying the onshore length of pipeline
there will be no perceived impact upon the Mundesley Cliffs SSSI.
- Given the mitigation measures proposed, it is unlikely that the conservation features
of Paston Barn SSSI will be affected by the development.
- A condition should be imposed requiring precise details of the construction
compound on the outside of the existing terminal security fence in order to safeguard
against any damage to existing landscaping treatment.
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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Development Control Committee
17
20 May 2010
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 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life or
significantly increase risk to property & prevents proposals that are likely to increase
coastal erosion).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (development at
Bacton Gas Terminal that is ancillary to the terminal use will be supported within the
defined area shown on the Proposals Map).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. National importance of Bacton Gas Terminal.
2. Environmental impacts during construction (traffic, noise, beach sediment, public
access, protected species habitats).
3. Visual and landscape impact.
4. Operational impacts (including noise).
5. Coastal erosion.
6. Ecology.
APPRAISAL
The Perenco premises occupy the middle of the three gas terminal company sites on
the seaward side of Paston Road (B1159). If developed the new facilities would be
owned and operated by the applicants (Bacton Storage Company Ltd), entirely
separate from the existing Perenco operation.
The works proposed at this site are likely to coincide with other major developments
proposed at the adjoining Shell and ENi premises. Planning permission has recently
been granted for development on the Shell site. A planning application for
developments on the ENi site is expected in the coming months. A presentation of all
three company proposals was given to the Council and representatives of nearby
Parish Councils in October last year.
As Members will appreciate from the Executive Summary (Appendix 3), this planning
application for on-shore works forms an integral part of a much larger project to
provide a gas storage reserve to serve the UK. It is clearly a project of national
importance, the principle of which should be supported.
In terms of Core Strategy policy the gas terminal is within the Countryside policy area.
Policy EC 3 (Extensions to Existing Businesses in the Countryside) makes specific
reference to Bacton Gas Terminal and recognises its national importance. The policy
is supportive to the principle of ancillary developments within the existing terminal
complex.
Once completed, evidence of the development would be confined to the terminal site
itself. However the proposals include the laying of the pipeline on the beach together
with an associated construction compound, the impacts of which also need to be
considered as part of the planning application.
Development Control Committee
18
20 May 2010
At present, most of the existing buildings and plant occupy the southern half of the
Perenco premises. The majority of proposed new buildings and plant would be on
undeveloped land on the northern part of the site towards the cliff tops, the only
exception being the single-storey extensions to a control room at the front of the site.
There is currently a woodland plantation on the western part of the site which was
planted around 30-40 years ago. Much of this would be removed as part of the
proposed development. The woodland is only of average quality and because of its
central location within the overall terminal complex, it has no significance upon the
wider surrounding landscape. Members will note that the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager has no objection to its reduction in size.
The gas terminal immediately adjoins the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB). As such it is important to assess any potential adverse impacts the
development would have on the AONB. Included as part of the submitted
Environmental Statement is a 'Landscape and Visual Resources Assessment' (LVRA)
which considers all aspects of the proposed development upon the surrounding
landscape. The LVRA concludes that for the most part the visual impact of the
completed development would be negligible. Given the site's central position within the
terminal complex and the fact that the new buildings and plant would be screened by
and merge with existing development, this is a reasonable conclusion.
The one exception in terms of visual impact would be the proposed 100m emergency
vent stack. The LVRA states that this would have a 'minor adverse impact'. The stack,
which is a safety requirement, is to be located within an open area at the north-western
corner of the site within approximately 75m of the cliffs. A requirement is that there
should be no buildings or plant where personnel would be working within a calculated
radius of the stack. The shorter the stack, the wider this safety zone has to be (and
vice-versa). The radius requirement for the 100m stack is 69m. This just evades any of
the nearest proposed plant facilities and coincides with the site security fence
boundary. The stack would be 2.2m in diameter. Whilst it would be visible from beyond
the terminal (and the adjacent AONB), there are already other similar stacks at the
terminal and so it is reasonable to conclude (subject to agreement on its colour/finish)
that its impact would not be significantly harmful in the overall context of the area.
It is likely that the most significant local effects of the proposed development would be
during the construction stage as opposed to when it became operational. The
construction stage would result temporarily in increased traffic, noise and disturbance
and restrictions of public access (beach and cliff top footpath). The submitted plans
indicate three construction activity areas, within the terminal site, on the beach and on
the cliff tops (Seagulls Road) where there would be a construction compound adjacent
to the existing concrete ramp which provides access onto the beach.
In terms of traffic movements these are likely to vary over the construction period. It is
proposed that HGV construction traffic would use the established route to and from the
terminal due south towards Stalham and beyond. At the busiest period it is predicted
that there would be 10 HGV movements in a single day. It is proposed that a
temporary park and ride bus system would operate from locations in the nearby area
to transport construction workers to the site. Discussions have already taken place
between all three terminal companies and the Highway Authority to share such a
facility. A traffic management plan would be prepared to ensure implementation of
these measures and Members will note that the Highway Authority has raised no
objection subject to conditions to secure these measures.
Development Control Committee
19
20 May 2010
Construction of the on-shore pipelines would result in an area of beach being
temporarily excluded from public use. The precise area would fluctuate depending on
the work being undertaken. The Environmental Statement states that these works
would be undertaken during winter and that public access past the works would only
be closed when required for safety reasons. Similar arrangements would be provided
for the cliff top footpath which runs along the length of the terminal.
Members will note that the Council's Coast Protection Engineer has raised concerns
regarding the impact of the beach works upon coastal sediment processes and is
currently seeking further assurances from the applicants on the methods to be used.
At the time of writing this report the comments of the Environmental Health Officer
were awaited. It is anticipated that these will be reported at the meeting.
The gas terminal is within 700m of Paston Great Barn, which is a Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), because it provides
a maternity roost for internationally protected species (barbastelle bats). It is
understood that bats may use the cliffs for foraging. However neither Natural England
nor the Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, in view of the
construction techniques to be used, consider that any harm would be caused on
grounds of ecological interest.
Members will note the representations received on behalf of Shell (UK) Ltd. The
applicants are aware of the position currently taken by Shell with regard to the
availability of land under their control. The applicants have indicated that they do not
wish to amend the proposals currently applied for. The issue relates to matters which
would need to be subject to agreement between the two parties and are not
considered to be material to the planning considerations of this proposal.
In conclusion, the proposed development, once completed, should have very limited
impact on the amenities or character of the surrounding area. Any limited impact (i.e.
the 100m high vent stack) needs to be balanced against the significant national
interest of which this proposal forms part. The construction phase of the development
would have localised impacts, but these can be mitigated by planning conditions.
The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Core Strategy policies and is
accordingly recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to (following the receipt of additional
information), no objections raised by the Environment Agency, Natural England
and the Coast Protection Engineer; and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to include construction traffic measures, materials, landscaping
details of the construction compound and conditions as recommended by the
Environmental Health Officer.
Development Control Committee
20
20 May 2010
8.
RYBURGH - PF/10/0123 - Change of Use from Residential to a Mixed Use of
Residential and Children's Nursery; The Old School, Station Road, Great
Ryburgh for Mr Kirby
Target Date: 01 April 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071047 – (Full Planning Permission) – Change of use of former school to three
dwellings
Approved, 13 Aug 2007
20090409 – (Full Planning Permission) – Conversion of school to one residential
dwelling
Approved, 30 Jun 2009
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change the use from residential to a mixed use of residential and children's
nursery.
The proposal would involve the conversion of 198sq.m of floor space on the ground
floor, currently being converted for residential purposes to a 30 – 40 place day nursery
catering for children from birth to 5 years old. It would employ four permanent and four
part time staff, with opening hours between 8am – 6pm (Monday to Friday).
The former playground to the east side of the site would be converted into secure
children's play areas and the west side of the site used for residential and staff
parking. Access and parking for the development would be via the existing access on
Station Road, adjoining No.42.
The amenity space to the front of the site would be shared between the residents and
the nursery
An amended plan has been submitted showing provision for 7 parking spaces and a
dropping off area in Station Road.
Additional information has been received from the applicant regarding the number of
pupils and staff when the school closed in March 2006 and also the justification for the
need of a nursery.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Green having regard to the following planning issues:
Increased traffic and highway safety.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate on site parking leading to on street parking.
2. No safe dropping off/picking up points
3. Highway safety issues
Development Control Committee
21
20 May 2010
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support from a local resident on the grounds that it will bring another
service and jobs to the village and make good use of the building for its original
intentions as a school and preserve the character of the village.
Two letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):
1. Increase of traffic into village.
2. Insufficient staff or visitor parking on site.
3. Station Road is already far to busy and hazardous for driving due to
existing parked vehicles and frequent lorry movement.
4. Addition of 30 – 40 cars dropping off children and ten staff vehicles will add
to highway problems.
5. Dangerous location of The Old School on a sharp bend.
6. Entrance/exit to adjacent property could become difficult.
7. Several nurseries within the local area – question the need for a nursery of
this size in the area.
8. Dangerous to pedestrians and children attending the nursery.
9. Significant noise issue due to size of nursery and because open from 8am – 6pm all
week /all year which would impact on quality of life.
A further letter of objection in respect of the amended plan from one of the previous
objectors which reiterates previous concerns but also raises the issue that there is no
designated dropping off point.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – No objection to amended plans.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions
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 EN8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria for
new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances)
Development Control Committee
22
20 May 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Car parking.
3. Highway safety.
4. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
5. Impact on character of Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area and also in the Great Ryburgh
Conservation Area where Policies SS 2, CT 3, CT 5, CT 6 and EN8 are applicable. In
areas designated as Countryside development will be limited to that which requires a
rural location and includes community services and facilities meeting a proven local
need. Similarly Policy CT 3 states that new or improved community facilities or
services will be permitted within the Countryside where they meet the identified needs
of the local community. Policies CT 5 and CT 6 require that development be designed
to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport
appropriate to its particular location. Development proposals will be required to
provide for safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, public and private transport
addressing the needs of all, including those with a disability. In addition the proposal is
capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to
the amenity or character of the locality.
In terms of the provision of a community service to meet a proven local need, the
applicant has indicated that the nursery would cater for children from birth to 5 years
and considers that there is a need for this type of community facility in Great Ryburgh.
He points to the fact that the nearest nursery is in Stibbard, approximately 3 miles
away, who do not cater children under 2 and it is believed to be fully attended, whilst
the nearest nursery catering for babies is 5 miles away in Fakenham. He also points to
the fact that in the 2001 census, Great Ryburgh had a population of 668 in 264
households and that since then a number of starter homes have been built in the
village, presumably for young families. The nursery proposal would be regulated as an
Ofsted-controlled facility and would also provide employment in the local area.
There therefore appears to be a need for such a facility to serve the local community
and overall it would be an asset to the area, providing nursery care to working families
and also employing up to eight staff on a full and part time basis.
In respect of parking provision, Policy CT 6 requires 2 parking spaces for the
residential property and 1 vehicle parking space for each full time member of staff
employed at the nursery plus a drop/off collection point. The proposal would provide
employment for 4 full time and 4 part time employees, which would equate to 6
parking spaces; therefore a total of 8 spaces would be required. The applicant is
proposing to provide 7 parking spaces as well as an area for cycles and a parent drop
off zone in Station Road. Whilst the proposal would therefore result in a shortfall of 1
parking space it is anticipated that some employees would be recruited from the local
area and could therefore walk or cycle to work. As such it is not considered that there
would be sufficient justification to refuse the application on this issue.
Similarly, whilst a further area of concern is that of increased traffic movement
generated by the nursery, given the fact that it would be located within the village it is
anticipated that some parents with children would walk to and from the facility which is
well-connected to other parts of the village by adequate footpaths. Nevertheless it is
accepted that the majority of parents would use a vehicle to drop off and collect their
children. However whilst the nursery would cater for up to 40 children this would be a
significant reduction on the 98 children and 13 staff attending the school, with parking
Development Control Committee
23
20 May 2010
provision on site, when it closed in 2006. Furthermore, when the school was
operational, children were dropped off and collected at set time, with the resulting
congestion. Under the current proposals it is anticipated that the flexible start and
finish times would even out any increase in traffic movement throughout the day.
The Highway Authority has confirmed that it has no objection to the amended parking
arrangement or to the scheme as a whole.
In terms of the impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, the use of
outside space as a play area at the front of the property is similar to when it was a
school, but it is accepted that the hours and period of use would be longer. However,
given the young age of children and the high level of supervision it is not considered
that the noise and disturbance to local residents, in particular the property to the east,
would be sufficient to justify refusal of the application.
Although the change of use would not involve any physical alterations to the exterior
of the building it could result in an increase in traffic movements and vehicular parking
in the vicinity of the site. However given the likely sporadic nature of any increase in
traffic movements together with the previous use of the building as a school, which
raised similar issues, it is considered that the proposed use would have a minimal
impact on the character of the Conservation Area, thus preserving it.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed is acceptable and would
accord with the Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve, subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
2) The premises subject to this permission shall not be open to the public except
between the hours of 8.00am and 6pm on Mondays to Fridays. They shall not be
open at any time at weekends or on Bank Holidays.
Reason: To control noise emitted from the site in the interest of residential
amenity in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
3) Prior to commencement of the use hereby permitted the proposed access and onsite car and cycle parking/turning area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled,
surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan. They shall be
retained thereafter for those specific uses.
Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in
the interests of highway safety, and in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
24
20 May 2010
9.
SCOTTOW - PF/10/0172 - Erection of 70 metre high wind monitoring mast; Land
at Coltishall Airfield for Partnership for Renewables
Minor Development - Target Date: 15 April 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Contaminated Land
Section 106 Planning Obligations
Archaeological Site
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0063 - Erection of 70 metre high wind monitoring mast
Withdrawn
THE APPLICATION
To erect a 70m mast, supported by 7 pairs of guy wires extending 33m from the mast
base. A small 'anemometer' and wind vane would be fixed at the top of the mast.
The mast is applied for a temporary period of three years.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter received from the Chair of 'CETAG' objecting on grounds that the Ministry of
Justice is currently working on a master plan which will confirm how disposal of the
site should be taken forward. Such a structure may significantly restrict potential
future uses such as aviation. A wind turbine development could conflict with current
interest in the site by TAG Aviation Ltd. Whilst construction of a wind turbine on the
site is linked to a Section 106 Obligation could an alternative wind turbine scheme be
considered as an acceptable alternative?
Letter from agents following deferral of the application in April attached in Appendix
4.
Further letter received commenting upon the details submitted and the application
procedures.
CONSULTATIONS
Coltishall Parish Council - No objection provided it does not compromise the further
use of the remaining site.
Tunstead Parish Council - No objections.
Swanton Abbott Parish Council - Green power generation is to be supported but
balanced also against social and economic benefits. A wind turbine could block
future aviation proposals for the former airfield. The application should be deferred
pending publication of a master plan for the former base. Objects as it may lead to an
application for a wind turbine. The wind turbine scheme is linked to a Section 106
Obligation which could be renegotiated for alternative off-site provision.
Development Control Committee
25
20 May 2010
Broadland District Council - No objection on the basis that it does not prevent or
prejudice the re-use of runway and/or hangar buildings.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Strongly supports for reasons that the proposal supports
national, regional and local policy for renewable energy; forms part of the
requirements associated with the development of HMP Bure; is for temporary
permission only; historical wind data is not sufficient to determine feasibility for a wind
turbine scheme; there is no presumption that a wind turbine application will follow; a
small wind turbine development is not incompatible with possible future use of the
former airbase for aviation use (as an unlicensed airfield).
Environmental Health - No objection. As no foundations would be required for the
mast, contaminated land is not considered an issue. Suggest an advisory note if
permission is granted.
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 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appearance.
2. Renewable energy.
3. Potential impact upon future uses of former airbase.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the April meeting to request the applicant to seek the
relevant wind data from the Ministry of Defence or Met Office, and in order for it to be
considered in conjunction with the master plan being prepared for the former RAF
base.
The application site is at the south-eastern corner of the former RAF base close to
the boundary fence and the administrative boundary with Broadland District Council.
The site lies within the Core Strategy Countryside policy designation.
This application arises out of a Section 106 Obligation entered into by the Ministry of
Justice as part of the planning permission for the new prison (HMP Bure) on part of
the former RAF base. The Section 106 Obligation secures the equivalent minimum of
Development Control Committee
26
20 May 2010
10% renewable energy needs of the prison in order to comply with Core Strategy
Policy EN 6. Initially the Obligation allows for an investigation period to discover
whether a wind turbine is feasible within the area of the former airbase. A vital
element of the feasibility study is the collection of wind data, hence this application
for the erection of a meteorological monitoring mast.
This is a revised application to one submitted in January 2010 relocating the mast
approximately 300m further away from the existing runway. At the closest point the
mast would be 600m from the runway.
The mast would comprise a narrow pole with a small wind measuring instrument on
the top. It would not have foundations and it would be supported by several pairs of
guy wires. The proposed siting is in a remote corner of the former airfield in a
position where the mast would be unobtrusive visually and it would be reasonably
well-screened from a few scattered dwellings around the southern and eastern
perimeters of the airfield by trees close to those properties. The nearest property is a
little under 0.5km away from the proposed mast.
Following deferral of this application at the last meeting the applicants have written in
response to the issue regarding historical wind data held in relation to the use of the
former RAF base (Appendix 4). The applicants explain they have already been
given full access to and analysed this wind data which was collated by the Met Office
on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. This data was however only collated from a
10m high mast. As Members will see from the letter, there are clear technical
reasons why this historical data is not sufficient to establish whether local wind
conditions are sufficient to support a modern and much higher wind turbine; hence
the requirement for a 70 m high wind monitoring mast.
The mast is simply a measuring tool to determine whether or not in meteorological
terms the area is suitable for a wind turbine. Granting temporary planning permission
for a wind monitoring mast in no way presupposes the outcome of any subsequent
planning application for a wind turbine development.
The whole of the former operational part of the airbase is currently owned by the
Ministry of Justice (MOJ). Apart from the grounds of the now operational prison
(HMP Bure) it is the intention of the MOJ to dispose of the site within the next year.
Consultants on behalf of the MOJ are preparing a master plan intended as a guide to
future development opportunities on the site to assist in the disposal. The
consultants are due to undertake a public consultation on the master plan in late May
this year and a report to this Council's Cabinet is due to be considered in early June.
It is important to note that the master plan will have no statutory planning status. It is
not considered that approval of this planning permission on a temporary basis would
prejudice the master planning process.
The applicant's letter also explains the pre-application advice that has been
undertaken with local and national aviation interests which initially suggests that a
wind turbine in this location could co-exist with an unlicensed airfield. A copy of the
applicant's full response is published as Appendix 4.
Reference was made at the last meeting to Planning Policy Guidance Note 13
'Transport' and specific reference to Appendix B which states that local authorities
should "avoid development at or close to an airport or airfield which is incompatible
with any existing or potential aviation operations." However as stated previously it is
not considered that a temporary mast as the one proposed, in the position proposed,
is incompatible in this way.
Development Control Committee
27
20 May 2010
In summary, within the visual context of the airbase and its existing structures the
landscape impact of the mast for a temporary period would be minimal. The
proposal complies with the terms of the Section 106 Obligation and is not considered
to conflict with national policies or the adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:Approve for a temporary period of three years.
10.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0343 - Erection of Community healthcare facilities
including 48 bed care home, Gym/Healthclub, children's day nursery and B1
(office accommodation) with pedestrian plaza, associated landscaping and
ancillary parking; Land adjacent Morrisons, Clipbush Lane for Medcentres
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order for
Members to appreciate access and siting details of the proposal.
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0344 - Erection of Medical Centre and pharmacy with
ancillary parking and new road access; Morrisons, Clipbush Lane for
Fakenham Medical Practice
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order for
Members to appreciate access, siting and design of the proposal.
HEMPTON - PF/10/0329 - Erection of 5 two-storey dwellings and flats; Abbey
Cottage, 19 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order for
Members to appreciate access, siting and design of the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Control Committee
28
20 May 2010
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/10/0198 - Erection of side extension and erection of one
and a half storey rear extension; The Croft, The Green for Mr J Thomson
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/10/0221 - Continued use of former agricultural building as
B2 (boatbuilding workshop); Barn adjacent Aldborough Hall, Hall Road for Mr R
Lawson
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/10/0160 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
residential curtilage and formation of vehicular access; land adjacent Park Wall
Farm, Park Road for Mr & Mrs J Colman
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/10/0226 - Use of holiday unit as residential annexe; Moorland
Park, Holt Road for Mr G Field
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/0257 - Erection of Replacement Side Extension; Sunnicote, Mill
Lane for Mrs Conrad and Mr James
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/0219 - Erection of Two-Storey/Single-Storey Rear
Extension, Formation of Balcony, Raising Height of Chimney, Rendering of
External Walls and Erection of Boundary Walls; Meadowside, Church Close,
West Runton for Mr and Mrs Goodsell
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/0255 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Radway,
Church Close, West Runton for Mr & Mrs A Lozeau
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0210 - Erection of Single-Storey Extension; Swallow
Cottage, 2 Little Lane for Cannon Wilson
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0273 - Erection of detached garage; Highfield House, 5
Wiveton Road for Langley
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - AN/10/0317 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Land at
New Road for Blakeney Hotel
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BODHAM - PF/10/0229 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 4 Street Farm
Cottages, The Street for Mr R Hamilton
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - PF/10/0243 - Erection of Detached Double Car Port; Meadow
Croft, The Street for Mr and Mrs Senington
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
29
20 May 2010
BRISTON - PF/10/0133 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extensions and Front
Porch; Mayfield, 2 Meadow Lane for Mr Deeley
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0190 - Erection of Replacement Two-Storey
Extension; Hunters, High Street for Mr G Peploe
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/10/0245 - Installation of replacement windows; White
House, High Street for Mr M Dennis
(Listed Building Alterations)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/0244 - Erection of single-storey front
extension; Burford, The Street, Corpusty for Mr & Mrs K Crossland
(Householder application)
CROMER - PM/10/0118 - Variation of design of approved dwelling; 42 Cromwell
Road for Babbage
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/10/0217 - Installation of Second Floor Window; Hotel De Paris,
High Street for Leisureplex Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/10/0258 - Erection of A1 (retail unit) and Four Flats; Public
Conveniences, Bond Street/Louden Road for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - NP/10/0276 - Prior Notification of Intention to Erect Agricultural
Building; Home Croft, Oak Lane for Mr Foster
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
FAKENHAM - LE/10/0137 - Demolition of market building; Land at Cattle Market
Street for G & R Becks Auction
(Conservation Area Demolition)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0175 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 1 Howland
Close for Mr J Pope
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0224 - Erection of extension to garage; 227 Norwich Road
for Mr Brocklebank
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0230 - Erection of boundary fences; 2 Whitelands for Mr C
Joslin
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0251 - Change of use from amenity land to garden; Land
adjacent 5 John Chapman Close for Mr S Price
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0279 - Change the use from B2 (offices) to D1 (Natural
Health Therapy Centre); 1 Royal Oak Chambers, Oak Street for Mr P Betts
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
30
20 May 2010
FAKENHAM - LA/10/0280 - Installation of fascia and projecting signs; 38 Market
Place for Holland & Barrett Retail Ltd.
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0302 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 67 St Peters
Road for Mr J Seaman
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/0285 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
construction of pitched roofs to flat roofed extension; Duck End Cottage,
Thursford Road for Mr and Mrs M Green
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/10/0220 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension; Laurel
House, Swanton Road, Gunthorpe for Mr Bunting
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/0180 - Erection of pre-fabricated building to house
machine for removing contaminants from scrap motor vehicles; DLH Auto
Recyclers, Grubb Street for Mr D Horsnell
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/10/0193 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension, Front
Conservatory and Pitched Roof to Front Extension; Path Cottage, Staithe Road,
Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0YJ for Mr Povall
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/10/0218 - Change of Use of Stables from Domestic to
Commercial Livery, Erection of Hay Store and Re-location of Access; Hollymoor
House, Heath Road for Mr Marquis and Mrs Horne
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/0254 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extensions;
Bridge Cottage, Bridge Road for Ms E Drew
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0092 - Conversion and extension of former agricultural
dwelling to one unit of holiday accommodation; Docking Cottage, 31
Blacksmiths Lane for Mr E Tucker
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/0187 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (financial and
professional services); 1A New Street for Mr A Cook
(Full Planning Permission)
HONING - LA/10/0162 - Internal alterations to first and second floors; Canal
Farm, Station Road for Mr & Mrs Brewer
(Listed Building Alterations)
INGHAM - PF/10/0191 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extensions;
Autumn Cottage, Lessingham Road, Ingham Corner for Mr Nudd
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
31
20 May 2010
KELLING - PF/10/0189 - Change of Use of Staff Room to Groom's Residential
Flat; Stables, Kelling Hall, Holt Road for Mr and Mrs G Widdowson
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/10/0235 - Erection of single-storey link extension; Pudding Lane
Cottage, Pudding Lane, Weybourne Road for Mr P Randell
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - NMA1/09/0752 - Non-Material Amendment Request - Installation of
bi-folding doors and roof lights; The Spinney, Mundesley Road for Mrs B Farrow
and Mr A Merrill
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LESSINGHAM - PF/10/0164 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 4 Low Road,
Hempstead for Mr N Ellis
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/10/0241 - Erection of Two-Storey Side Extension; 2 Chapel
Cottages, Chapel Lane for Mr and Mrs Thompson
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/10/0195 - Conversion of Former Control Tower to One Unit of
Holiday Accommodation and Conversion of Watch Tower to Garage/Store; Old
Control Tower, Malthouse Lane for Mr Dean
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - PF/10/0184 - Proposed erection of side extension with
accommodation in roofspace, replacement garage and formation of vehicular
access; Springfield, Wickmere Road for Mr S Pointer
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0163 - Erection of single-storey extension to shop
and replacement garage; 28 Station Road for Mr Dyke
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0182 - Change of use of first floor from B1 (office) to
residential flat; 23a Market Place for M R Smith (Builders) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/10/0183 - Alterations to first floor to provide residential
flat; 23a Market Place for M R Smith (Builders) Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0211 - Construction of Bow Window and Erection of
Single-Storey Front Extension; 126 Mundesley Road for Mr and Mrs Mills
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0260 - Erection of Two, Two-Storey Dwellings and
Garages; Former Garage, White Horse Common, Happisburgh Road, North
Walsham for Wright Properties E.A. Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0261 - Erection of steel building; Plasticum Norwich
Ltd, Stanford Tuck Road for Plasticum Norwich Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
32
20 May 2010
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0333 - Change of use from D2 (playbarn) to a mixed
use of A1 (retail) and B1(workshop/storage); 14 Hall Lane for North Walsham
Building Solutions
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/0199 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 19 Church
Close for Mr & Mrs A T Key
(Householder application)
PASTON - HZ/10/0142 - Storage of 983 tonnes of natural gas and 260 tonnes of
unstabilised condensate; Perenco UK Ltd, Paston Road, Bacton for Bacton
Storage Company Ltd
(Hazardous Substance)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/09/0758 - Erection of extension to livestock building;
Holly Farm, Decoy Road, Potter Heigham for Mr S W Bush
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/10/0051 - Erection of agricultural building and 1.8m high
enclosure; Land at Uphouse Farm, Swaffham Road, South Raynham for
Uphouse Farm Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/10/0311 - Retention of Potting Shed; 67 Chapel Road for Mr
Arrow
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0194 - Erection of Detached Garage; Land at & Adjacent to 7
Station Road West Runton for Knowles and Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/0216 - Erection of Single-Storey Link Extension to Annexe; Eva
Cottage, Felbrigg Road, East Runton for Mr and Mrs Abel
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0222 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling with
associated annexe; Land adjacent to "Rothesay" Lower Common, East Runton
for Mr & Mrs D Goodall
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/0274 - Use of Single-Storey Part of Building as Tea-Room;
Corner House, 2 Station Road, West Runton for Mr Howard
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/0290 - Erection of Single-Storey Rear Extension; Innisfree,
Boulevard Road, West Runton for Mr and Mrs Dickinson
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/10/0157 - Erection of glasshouse; Dels Nursery, Barsham
Road for Del's Nursery
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/10/0231 - Erection of rear conservatory; Georgian House,
Moor Lane for Whitred
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
33
20 May 2010
SHERINGHAM - BX/09/0840 - Erection of Single-Storey Extension to Provide
Two New Science Laboratories and Extended Prep Room (County Reference:
SP/Y/2009/1015); Sheringham High School, Holt Road for Director of Children's
Services
(County General Reg 3)
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1173 - Erection of 4 dwellings; Land at Seaview Crescent
for Peart & Barrell Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
SMALLBURGH - PF/10/0269 - Proposed erection of single-storey rear extension;
Old Tavern, Union Road for Furber
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PO/10/0225 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land at
Church Farm, Church Street for Mr R Codling
(Outline Planning Permission)
SUFFIELD - NMA1/08/1142 - Non-Material Amendment Request erection of
single-storey side extension (revised materials and design); Rose Cottage, The
Street for Mr H Ohrvik
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0239 - Erection of two-storey/first floor side extension; Wendy
Cottage, The Street for Williamson
(Householder application)
SUTTON - PF/10/0167 - Erection of extension to garage; Pear Tree Cottage, 10
Mill Cottages, Mill Road for Mr M Self
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/10/0174 - Erection of garage, carport and storage
sheds; Margetson House, Aylsham Road for Mr Pratt
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - LA/10/0176 - Alterations to outbuilding to provide one unit
of holiday accommodation; Lilac Farmhouse, Long Common Road for Mr & Mrs
P Clarke
(Listed Building Alterations)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/10/0177 - Conversion of outbuilding to one unit of
holiday accommodation; Lilac Farmhouse, Long Common Road for Mr & Mrs P
Clarke
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/09/1097 - Change of Use from Towing Caravan Site to a
Mixed Use of Touring and Semi-Static Caravans; Greenwoods Campsite Manor
Farm for Greenwood Campsite
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0201 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, loggia
to provide covered dining area and formation of car park.; Elderton Lodge Hotel,
Cromer Road for Mr I Braka
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
34
20 May 2010
THORPE MARKET - LA/10/0202 - Internal alterations and erection of singlestorey rear extension; Elderton Lodge Hotel, Cromer Road for Mr I Braka
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0212 - Swimming Pool; Dairy Farm, Gunton Park,
White Post Road, Hanworth for Harbord-Hammond
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/10/0250 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning reference: 09/0183
to permit increase in height of roof section; Builder's Yard and Workshop, Front
Street for Trunch Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/10/0178 - Erection of replacement single-storey outbuilding; 1
Ostend Cottages, Ostend Road for Mr K Myhill
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0129 - Erection of First Floor Extension; Vine
House, Freeman Street for Mr Millwood
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0192 - Conversion of Outbuilding to Two-Storey
Unit of Holiday Accommodation; Tusker House, Bases Lane for Mr Money
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0247 - Conversion of courtyard buildings to
bedrooms; Globe Inn, The Buttlands for Coke Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/10/0248 - Alterations to courtyard buildings to
provide bedroom accommodation; Globe Inn, The Buttlands for Coke Estates
Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/10/0252 - Formation of internal opening, removal of
chimney and rooflights and installation of 2 rooflights; Drift Cottage, 60
Freeman Street for Mrs P Granger-Brown
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEST BECKHAM - PF/10/0264 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension; The
Malthouse, Long Lane for Mr Randall
(Householder application)
WEST BECKHAM - LA/10/0265 - Erection of Single-Storey Side Extension; The
Malthouse, Long Lane for Mr Randall
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0240 - Installation of air source heat pump; 8 Weybourne
Forest Lodge, Sandy Hill Lane for Clarke
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0262 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey
extensions; The Muckleburgh Collection, Sheringham Road for The
Muckleburgh Collection
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
35
20 May 2010
WIVETON - PF/10/0246 - Erection of one and half storey replacement dwelling;
Jonelyn, The Street for Mr C S Holman & Ms R G Wodehouse
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/10/0121 - Erection of Dormer Windows, Single-Storey Rear
Extension and Link Extension; Barn View, Rectory Road for Mr and Mrs Pearson
(Householder application)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - NMA1/09/1180 - Non-material amendment request for repositioning of garage; Plot 1, 59 New Road for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRISTON - PF/10/0227 - Siting of mobile home for agricultural worker; Brambles
Farm, Thurning Road for Mr M Holden
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0253 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Sunnydale, The
Croft for Mr & Mrs A Shipp
(Householder application)
HOLT - NMA1/07/1303 - Request for a non-material amendment for re-alignment
of eastern boundary fence line and re-positioning of dwellings on plots 15-18;
Land off Edinburgh Road for Flagship Housing Group
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/1275 - Erection of one and a half storey extension; The
Cottage, 5 St Nicholas Place for Dr R McDermott
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0197 - Proposed general purpose agricultural building; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr Clark
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way for Mr P James
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 07 September 2010
Development Control Committee
36
20 May 2010
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/07/1615 - Conversion of Former Public House to Two
Dwellings, Demolition of Outbuildings and Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling;
Former Red Lion Public House, The Street for John Ashton's Children's
Settlement Trust
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 April 2010
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
FAKENHAM - PF/09/0214 - Erection of One and a Half Storey Side Extension; 73,
Norwich Road for Mrs Rose
SITE VISIT:- 14 April 2010
RYBURGH - PF/09/0171 - Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission:
20050494 to Enable Annexe to be Occupied as Separate Dwelling Unit; 29,
Station Road, Great Ryburgh for Mrs Buxton
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 - Conversion of A1 (Retail Shop) to Two-Storey
Dwelling and relocation of bin store; Barber's Shop to rear 22, Station Road for
Museum Cottages
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0714 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 43, Nelson Road
for Holbrook
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way for Mr P James
SUTTON - LA/09/0806 - Reconstruction of fire damaged dwelling including new
roof and erection of extensions; High Cottage, Rectory Road, Sutton for Mr and
Mrs Jolly
WORSTEAD - PF/09/0748 - Conversion and Extension of Forge to Provide
Annexe and Erection of Single-Storey Rear
Extension; Forge Cottage,
Westwick Road, Worstead for Mr Gilligan
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
None
Development Control Committee
37
20 May 2010