OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 20 SEPTEMBER 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management 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.
CROMER - NNDC TPO (CROMER) 2012 No. 3, Hampshire House, Cromwell Road
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect several
individual trees and three groups of trees at the above site.
Background
The Council is reviewing all of its Area TPOs in line with Government advice.
The Hampshire House TPO was originally served to protect a mixture of mature trees
on the site and these have been assessed for amenity and landscape value. The
trees have been re-categorised as individuals or groups and a new TPO served.
Representations
Objections to the Order:Two letters of objection to the Order have been received. (Appendix 1).
The main objections are:
1. The group of Sycamores G2 are self-seeded and are not worthy of a TPO.
2. The large Holm Oak T13 and Cherry T14 are not substantially visible from a public
place and are causing excessive shading for the adjacent property. The neighbours
have written to the owners but to date no action has been taken.
Local residents who support the Order have pointed out that the position of some of
the trees is inaccurate. This is due to GPS application and mapping issues and the
map will be modified when the Order is confirmed.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
The Sycamores G2 are clearly visible from the cricket field and form a natural barrier,
therefore having amenity value.
The Holm Oak and Cherry are visible from public places and contribute to the
landscape value. With regard to the shading issues, a TPO protects amenity and
does not prevent appropriate management such as crown thinning to reduce
shading. However in this case the owner’s consent would be required before an
application for tree works could be made.
Development Committee
1
20 September 2012
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the trees make a significant contribution to the quality of the
local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that they therefore have
high amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed with modification to the map.
(Source: Simon Case, Landscape Officer, Ext. 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
HIGH KELLING - NNDC TPO (HIGH KELLING) 2012 No.4, Pineheath Road High
Kelling
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order(TPO) at the above site.
Background
The Council received several complaints regarding tree felling at 39 Pineheath Road
High Kelling in April. Previous tree felling on the site had resulted in many
complaints and the loss of two significant unprotected Pine trees. The Landscape
Officer agreed with the owner’s agent that any further works would be discussed with
the Landscape Section prior to commencement, so that the works could be
appraised and local residents could be fully informed of any works if they enquired.
This would prevent any confusion and the need for the Council to serve a TPO. The
owner employed a different tree surgeon to carry out further tree work on the site in
April and following complaints from local residents a Landscape Officer visited the
site and after discussing the proposed works considered there was a threat to
amenity. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was duly served to protect amenity.
Representations
Two letters of objection have been received to the Order which are attached
(Appendix 2).
Development Committee
2
20 September 2012
In summary the objections to the TPO are that the garden was overgrown,
complaints are personal, other trees in the area have been felled and that the trees
are being managed.
Ten letters of support for the TPO have been received from local residents and the
Parish Council highlighting previous inappropriate work and amenity value as
reasons. (Appendix 2).
Appraisal
The trees on the site have high amenity value and this is appreciated by local people
as evidenced by the letters of support. The TPO does not prevent appropriate
management of trees on the site. Other trees have been felled on other properties in
the area in line with appropriate management and the Council will be reviewing the
main TPOs in the area in the near future.
Human Rights Implications
The serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8 Human Rights Act:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s Human Rights, and the
general interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order
would be proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy?
It can be confirmed that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order?
The trees contribute significantly to the landscape of High Kelling and any
inappropriate management would be detrimental to amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed
(Source: Simon Case, Landscape Officer, Ext 6142)
Development Committee
3
20 September 2012
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
BACTON - PF/12/0710 - Erection of side conservatory; 59 Newlands Estate for
Mr Rush
Target Date: 23 August 2012
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
Coastal Erosion Policy Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19910248 PF - Conservatory/sun lounge
Approved 11/04/1991
PLA/19921688 PF - Block cladding & extension to dwelling
Approved 07/01/1993
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a conservatory, located to the side (south) elevation of the host
dwelling. The proposed structure would measure approx 3.5m wide, 7m length, and
3.65m to the ridge. It is proposed that the development would have brick faced base
walls (to match the host dwelling), polycarbonate roof set on an aluminium clad roof
structure with white UPVc window frames and door frames.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Northam and Smith having regard to the following
planning issues:
Cumulative effect of the proposed extension coupled with previous extensions, and
whether this would result in a disproportionate increase to the size of the host
dwelling.
PARISH COUNCIL
The Local Planning Authority should "consider the opinions of the neighbours with
regard to this planning application". The Parish Council did not wish to make any
further comment.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received (three were anonymous and one with an
incomplete address). The submission with the incomplete address raised the
following issues:
1. The proposed conservatory may block neighbour's views.
2. Already has 2 run-down conservatories only used for storage so does it need a
third?
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
4
20 September 2012
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 HO8: House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
(permits appropriately designed and scaled development in the countryside).
Policy EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 11: Coastal Erosion (restricts new development or the intensification of
existing development or land use except where it can be demonstrated that it will
result in no increased risk to life or significant increased risk to property).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Would the proposed development result in a disproportionate increase in size to
the original dwelling?
2. Design/relationship with neighbouring properties.
3. Coastal erosion risk.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside policy area as defined by Policy SS2 in the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, where in principle the extension of an existing
dwelling is acceptable subject to complying with other Core Strategy Policies. Policy
HO8 in the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy states that development should not
result in a disproportionately large increase to the height and scale of the original
dwelling and/or materially increase the dwelling's impact on the appearance of the
countryside.
Despite the area being defined as Countryside, the host property is surrounded by
domestic properties. Furthermore, in relation to the height and scale of the host
dwelling the proposed extension would be a modest addition. It is considered that the
proposed development complies with Policies SS2 and HO8 of the North Norfolk
adopted Core Strategy, since it would have no impact on the appearance of the
Countryside.
With regard to Policy EN4, the host dwelling sits within a relatively large plot and as
such the proposed conservatory would be of a sufficient distance from the
neighbouring properties so as not to impact significantly on their privacy or
residential/garden amenity. The southern, eastern and western elevations of the
proposed development site are partially screened from neighbouring properties by
fencing, hedging and shrubbery. The host property would screen the proposed
conservatory from neighbouring properties to the north elevation. Although the
design/materials of the proposed conservatory do not reflect any specific local
distinctiveness, they would be consistent with conservatories on neighbouring
properties and indeed the host property's existing conservatories.
A small section of the property's front garden falls within the boundary of a Policy
EN10 zone (Coastal Erosion). However, given that the policy area just clips the
northeast corner of the garden and the modest nature of the proposed development,
it is considered that the proposal would not pose a threat to life or property.
Development Committee
5
20 September 2012
It is considered that the development accords with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to appropriate conditions.
4.
BINHAM - PF/12/0459 - Demolition of single-storey side extension, erection of
two-storey and single-storey side extensions and glass roofed porch; 50
Warham Road for Mr W Spice
- Target Date: 12 June 2012
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Tree Preservation Order
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20051901 PF
Erection of single-storey side extension, two-storey rear extension and dormer
window
Approved 31/01/2006
PLA/20060786 PF - Erection of detached garage/workshop with attic above
Approved 11/08/2006
PLA/20060182 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused 24/03/2006
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish a single-storey side extension, erect two-storey and single-storey
side extensions and a glass roofed porch.
Plans indicate the erection of a two-storey extension measuring approximately 7.4m
wide by 7.6m/6.05m deep by 6.55m high to the front and 7.25/6.7m high to the rear.
The single-storey side extension would measure approximately 4.1m wide by 3.5m
deep by 3.2m high, lean-to.
Amended plans submitted deleting a proposed rear porch, reducing the size of the
dining room extension and setting in slightly the two-storey element.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Savory having regard to the following planning issue:
Provision/enhancement of property in order to retain a young working family within
the village
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection/no comment
Development Committee
6
20 September 2012
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): The
existing cottage, although altered over time, still manages to make a positive
contribution to the area by virtue of its modest size, low eaves/ridge lines and
mellowed vernacular materials. Whilst having been extended on three sides, these
additions have not affected the true essence of the building. This is mainly due to
their subservient form and/or position on the rear elevation.
By contrast, the new additions would fundamentally affect the way the property is
viewed and appreciated. Far from being subordinate, the proposals (as amended)
would almost completely conceal the cottage when approaching from the west. They
would therefore cover up its fossilised gable in the process, thus robbing the building
of valuable character and interest (the fact that the proposals seek to replicate this
shadow line in the new work would be rather meaningless and little more than a
hollow pastiche).
More fundamentally, from an existing position of still being relatively modest, the side
extension would significantly increase the length and bulk of the existing cottage.
Rather than the original property being clearly expressed and nicely framed with
single-storey ‘bookends’, the end result would be an altogether more imposing and
monolithic 18m long building. If we also then consider the second rear gable, which
would add further bulk to the west and north elevations, the cottage would be
completely encased in extensions on three sides. With every site having its own
capacity, Conservation & Design therefore consider that these proposals, in tandem
with the earlier additions and the large outbuilding, would constitute overdevelopment
of the site.
For these reasons, it is recommended that this application be refused given the
obvious harm to the existing building and to the appearance and character of the
wider Binham Conservation Area.
County Council Highways: Conditions and note required, including condition requiring
the vehicular access to be upgraded in accordance with the Norfolk County Council
residential access construction specification and for the on-site car parking and
turning areas to be laid out and retained in accordance with the approved plan.
Environmental Health: No objection regarding surface water disposal route.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): Condition required to
protect the tree subject to a TPO during construction.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
7
20 September 2012
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on the host cottage and Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the village of Binham, in the Countryside policy area where
proposals for extensions to existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in
principle, providing compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies including HO8
and EN4. The site also lies within the Binham Conservation Area, where
development proposals are expected to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the area, and within an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where
proposals should not detract from the special qualities of the area.
Given that the dwelling is built hard-up to the street, it occupies a prominent position
within the street scene. The dwelling itself has considerable sized gardens to the
southern rear.
It is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
It is considered that the design as proposed would fail to preserve the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and the Binham Conservation Area. Whilst it is
recognised that the existing cottage has been altered over time, it is considered that
it still currently makes a positive contribution to the area by virtue of its modest size,
low eaves/ridge lines and mellowed vernacular materials. Due to subservient form
and/or position of the current extensions, past additions have not affected the true
essence of the building.
In contrast, it is considered that the new additions would affect the way the property
is viewed. The extensions would not be subordinate and would almost completely
conceal the existing cottage when approaching from the west. The proposals would
also cover up the fossilised gable in the process, resulting in a loss of the building’s
valuable character and interest.
Further, the side extension would significantly increase the length and bulk of the
existing cottage and, rather than complementing and framing the existing building,
would result in an imposing building. The addition of a second rear able would add
further bulk to the west and north elevations and the original cottage would be
completely encased on three sides. It is therefore considered that these proposals, in
tandem with earlier additions and the large outbuilding, would result in the original
dwelling being "lost" with the development.
Development Committee
8
20 September 2012
The proposed extensions would represent just over 100% increase in the floor area
of the original dwelling. Given the siting of the extensions and the way the original
cottage would be encased by extensions, it is considered that the size increase
would be disproportionate and unacceptable for the host dwelling.
As such, it is considered that the proposed development would result in an
unacceptably large dwelling, would harm the character of the traditional cottage and
would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the wider Binham Conservation
Area and would therefore be contrary to the aims of Policies EN4 and EN8 of the
adopted Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for reasons related to the following:
It is considered that the proposed development would, by virtue of its inappropriate
form, bulk, size, position and design, appear as an incongruous addition and would
dominate the character and appearance of the original dwelling.
Further, it is considered that the proposed development would fail to preserve the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
As such, the proposal would conflict with the aims and objectives of Policies EN 4
and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5.
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0681 - Erection of 24 dwellings (of which 50% affordable
dwellings) and associated garages, carports, boundary wall and fences and
creation of 2 accesses; Land west of Langham Road for Hillside Residential
Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 10 August 2012
Case Officer: Mrs T Armitage
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Allocated Residential Site BLA03
THE APPLICATION
Erection of twenty four dwellings comprising the following mix:
6 x bungalows (3 x 4 bed, 1 x 3bed and 2 x 2 bed)
6 x flats within a two storey block (4x 1 bed, 2x 2bed)
12 x houses (1x 2 bed 2x 3 bed 9 x 4 bed )
It is proposed that twelve (50%) of the new dwellings will be affordable, nine of which
would be made available at an affordable rent and three on an intermediate basis.
The application includes detailed plans illustrating layout and full elevational details of
the proposed dwellings. A mixed palette of materials is proposed, including brick,
flint, render, timber boarding and pantiles.
A new road providing access on to Langham Road would serve most of the new
dwellings , while a single terrace of 4 properties would share a single private drive
with direct access on to Langham Road. Parking is proposed for all dwellings
comprising a mix of small shared private parking courts, on plot curtilage parking and
garages/carports.
Development Committee
9
20 September 2012
Amended plans have been submitted incorporating a variety of design changes to
the proposed properties including the deletion of first floor terraces previously
proposed in relation to three dwellings.
In addition to detailed drawings a large number of technical documents have been
submitted, including:
Affordable Housing Statement
Archaeological Evaluation Report
Biodiversity Survey and Report
Design and Access Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Foul Sewerage and Utilities Assessment
Land Contamination Assessment
Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Obligation
Planning Statement
Sustainable Construction Checklist
Visual Impact Assessment
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Plans as originally submitted – Object to the application for the following reason; we
object to the properties numbers 13, 14 & 15 having first floor terraces that will
overlook the residents in the Thistleton Court bungalows as this will impact upon their
privacy. In addition request a condition is placed upon the development to say that
half of the affordable housing units; ie. six, are to be let to local people.
Amended Plans - No objection or comment.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Plans as originally submitted - (summary)
Location, setting and scale - The site is extremely sensitive in terms of landscape
and visual impact. The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application
illustrates a staged approach to the design process in order to satisfy the
requirements of policy BLA03, culminating in a development of 24 dwellings of nonstandard house types, with two-storey dwellings to the front of the site, single-storey
within the middle section and one and a half-storey dwellings to the rear. Whilst this
approach is commended by the Landscape section and the general principles
acknowledged, it is considered that the scale of the two-storey and one and halfstorey dwellings has been exaggerated beyond that normally associated with such
dwellings typical of a rural location. This scale of building size is not replicated in
other dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the development and will create a very
distinct and harsh edge to the edge of the village.
Furthermore, the one and half-storey dwellings of considerable height have a twofold
impact, first on the adjacent bungalows in Thistleton Court and second on the views
to the coast from the public footpath south of the site and the Langham Road. It is
considered that the LVIA fails to give appropriate consideration to the height of the
new dwellings (principally plots 15, 14 and 13) and the close relationship the new
dwellings have to the bungalows in Thistleton Court, and the effect the rising
topography and the southerly position of the new development.
Development Committee
10
20 September 2012
The Landscape Section consider that improvements could be made to the scheme
which would reduce the aforementioned impacts to an acceptable level, maintain
some views to the coast and improve the setting within the AONB. This could involve
reducing the scale/height of some dwellings, removing external terraces and
balconies or changing fenestration details.
Landscaping – The Landscape Section is not satisfied that the indicative
Landscaping scheme submitted is effective or meets the requirements of policy
BLA03. The species recommended do not reflect the local pallet of species and the
scheme is unimaginative. Further consideration is required, particularly in relation to
the 2m planting belt (incorporating the hedge) and location of the tree planting.
To conclude, it is considered that although some effort has been given to ensure the
development meets the requirements of policy BLA03, the scheme does not yet
comply with all aspects of the policy and further refinements are required.
Amended Plans The amended design proposals for plots 21 and 24 have addressed to some degree
the issue of scale and the impact of the dwellings on the edge of village setting. The
reduction in height by 0.8m and 0.9m and some changes to the design will lessen the
visual impact of the development when viewed from the adjacent countryside.
Appropriate landscaping may help reduce the impact further and this can be
considered as part of a condition of planning. To this end the Landscape Section
considers that the development will have a minimal impact on the edge of village
setting.
In terms of the concern regarding the retention of the long distance views to the
coastline, the height of the one and a half storey dwellings on plots 13, 14 and 15
have not been reduced; therefore there remains an issue that the views of the
coastline when viewed from the Langham Road and the public footpath to the south
will be broken by the development. The relative impact of this has to be considered
against the prevalence of the existing long distance views within the immediate
landscape and the AONB as a whole. As noted in my previous comments, the
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) accompanying the application
states that the existing views are fragmented and the development would only result
in a slight or negligible impact on transient receptors. Whilst no development would
retain the status quo, the proposed development achieves some success in retaining
some views of the coastline but will in places result in the loss of views. The impact
of this has to be balanced against the benefits that the development will bring in
terms of housing provision. Given that the overall negative impact on long distance
views is low and limited to the immediate locality, and that the impact of this on the
overall AONB is minor, it is not considered that the development warrants refusal on
these grounds alone.
The issue of the overbearing impact of the development, specifically plots 13, 14 and
15, on adjacent properties in Thistleton Court has been addressed by the change in
internal living accommodation for the dwellings which has been moved to the ground
floor. In addition balconies have been removed and changes to the fenestration have
lessened the chances of adjacent properties being overlooked. This is a positive
amendment to the design of the development and with changes to the proposed
landscaping on the northern boundary will result in this aspect of the development
being acceptable to the Landscape Section.
Development Committee
11
20 September 2012
A general concern was raised regarding the boundary planting and landscaping of
the proposed development, and whilst this has not been entirely rectified under the
current submission, the indication from the developer that they would be willing to
accommodate the requirements of the Landscape Section as part of a planning
condition are encouraging.
Furthermore the issue of the boundary planting behind plots 15 and 16 has been
addressed through the removal of the hedge at this location. This will not have any
visual impact for the development as views from this aspect are limited.
To conclude, it is considered that with appropriate conditions the impact of the
development on the landscape will be reduced to an acceptable level, and that the
amendments made to the scheme since the initial submission are sufficient to meet
the requirements of policy BLA03 in respect of the impact on the landscape and the
AONB. To this end the landscape section does not object to the development
subject to the provision of suitable conditions to safeguard the landscape and to fulfil
biodiversity requirements.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Design) Plans as originally submitted - (summary)
There has been a good deal of input into the layout during pre-application
discussions. This centred around trying to achieve a relatively informal scheme which
would respond to its rural location on the south western edge of Blakeney. Hence,
rather than looking to repeat the relatively regimented developments which
immediately abut the site, it was felt that it would be more appropriate if the scheme
were inspired by the form and character within the village centre. To this end, the
scheme features a series of close-knit built clusters which should potentially create a
layered development with its own visual interest.
As regards the buildings, the developer has refreshingly sought to avoid standard
house types across the scheme, opting instead for bespoke designs which respond
to their individual plots. Stylistically, the properties range from neo-vernacular
cottages to suburban bungalows and from substantial 2-storey houses to 1½ storey
properties with agrarian overtones. Although cumulatively it could be argued that the
resultant mix is somewhat unfocused, employing a consistent palette of materials
should help to overcome this by linking the units together visually.
It is always difficult to successfully integrate a new development into a village when a
site lies on the periphery of that settlement. This is certainly the case here given the
rising ground out of the village and the views available into it and beyond. This
therefore places a greater premium on siting, scale, massing. Whilst siting is perhaps
less of an issue here, the overall impression is of a scheme which would be too tall
for its context. Whilst this may not have been such a problem on a loose knit, low
density scheme, the fact that the properties are cheek-by-jowl means that there
would be little relief to overcome this cumulative massing. With only the bungalows
helping in this regard, it feels as though the bigger units need to be scaled down to
form a more compatible edge to Blakeney.
As regards design, C&D certainly do not wish to deter the bespoke approach
adopted. Indeed we would very much welcome tailoring the individual buildings to
each plot. This said, it is considered that there really needs to be greater focus
around the individual designs to ensure coherency across the elevations. In the event
of these two main issues being addressed (as well as the more detailed points
above), it should then be possible for C&D to offer their support to this application.
Development Committee
12
20 September 2012
Amended Plans – It would appear that most of the earlier design concerns have been
addressed. Hence there has been a general lowering of the buildings on the most
crucial plots and a greater coherency introduced across the various elevations.
Hence although it could be argued that some of the units are still taller than ideal, it is
considered that the development as a whole would now form a more compatible
extension of the village. Dwellings where rooflights are proposed would benefit from
some further minor design revisions.
Housing Services - Full response attached as Appendix 3 - Support this application
which will provide 50% of the total number of dwellings as affordable. A Section 106
Agreement will be required to secure the affordable housing and should reflect the
Council’s standard wording. The request that some of the affordable dwellings are
used to meet local need in Blakeney and the adjoining parishes is understood,
however the application will be determined in accordance with Policy HO2 and will
meet general housing need in North Norfolk. The occupation of the dwellings will be
determined through the Council’s allocation policies which are currently under review.
Environmental Health Pollution/contamination: Geo–environmental investigation indicates no
immediate risks associated with contamination and therefore no requirement for
remedial action prior to development.
Waste/Drainage: Recommend imposition of planning conditions in relation to bin
storage areas and surface water drainage.
Sustainability Team - The application complies with Policy EN6 based on the
information in the Sustainable Construction Checklist and Energy Consumption
Checklist.
County Council (Highways) – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions to
include approval of detailed plans of highway and drainage works, provision and
maintenance of visibility splay, provision of footway from the site to the junction with
Kingsway and the promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order for the extension of the
30mph speed limit across the site frontage.
County Council (Planning Obligations) – Confirm the following financial contributions
in association with the proposed development:
Fire Service - £844
Library Provision - £1440
Anglian Water – Confirm capacity at the Cley-Glandford Sewage Treatment Work
and the Foul Sewerage Network.
Environment Agency – Holding Objection : require a revised Flood Risk Assessment
that is consistent with advice contained within the Technical Guidance accompanying
the National Planning Policy Framework.
Morston Parish Council – No objection or comment.
Natural England – Satisfied no significant effect on the Natura 2000 site nor SSSI at
Wiveton Downs and North Norfolk Coast.
Norfolk Constabulary – No objection to layout and recommend 1.8m fences along
site boundaries.
Development Committee
13
20 September 2012
Norfolk Coast Partnership – It appears that North Norfolk District Council have
completed some excellent work with the developers to adapt the first design to
ensure that the final design fits more sympathetically with the character of the village
and landscape of the AONB – creating an improved pattern of housing, allowing
improved sight lines through the houses to the coast, graduating the height of the
rooflines and ensuring that exterior walls which face towards the road and towards
the views from the south of the village are constructed of traditional , local materials.
We also recognise the sympathetic planting regime developed by Wild Frontier
Ecology.
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
Site Allocation Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2011)
Policy BLA03:Land West of Langham Road
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
14
20 September 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Landscape impact and design
3. Amenity considerations
4. Affordable housing
APPRAISAL
Principle of the Development
The site is part of a large field currently used for agriculture located on the south
western fringe of Blakeney. It is within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, gently sloping and abuts single storey residential properties on Thistleton
Court and Langham Road. The land is allocated for residential development in the
North Norfolk Site Allocations Document (adopted Feb 2011). Development of the
site is subject to Policy BLA03 which allocates the site for approximately 26
dwellings. The twenty four dwellings proposed is consistent with the scale of
development identified as suitable for the site and therefore key to the assessment of
the planning application are the details of the scheme, rather than the principle and
whether it meets the specific requirements of Policy BLA03 and other relevant Core
Strategy policies.
Landscape Impact and Design
The site is prominent in the local landscape particularly when viewed from the higher
ground to the south, from where there are existing long distance views across
Blakeney to the coast. The policy requirements for the site reflect this landscape
context, requiring that proposals ‘pay careful attention to site layout, building height
and materials in order to minimise visual impact’ and are sympathetic to the special
landscape character of the AONB. At pre-application stage Officers of the Council’s
Major Developments team provided detailed advice mindful of the landscape setting
and the character and scale of existing residential development in the immediate
vicinity.
The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application sets out the design
process and the scheme is also supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment. The design aims to retain long distance views to the coast, minimise
impacts on adjacent properties and improve the built-up edge of Blakeney village.
The scheme attempts to minimise visual impact by proposing a mix of single storey
and two storey properties arranged in an informal layout allowing for views to be
retained over the lower buildings. This approach is broadly supported by the
Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and offers scope to create
a layered development with its own visual interest. Landscape impact has been
further addressed through proposing single storey properties on higher more visually
sensitive parts of the site and proposing the two storey properties on either existing
lower parts of the site or parts where the ground level will be reduced.
Despite this overall approach, the plans as originally submitted included some
property types with ridge heights of approximately 9.3m and given the location of two
of these properties immediately adjacent to the countryside boundary of the site, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager raised concerns on both landscape
and design grounds. The amended plans submitted in response to these concerns
include a reduction in height of these properties down to 8.4m, a height more
comparable to the proposed new terrace and two storey properties fronting Langham
Road. This mix of property types along with the layout and the proposed building
materials, would result in a scheme considered to be compatible with both landscape
and settlement character and compliant with the specific requirement of Policy
BLA03. This conclusion is endorsed by the Norfolk Coast Partnership in the positive
comments made in relation to the scheme.
Development Committee
15
20 September 2012
The integration of the site into the surrounding landscape is further addressed
through the planting proposals, which include a soft boundary treatment of the site. A
2.0m planting strip is proposed along the southern boundary which will be amended
to include a mix of local heathland species such as gorse and broom and bracken as
required by the Landscape Officer. These species would provide the scope for
planting of sufficient height and interest to soften the interface of the development
with its countryside setting. A similar approach is proposed to the western boundary
and along the Langham Road frontage
In terms of detailed design, the developer has sought to avoid standard house types
across the site by proposing bespoke designs for each plot. This design approach is
welcomed by Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager as is the approach to
materials which includes a palette sympathetic to Blakeney, including flint, brick and
pantiles. Stylistically the properties range from neo-vernacular cottages, to suburban
bungalows and dwellings resembling barn conversions. As originally submitted the
design lacked coherency but following amendments the design approach is
considered acceptable and more focused.
Amenity Considerations
The amended plans have also addressed overlooking concerns between dwellings
originally proposed on plots 13,14 and 15 and bungalows on Thistleton Court. As
originally submitted the scheme included two storey properties on these plots, with
first floor living accommodation, substantial first floor fenestration and external first
floor roof terraces. The bungalows on Thistleton Court are modest single storey
properties set within communal gardens and as such the scheme raised serious
concerns regarding overlooking and loss of privacy to occupiers, a matter raised by
the Parish Council. The amended plans indicate revised dwelling types on these
plots, revised fenestration, ground floor living accommodation and no first
balconies/roof terraces. These revisions satisfactorily address previous amenity
concerns.
The layout provides all proposed dwellings with a reasonable amount of private
garden area and a level of parking that complies with Core Strategy requirements.
Interfaces distances are broadly consistent with minimums specified in the North
Norfolk Design Guide and where the layout is more close knit careful attention had
been paid to fenestration to minimise amenity problems.
Affordable Housing
In full accordance with Policy HO2 and Policy BL03, 50% of the proposed new
homes would be affordable. The house type mix responds directly to identified
housing need as assessed by this Council’s Strategic Housing Section. Worthy of
note are the one and two bedroom flats, two bungalows and four bedroom house that
will assist in addressing particular deficiencies in the existing affordable housing
stock. In accordance with Policy HO2 the proposal includes a mix of tenure 75% of
the dwellings for affordable rent, 25 % to be available on an intermediate basis. The
affordable housing provision would be secured through a S106 Obligation that would
also specify phased delivery and include controls to secure affordability in perpetuity.
Housing Services support the approval of this application given the substantial and
valuable contribution it would make to addressing housing need in the District by
increasing the stock of affordable homes.
Pre-application consultation carried out by the developer with the local community
and the Parish Council highlighted a strong preference for some or all of the
affordable dwellings to be made available to people in local housing need. As a
Development Committee
16
20 September 2012
consequence, the applicant’s Affordable Housing Statement requests an approach
which would allow six of the affordable homes to be occupied by those in local need in Blakeney or adjacent parishes. The Parish Council has requested, through its
representations, a planning condition that would restrict half of the affordable to local
letting only.
Although sympathetic to the request it is not normally the role of the Planning
Authority to determine to whom new affordable homes are allocated. The only
exception to this is where new housing is proposed in the Countryside and where
planning permission is given only because the scheme is meeting a particular
identified need for affordable housing in that locality (Policy H03). This allocated site
is one of 36 sites identified by this Council to meet the general housing needs of the
District up to 2021.
Addressing the housing needs of the whole district is a Core Aim of the Core
Strategy and identified by the National Planning Policy Framework as integral to the
social role of the planning system. Core Strategy affordable housing policies are
crucial to delivering an increased stock of affordable homes alongside market
housing and this application illustrates the capacity of LDF policies to deliver such
social benefit.
Controlling how this important resource of social housing is made available and
occupied is a responsibility of this Council as Housing Authority. The occupation of
new affordable homes and the re-let of existing stock is determined in accordance
with the Council’s allocation policies, the North Norfolk Choice Based Lettings Policy
and Housing Register Policy. The current allocation policies reflect the previous
statutory requirements for housing registers and members will be aware these
policies are presently under review, following the Localism Act 2011 and the recent
statutory guidance. The Strategic Housing Officer has provided more information
regarding this review process in her consultation response and this is attached as
Appendix 3)
Sustainable construction and energy generation
Policy EN6 requires all new dwellings to achieve at least three star rating under the
Code for Sustainable Homes and on sites of this scale the use of on-site renewable
energy technology to provide for at least 10% of the predicted total energy usage. On
the basis of the information and details contained in the sustainability Construction
checklist the proposed dwellings would fully comply with Policy EN6 and by
proposing air source heat pumps to all dwellings would exceed the renewable target.
Recreation and open space
Given the size of the site there is limited scope for significant open space to be
provided on site. However the layout of the development seeks to provide the scope
for the native planting of site boundaries which would assist integrating the site with
the countryside and providing biodiversity enhancement of what is currently an
agricultural field. There are open space requirements associated with this scale of
development and in this instance the Parks and Countryside Manager has
recommended that the opportunity be taken for the development to contribute to the
improvement of existing village facilities. He has recommended that commuted sums
be secured via the S106 Obligation for the improvement of play facilities (£12,000)
and to the improvement of the use of the playing field (£10,000). The Parish Council
has expressed support for this approach and is considering appropriate projects. In
addition consistent with other sites in the Site Allocation Development Plan
Document and criterion (f) of Policy BLA03, a developer contribution will be sought to
Development Committee
17
20 September 2012
assist in managing the impact of increased visitor pressure on the North Norfolk
Coast SPA/SAC - this equates to £50 per dwelling.
Highway and other considerations
The County Highway Authority has raised no objection to this application subject to
planning conditions ensuring the satisfactory laying out of the access road and some
minor off site works. In addition it should be noted other than from the Environment
Agency there have been no objections to this proposal from statutory consultees.
The applicant is currently seeking to address the technical objection from the
Environment Agency which relates to the flood risk assessment and the
consideration of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.
Conclusion
A key aim of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy is to address the housing
needs of the whole community; the Site Allocations Document represents the
mechanism by which such development will be delivered over the next 10-15 years.
This application provides a very positive indication of the substantial benefit the
allocated sites are able to deliver.
The amended scheme full complies with the Policy for the site and is consistent with
the relevant policies of the Core Strategy. Subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation and necessary planning conditions it is therefore recommended that
planning permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to the following:
The Environment Agency confirming it has no objection to the revised Flood
Risk Assessment
A S106 Obligation securing the provision and phasing of affordable housing,
financial contributions as requested by the County Council and by the District
Council in relation to open space enhancements and managing visitor
pressure.
The imposition of appropriate conditions, in particular to include:
implementation of highway works, and prior approval of details regarding
landscaping and materials.
6.
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/0478 - Erection of two 18m high wind turbines (height to
hub); Old Manor Farm, Long Common for Mr J McLeod
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 June 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
National Air Traffic Service - Application for Wind Turbines
Height Restriction (MOD)
Development Committee
18
20 September 2012
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of two wind turbines which would be 18.3 metres to the hub
with a blade diameter of 13 metres, giving an overall height to the tip of the blades of
24.8 metres.
The tower of the turbine would be constructed of a galvanized steel lattice work. The
blades would be of a light grey fibreglass construction. Each turbine would be twinbladed.
The turbines would be sited along an existing farm track running east/west through
an arable field which is to the west of the Listed Old Manor Farm House and would
be set some 45 metres apart.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Price having regard to the following planning issue:
Potential visual impact and in the light of the issues raised in representations.
PARISH COUNCIL
There are mixed feelings about the Wind Turbines at Old Manor Farm. The majority
view is the same as the reasons we gave for Gothic Cottage. The visual impact, any
noise they could produce and it could open the flood gates for more to pop up
everywhere. Others feel that Government policy will allow them anyway.
REPRESENTATIONS
97 letters of objection received on the following grounds (Summarised):
1. Visual intrusion on the landscape and rural character.
2. Noise impact on residential properties
3. Flicker on residential properties.
4. Fear that this will set a precedent for others in the area or more on the same site.
5. Would reduce tourism in the area.
6. We have large off-shore wind farms so Norfolk is already doing their share for
renewable energy.
7. Would devalue residential properties nearby.
8. The turbines would be an eyesore.
9. Impact on the natural environment - birds and bats may be harmed by disturbance,
habitat loss and collision.
10. Too close to residential properties.
11. The turbines would dominate important local views of the wider landscape
including churches, the water tower and lighthouse.
12. There is no formal Environmental Impact Assessment.
13. Would harm the setting of a number of listed buildings.
14. Adverse cumulative effect with other wind turbine applications proposed in the
vicinity of East Ruston.
15. Does not accord with the sensitivities outlined in the Landscape Character
Assessment.
16. The site is in close proximity to two public footpaths and the turbines would
detract from the enjoyment of the users of those footpaths.
18. The turbines will be highly visible and intrusive on properties on Long Common
Road and Back Road.
19. Possible effect of 'wind turbine syndrome'.
20. Will cause distraction to road users.
21. Cumulative impact with the recently erected turbine at Gothic Cottage
22. The environmental benefits of wind turbines have been overrated.
Development Committee
19
20 September 2012
96 letters of support received on the following grounds (Summarised):
1. Delivers much needed clean, renewable energy.
2. Reduces the reliance on fossil fuels.
3. Will have no detrimental impact in the landscape.
4. The applicant has advised that there is no intention to expand the two proposed
into a larger wind farm.
5. The applicant has kept the village informed and responded to concerns of a larger
turbine by submitting a scheme for two much smaller turbines.
6. The small turbines will not be seen by most houses in the village.
7. The turbines would be far enough away from every property so no noise impacts
would result.
8. The owner of Thatch Cottage, one of the closest to the turbines, welcomes the
positive addition of the turbines.
9. The project is environmentally friendly and non-profit making.
10. The type of turbine proposed is the most efficient small turbine available and is
also very quiet.
11. These turbines are smaller than those approved at Gothic Cottage nearby.
12. Landscapes are ever evolving and we should embrace clean industrial change
which will enable strong communities to grow and develop.
13. The lattice style masts (which you can see through) are more aesthetically
pleasing than the standard tubular structures.
14. Wind turbines are evolutionary and should be supported.
15. The benefits far outweigh any negligible impact.
16. Wind power is very much a part of Norfolk's heritage and turbines are better than
pylons.
The applicant has submitted a statement in support of his application with the
following main points:
1. The turbines would generate enough power to make the farm and farmhouse selfsufficient in electricity.
2. Proposals for a larger 66m (to tip) turbine was abandoned following applicant's
own consultation with the community. There has been a genuine attempt at
consulting and listening to views of the local community and amending the proposed
scheme accordingly.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Highway Authority - Subject to a condition requiring construction
vehicles accessing the site via the B1159 I have no objection to the granting of
permission.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Support the proposal which will bring a significant
contribution to the supply of renewable energy in the District.
Environmental Health - As the nearest neighbour is greater than 400m away and
based on the noise report submitted there are no Environmental Health objections
subject to conditions.
Norwich Airport - Due to the location of the proposed wind turbine development in the
immediate vicinity of Class D airspace and the low overall height of these turbines at
24.8m to tip above ground level the likely attenuation would be such that it is unlikely
that any returns will be displayed on the Norwich radar displays. Norwich Airport Ltd
would therefore be minded to not object to the proposal provided it is built at the
coordinates specified and in accordance with the design as shown.
Development Committee
20
20 September 2012
NATS - A technical and operation assessment has been carried out. NATS conclude
in this report that 'The proposed development has been examined by NERL's
technical and operational safeguarding teams and although the proposed
development is likely to impact our electronic infrastructure NERL has no
safeguarding objection to the proposal.'
Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MOD) - No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape (C&D) - No objection My colleague, the Landscape Officer has responded on in respect of the overall
landscape impact and ecological issues associated with this proposal. The
comments below relate to the impact of the proposal, if any on nearby built heritage
assets.
The closest designated heritage asset is the Old Manor Farmhouse. Having
undertaken a site visit and assessed the impact on the immediate setting of this
building and the associated outbuildings and farm buildings I do not consider the
proposal to be detrimental. The siting of the two turbines is sufficiently away from the
Farmhouse for them not to be read together with this Grade II Listed Building.
The design and specification of the two turbines also appears to be relatively
lightweight with a single twin blade and this also helps to reduce any impact. This is
particularly relevant in assessing the potential impact of the turbines on the wider
landscape and the heritage assets contained within it.
The two closest churches are the Grade II* church of St Mary at Stalham Road (to
the north) and Grade II* church of St Peter at Brumstead (to the south east). Viewed
from the south west at a point some 750 metres away from the site and along Back
Road, East Ruston the very distant tower of the Grade I church of St Mary at
Happisburgh can be seen (in conjunction with the newly erected wind turbine at
Gothic Cottage, Mill Road, East Ruston in the foreground). However it appears that
from nowhere along Back Road and as far as Drabb’s Lane, East Ruston is it likely
that the proposed turbines would interfere with the views or long distance settings of
the churches of St Mary’s at Stalham Road or at Happisburgh.
Due to the presence of woodland around Old Manor Farm and beyond and the gentle
folds of the landscape to the west and south west of the site of the application, which
eventually rise up to High Hill, there would be little or no impact on the setting of the
Farmhouse from middle or long distance. Viewing the site from the northwest and
towards the south east and Brumstead (from Back Lane, East Ruston) there is no
substantial effect on the middle and long distance setting of St Peter’s, Brumstead.
My conclusion is that the proposed turbines, due to their height, specification and
moreover location in relation to topography and wooded areas, will not substantially
harm the setting of designated or non-designated heritage assets. Consequently I
raise no objection to the proposed development.
Of course in respect of the wider landscape and in particular its historic character as
well as its intrinsic beauty it is important to consider the cumulative effect of wind
turbines. At this time their number are few and their impact on this sensitive
landscape small. The role of churches and other historic buildings such as traditional
windmills in the reading of the landscape has been paramount for hundreds of years.
The general scale and height of these structures has been such that they do not
‘dominate’ the landscape. They help to interpret and punctuate the landscape. Any
Development Committee
21
20 September 2012
turbine higher than those already approved in the vicinity or currently being
considered would in my view be inappropriate, as would too many of them.
Broads Authority - The application site is just over one kilometre from the boundary of
the Broads Authority's Executive area and it is regrettable that the application does
not acknowledge the proximity of a protected landscape to the site.
The Authority's recent Landscape Sensitivity for Renewables and Infrastructure
identifies this area of the Ant Valley (Landscape Character Assessment Area 27) as
being of moderate to high sensitivity for wind turbines of 20 to 50 metres in height.
The proposed turbines are of a modest scale, located a not insignificant distance
from the Authority's boundary. They would be set in an area where local topography,
woodland coverage and the narrow valley profile would truncate views from the
Broads area. Whilst there may be glimpsed views, these would largely be of the
rotor blades and it is not considered that the impacts would be significant.
The nearby woodland cover and bat corridors of the Ant Valley should be taken into
consideration when assessing the ecological impacts.
In accordance with the above comments, I can confirm that the Broads Authority
does not wish to raise an objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) The proposed site is located within the Low Plains Farmland Character Type as
defined by the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). This notes
that wind turbines can have very severe impacts in certain areas due to the
openness of the Character Type. The LCA goes further to state that the siting of
wind turbines in the more rural locations would be inappropriate and can lead to the
erosion of the Landscape Character.
A landscape and visual impact assessment was not provided with the application,
therefore site visits and desk study have been undertaken to provide an insight into
the impact that the two turbines may have on the landscape character and visual
receptors.
The proposed site is relatively well enclosed for the character type, being situated
immediately west of mature woodland that acts as screening for the farm buildings
and being in a depression that forms as a result of being situated in a small header
valley of the River Ant. This relative enclosure assists in the siting of the turbines
reducing the impact of the turbines on key features of the character type, i.e. those of
the open character with long uninterrupted views and the importance of the skyline.
Views of the turbines will be visible within the landscape, particularly when viewed
from the public footpath at High Hill, however the view will be looking down onto the
turbines and seen against the backdrop of woodland at Old Manor Farm and not
therefore impinging greatly on the views of the skyline.
Visual receptors are limited to a few residential properties, users of the local footpath
network and motorists of the B1159 heading towards Stalham. Due to the small
numbers of those receptors affected and the distance at which the turbines are
viewed (this is, in the main, in the far distance) the impact overall is minor.
The conclusion can therefore be drawn that the impact of the two turbines will be
limited to discrete views within the landscape, with no major adverse impact on
Development Committee
22
20 September 2012
landscape character or visual receptors. Although Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy
seeks to enhance the landscape in accordance with the guidance contained in the
LCA, it also serves to protect the landscape without further erosion of the key
features. I do not consider that the two turbines would lead to the further erosion of
the landscape character and do not therefore raise an objection under Policy EN2.
In respect of cumulative impact of these turbines and that recently erected at Gothic
Cottage, having viewed the recently erected turbine at Gothic Cottage and
considered that in relation to the proposed two turbines at Old Manor Farm, I can
confirm that I do not consider that there will be a cumulative impact on the landscape.
There will be very few views within the landscape whereby both sets of turbines will
be visible within the same vista. In such locations where this is possible the scale and
distance of the turbines from the viewer, and in respect to each other, will be such
that the impact will be minor if not negligible. There will be parts of the landscape in
which both sets of turbines would be visible when conducting an overall appraisal of
the surrounding landscape, for example on the public footpaths to the west of Old
Manor Farm, however the visual impact of the turbines as additional vertical
structures within that landscape will not be so significant as to detract from the overall
landscape character. The slight undulating topography of the surrounding landscape
and the enclosure of the Broads landscape assist in reducing the visual impact of the
turbines in the landscape. It is likely that over time the turbines will be ‘accepted’ by
the majority of receptors as they do not compete, but merely replicate in scale , the
existing vertical elements within the landscape.
The turbines have been located a sufficient distant from potential foraging or
commuting features for bats, such as nearby ponds, woodlands and hedgerows in
accordance with Natural England Standing Advice and recommended guidelines.
The proposed turbines are located in the midst of intensively cropped Grade 1
agricultural land, with few linear vegetation features such as hedgerows or trees.
Some isolated woodland is located relatively close to the application site however
this does not have clear linkages to either the Broads corridor or within the wider
landscape, therefore the impact on bats is expected to be negligible. No objection is
therefore raised regarding Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy.
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 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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Committee
23
20 September 2012
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Landscape impact
3. Impact on the setting of the Grade II Listed Farmhouse
4. Aircraft and radar
5. Noise impact
6. Neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
Old Manor Farm is accessed off a private driveway to the east of Long Common
which is to the west of the B1159. The proposed turbines would be sited approx 210
metres to the west of Old Manor Farm and therefore approx 650m to west of the
B1159.
The turbines are proposed within an agricultural field within a larger parcel of
agricultural land which has unclassified narrow rural roads around its perimeter.
The proposed site is relatively well enclosed in what is defined in the North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment as an open plain landscape character type, being
situated immediately west of mature woodland that acts as screening for the farm
buildings and being in a depression that forms as a result of being situated in a small
header valley of the River Ant.
The nearest other dwellings to the site are Thatch Cottage and Long Common
Cottages to the south east on Long Common which are 400m and 500m
respectively from the proposed turbines.
The farm and dwellings on Back Road to the south are approx 500m to the nearest
turbine. Those on High Hill to the south west are approx 650m away.
The dwellings on the road to the west of the site are approx 1km from the proposed
turbines. Those to the north and north east are a minimum of 800m away.
Dwellings to the north east on the corner of the B1159 and Back Lane are approx
700m to the proposed turbines and those on the corner of the B1159 and Long
Common to the north east are approx 550m from the proposed turbines.
St Mary's Church is located on the northern side of the B1159 approx 1km to the
north east of the proposed turbines.
St Peter's Church is located on the Avenue which is to the east of the B1159 and
approx 1.4km to the south east of the proposed turbines.
The proposed turbines would be sited 1.5km to the south of the recently erected
turbine at Gothic Cottage on Mill Road which has a hub height of 24.6m and overall
blade height of 34.2m.
Development Committee
24
20 September 2012
The site is located within the Countryside policy area, where renewable energy
projects are permitted provided they accord with other relevant policies in the Core
Strategy and comply with policies within the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF).
The NPPF came into effect on 27 March 2012. Annex 1 to the NPPF reaffirms that
planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. Paragraph 214 also provides that full weight should be given to policies in
Local Plans adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the
NPPF. The definition of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other
current development plan documents. The Core Strategy (CS) was adopted as
recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the NPPF and the relevant
provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the determination of this
application.
When assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF states: ‘When
determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need
for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale
projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if its
impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and
low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should
also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these
areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in
identifying suitable areas’.
The principle of the proposed turbines is therefore acceptable under the NPPF
unless material considerations indicate otherwise, subject to its impacts being
acceptable and subject to compliance with the Development Plan.
Policy EN7 of the Core Strategy states that renewable energy proposals will be
supported and considered in the context of sustainable development and climate
change, taking account of the wide environmental, social and economic benefits of
renewable energy gain and their contribution to overcoming energy supply problems.
Proposals for renewable energy technology will be permitted where individually, or
cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on the surrounding landscape,
residential amenity, highway safety and designated nature conservation or
biodiversity interests or broadcast interference.
In respect of the landscape impact of the proposal, Policy EN2 requires that
proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment. In addition proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale and
design will protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special qualities and
distinctiveness of the area and visually sensitive skylines.
The site is located within the Low Plains Farmland Character Type as defined by the
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment where the impacts of wind turbines
can be very severe. However, the Council's Landscape Officer confirms that as the
impact of the two turbines will be limited to discrete views within the landscape, with
no major adverse impact on landscape character or visual receptors it is considered
that the turbines would not lead to any significant erosion of the landscape character
and the development would therefore accord with the requirements of Policy EN2.
Development Committee
25
20 September 2012
In respect of cumulative impact, the proposed turbines should be considered in
conjunction with the recently erected turbine 1.5km north of the site. The two
proposed turbines would be 24.8 metres to the tip of the blades and of a lattice
construction. The turbine recently erected to the north has an overall blade height of
34.2m. There would be very few views within the landscape whereby both sets of
turbines would be visible within the same vista. In such locations where this is
possible the Landscape Officer has advised that scale and distance of the turbines
from the viewer, and in respect to each other, would be such that the impact would
be minor if not negligible. There would be parts of the landscape in which both sets of
turbines would be visible when conducting an overall appraisal of the surrounding
landscape, for example on the public footpaths to the west of Old Manor Farm, but
the visual impact of the turbines as additional vertical structures within that landscape
would not be so significant as to detract from the overall landscape character. The
slight undulating topography of the surrounding landscape and the enclosure of the
Broads landscape assist in reducing the visual impact of the turbines in the
landscape. It is likely that over time the turbines would be ‘accepted’ by the majority
of receptors as they would not compete, but merely replicate in scale , the existing
vertical elements within the landscape. It is therefore considered that there would be
no cumulative impact on the landscape.
In respect of the impact on protected species, Policy EN9 requires proposals not to
cause direct or indirect adverse effects on protected species. In addition where there
is reason to suspect the presence of protected species applications should be
accompanied by a survey assessing their presence. In this case the turbines have
been located a sufficient distant from potential foraging or commuting features for
bats, such as nearby ponds, woodlands and hedgerows in accordance with Natural
England Standing Advice and recommended guidelines. The Council's Landscape
Officer therefore confirms that there is no objection in respect of protected species
and as such the proposal accords with policy EN9.
In terms of the impact on the historic environment, the development would be located
in the vicinity of the nearby Grade II Listed Old Manor Farmhouse, approx 1km from
St Mary's Church to the north east and approx 1.4km from St Peter's Church to the
south east. However the Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
confirms that the proposed turbines, due to their height, specification and moreover
location in relation to topography and wooded areas, would not substantially harm
the setting of designated or non-designated heritage assets. It is therefore
considered that the impact of the turbines would not significantly harm the setting of
the listed buildings or wider landscape and the proposal would therefore comply with
Policy EN8 of the Core Strategy.
In respect of cumulative impact on the historic environment, the Council's
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that at this time the
turbines are limited in number and their impact on this sensitive landscape is small.
He considers that any turbine higher than those already approved in the vicinity or
currently being considered would be inappropriate, as would too many of them. It is
not therefore considered that the proposed turbines in conjunction with the turbine at
Gothic Cottage would result in any adverse cumulative impact on the historic
environment.
In respect of the impact on aircraft safety, Norwich Airport, the MOD Defence
Infrastructure Estates and NATS all confirm that there are no safeguarding objections
to the proposal.
Development Committee
26
20 September 2012
In terms of the potential impact on nearby residential dwellings from noise from the
proposed turbines, Policy EN13 requires that all development proposals should
minimise, and where possible reduce, all emissions and other forms of pollution,
including light and noise. Proposals will only be permitted where, individually or
cumulatively, there are no unacceptable impacts on the natural environment and
general amenity, health and safety of the public. Furthermore Policy EN4 is only
acceptable of development which has no significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers. The Council's Environmental Health Officer
confirms that based on the submitted noise report and that the nearest dwelling is
greater than 400m from the proposed turbines, it is not considered that any adverse
impact in terms of noise would result on the amenities of those nearby dwellings. It is
not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact upon the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
The turbines would be readily visible from only a small number of dwellings
surrounding the site. The majority of the dwellings in the area would have only
limited views of the turbines due to the topography and intervening screening within
the landscape. The turbines would be more visible from those dwellings to the south
east on Long Common, to the south on Back Road and to the north on Back Lane.
However given that the turbines would be 400m, 500m and 700m from these groups
of dwellings respectively and that the turbines are fairly light in their appearance,
having an open lattice construction and with a height of only 24.8m to the blade tip, it
is considered that they would have no significantly harmful impact on the visual
amenity of those dwellings.
In respect of shadow flicker, the Practice Guidance to PPS22 – Planning for
Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22 states:
‘Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may
pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring
properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known
as ‘shadow flicker’. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a
narrow window opening. The seasonal duration of this effect can be calculated from
the geometry of the machine and the latitude of the site….Only properties within 130
degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes
in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side…. Shadow
flicker can be mitigated by siting wind turbines at sufficient distance from residences
likely to be affected. Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor
diameters of a turbine’.
The two proposed turbines would have a maximum rotor diameter of 13m and
therefore, using the guidance within the PPS22 Companion Guide, only properties
within 130m (10 x 13m) of the turbine and within 130 degrees either side of north
would be likely to be affected.
There are no residential properties which fall within the identified shadow flicker
zone. The closest neighbouring residential dwelling is 400m away. The host farm
house (Old Manor Farm) in the applicant’s ownership is some 250m away. Officers
therefore consider that the proposal would be unlikely to give rise to instances of
shadow flicker affecting neighbouring residential properties due to the relative
distance and the height of the turbines.
In respect of the highway impact of the proposal, the Highway Authority has
confirmed that subject to a condition to ensure that construction vehicles access the
site via the B1159, there is no highway objection. The proposal would therefore result
Development Committee
27
20 September 2012
in no adverse impact on the highway and would accord with Policy CT5 of the Core
Strategy.
It is therefore considered that as there is no significantly adverse impact on the
surrounding landscape character, residential amenity, highway safety, heritage
assets and designated nature conservation or biodiversity interests that the proposal
accords with policy EN7. Accordingly the proposal complies with the policies of the
Development Plan and the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions.
7.
HELHOUGHTON - PF/12/0541 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 04/1385 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
restriction; Brymur Farm, The Common for Mr B Ward
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19971371 PF - Temporary standing of caravan
Temporary Approval 21/11/1997
PLA/19980363 PF - Formation of new vehicular access
Approved 14/05/1998
PLA/20001586 PF - Retention of mobile home
Temporary Approval 23/01/2001
PLA/20030181 PO - Erection of agricultural dwelling and double garage
Approved 05/01/2004
PLA/20040064 PF - Retention of mobile home
Temporary Approval 20/02/2004
PLA/20040667 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn 25/05/2004
PLA/20041385 PF - Erection of two-storey agricultural dwelling and garage
Approved 28/09/2004
PLA/20070320 PF - Retention of mobile home
Temporary Approval 09/05/2007
PLA/20090375 PF - Continued Use of Land for Siting Mobile Home
Withdrawn by Applicant 09/06/2009
PF/11/0433
PF - Removal of condition 3 of planning ref: 04/1385 to permit
occupation of dwelling without complying with agricultural restriction
Withdrawn by Applicant 19/09/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 04/1385 to permit occupation without complying with an agricultural
occupancy restriction.
Development Committee
28
20 September 2012
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control given the policy issue at
stake and the unusual circumstances of the case.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object. The Parish Council consider a dwelling should not be built at this location
unless required for agricultural reasons.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategy Team Leader - Object. The application should be refused for the following
reasons:
No dwelling exists, whilst permission was granted in 2004 for a dwelling and that
permission included an agricultural occupancy condition, that dwelling has not been
built. The request does not therefore accord with the requirements of policy H06 as
no dwelling exists.
If a dwelling did exist, it would still not comply as it would not have been occupied for
at least 12 years and therefore should be refused.
It is not sufficient to request removal of the occupancy condition on the basis that
there is no housing association willing to take the property as the whole of the
smallholding is being marketed for a value of £200,000 and a mobile home would not
be to an acceptable standard for a Housing Association to take. If a housing
association was then interested they would then need to incur the cost of building a
dwelling. The value being offered therefore does not comply with H06 in that the
dwelling (if it existed) must have been offered on such terms as allow it to be
occupied as affordable housing.
On this basis I would not support the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition
as this application does not comply with the requirements of H06.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 6: Removal of agricultural, forestry and essential worker occupancy
conditions (specifies the criteria that must be met for the removal of agricultural,
forestry and essential worker occupancy conditions).
Development Committee
29
20 September 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Compliance with Policy HO6
APPRAISAL
This application is seeking permission for the removal of an agricultural occupancy
restriction condition. That in itself is not unusual and is a type of application the
Committee will be familiar with. However, what is unusual about this particular
application is that the dwelling to which the agricultural occupancy condition applies
has not yet been built.
Having satisfactorily demonstrated a functional need for a permanent dwelling on the
site, in connection with the pig and beef finishing unit, under application reference
03/0181 outline planning permission was granted in January 2004. A full planning
application was submitted and permission granted for a two storey dwelling under
application reference 04/1385.
The applicant confirmed in writing in a letter received on 29 May 2009 that work had
commenced on the development. That was supported by confirmation from Building
Control and that a site inspection had taken place on 12 May 2009. Therefore,
planning permission 20041385 has been implemented. However, following a change
in the circumstances of the applicant due to what is understood to be ill health no
further work on the construction of the dwelling has taken place. Only the footings
have been laid. The applicant is now seeking to remove the occupancy restriction to
sell the site with an extant planning permission for a dwelling.
In 2011 planning application reference 11/0433 was submitted, seeking to remove
the occupancy restriction from application reference 04/1385. However, that
application was withdrawn as the valuation at which the site was being marketed had
not been agreed with the District Council. The District Council took advice from a
specialist consultancy and valuation service to the pig industry on this matter who
confirmed that the £285,000 marketing price, which had already been reduced from
£320,000 and then £300,000 was too high. The District Council's consultant advised
that a more appropriate asking price would be in the region of £185,000. This
includes £85,000 for the pig unit and for the building plot with planning permission
£100,000. It was finally agreed with the applicant's agents to market the property at
offers in the region of £200,000, as they hoped to secure an offer in between the two
values.
Given that 18 months of marketing had already taken place, albeit at the higher
valuation, and that no interested parties were able to comply with the agricultural
occupancy restriction, it was agreed that a further 6 months of marketing with the
new agreed valuation would be acceptable.
The current application has therefore been submitted seeking to remove the
occupancy restriction from permission PF/04/1385. The agent has advised that the
marketing was carried out as agreed with advertisements being placed in the EDP.
No offers have been received and those that did show an interest were unable to
meet the requirements of the occupancy restriction.
In order for such a proposal to be acceptable it is necessary to comply with the
requirements of Policy HO6 regarding the removal of agricultural, forestry and other
occupancy conditions. There are three criteria, the first of which is that such a
proposal shall only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the dwelling has been
occupied in accordance with the occupancy condition for a minimum of 12 years.
Whilst the applicant has lived in a mobile home on the site for some 14 years in
Development Committee
30
20 September 2012
connection with the agricultural business, following numerous temporary planning
permissions, the applicant has not occupied the approved dwelling as it has not yet
been constructed. This part of the policy refers specifically to the dwelling to which
the occupancy condition relates. The applicant is therefore unable to comply with this
part of the policy.
The second part of Policy HO6 is regarding the applicant being able to demonstrate
that there is no long term need for the dwelling on the particular holding/business on
which the dwelling is situated, nor in the surrounding area. This is established
through a marketing exercise which has been carried as explained above. It is
therefore considered that the proposal complies with this part of the policy.
The final part of Policy HO6 with which the applicant needs to be able to demonstrate
compliance is that the dwelling has been made available to one or more Registered
Social Landlords operating locally on terms which would allow it to be occupied as an
affordable dwelling and that option has been rejected. On the previous application
(reference 11/0433) the agent had advised that the applicant had spoken to the
Enabling Officer at the District Council as well as Victory Housing Trust, Circle Anglia
and Flagship Housing Group, but that this had been unsuccessful. However, the
applicant has not submitted evidence to support this. Under the current application
the agent was asked to provide evidence that this part of the policy had been
addressed. Following this request the agent has made efforts to contact the relevant
housing associations such as Victory, Broadland, Wherry, Circle by email but has so
far received no responses. A consultation has therefore taken place with the Strategy
Team Leader, and the Committee will note the objection that has been received. It is
not therefore considered that this part of the policy has been complied with.
Therefore, whilst the applicant has lived on the site for some 14 years, this has been
on a temporary basis in a mobile home. He has clearly not lived in the dwelling for a
minimum of 12 years since it has not yet been constructed. Furthermore, the
applicant has been unable to demonstrate compliance that one or more Registered
Social Landlords have rejected any terms for the proposed dwelling to be occupied
as an affordable dwelling.
It is not therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable as it does not comply
with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:
SS2: Development in the Countryside
HO6: Removal of Agricultural, Forestry and other Occupancy Conditions
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the removal of the occupancy
condition would fail to accord with Policy HO6 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy. This is because the dwelling to which the condition relates has
not yet been constructed and it cannot therefore have been occupied for a
minimum period of 12 years. In addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the site has been offered to a Registered Social Landlord on terms that
would allow a dwelling to be constructed and occupied as an affordable
dwelling.
Development Committee
31
20 September 2012
8.
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V Purkiss
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19871946 PF - Convert barn forming lettable accommodation in conjunction
with public house
Approved 23/11/1987
PLA/20000137 PF - Removal of occupancy restriction (condition 3 of planning
permission reference 871946)
Approved 10/03/2000
PLA/20020690 PF - Demolition of toilet block and temporary office and erection of
single-storey dining room extension
Approved 05/12/2002
PLA/19791347 PF - Erection of bungalow
Approved 07/01/1980
PLA/20080555 PF - Change of use from public house to residential dwelling
Refused 23/05/2008 Appeal dismissed 18/03/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of The Hare and Hounds from a public house to a residential
dwelling.
The building to the front of the site is used as lettable accommodation in conjunction
with the public house. The main building is set back from the road and has a large
area for parking to the west of the building within the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Drainage issues at the site which may affect the continued viability of the use as a
public house.
PARISH COUNCIL
Strong objection (comments summarised)
- Many of the arguments offered by the applicant are inaccurate.
-The way the pub has been run gives the reasonable impression that the true aim of
the owners has been to run down the business. In doing so they have deprived
Hempstead and Baconsthorpe a valued and valuable social amenity.
- Opening hours were erratic.
- The suggestion that the local village halls have competed with and deprived the pub
of business is absurd and disingenuous.
- The pub has been successful in the past and could be again if run in a competent
and business-like way.
- There is good reason to believe that the pub has not been sold as a going concern
because the asking price has been unrealistically high.
Development Committee
32
20 September 2012
REPRESENTATIONS
10 letters of representation received. These include 9 letters of objection and 1 letter
of comment.
Letters of objection citing the following grounds:
1. This is the last pub in the village and in fact in the four surrounding villages.
2. The village of Baconsthorpe is in need of a well-run local pub.
3. The pub serves not only Hempstead and Baconsthorpe but Plumstead and
Matlaske.
4. Many other pubs in the area have had new owners in the same period as the Hare
and Hounds and are still successful.
5. The current owners took over a thriving business and mismanaged it.
6. The owners have deliberately run the business in to the ground. When the pub
was still open it had erratic opening times, the owners had no interest in developing
the trade and turned customers away.
7. The marketing exercise was a fait accompli as the owners did not want to sell the
business. Marketing was only done to tick the box for the planning application - for
example prospective purchasers of the pub were turned away, not being allowed to
view the pub.
1 letter of comment as follows:
Shame to lose the chance that the Hare and Hounds might once again flourish as a
public house.
The applicant has submitted information in support of their application detailing the
viability issues with retaining the public house. This is attached as Appendix 4.
Other information has been submitted in respect of foul drainage and the problems
encountered with adequately resolving the drainage problems on the site and
information in respect of the problems encountered with and the marketing
undertaken. She has commented that the premises have not been open to the
public since 2010.
CONSULTATIONS
Baconsthorpe Parish Council - strong objection (comments summarised)
- The loss of the pub is very sad. It has always played a part in the life of this village.
- The owners of the pub made it fairly clear over a period of time that they intended to
shut the pub down eventually.
- Opening times of the pub were erratic.
- The applicant suggests parking is restricted on the site. This is inaccurate there is a
large car park at the pub.
- Reasons given by the applicant as to why the business was not successful include
the rural location, lack of footpaths and lack of tourist accommodation in the area.
These were facts that the applicant knew when originally purchasing the pub and are
unchanged from when the pub was run successfully.
- The Parish Council have never been aware of any drainage problems at the pub.
There is surely no difference with drainage for a pub or a dwelling and if there are
drainage problems surely the conversion of the little pub barn at the front of the site is
an issue for the applicant.
Highway Authority - (summarised) With consideration of the current use of the
building, I find that I have no objection to the proposed development, in principle.
The proposed use would not result in an increase in vehicular traffic above that
currently permissible, I do however have concerns regarding parking provision as
none is indicated on the submitted plans. Further information in respect of proposed
parking layout and the number of bedrooms proposed in the dwelling (to ascertain
the required parking spaces) would need to be provided to enable the Highway
Authority to further consider the application.
Development Committee
33
20 September 2012
Building Control - I refer to the drainage consultation. It appears that the premises
was a pub initially with a septic tank drainage system. The restaurant use was then
added and the discharge consent should then have been varied with the
Environment Agency. This presumably would have started a chain of events
involving alterations to the drainage system which would have then required consent
under Building Regulations. This would not have been required without the
Environment Agency input however as the introduction of trade waste would not have
impacted on the drainage from a building control aspect.
As far as satisfactory drainage is concerned, we have advised the applicant that
adequate provision may be possible but would involve the use of a specialist
consultant to design a system suitable for the use of the premises, the likely output
and the site conditions. This would apply equally to the current public house use or
any subsequent change of use.
Environmental Health – comments awaited in respect of drainage.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Loss of the public house as an important local facility
2. Conversion of a building in the countryside to residential
APPRAISAL
The Hare and Hounds Public House is in a countryside location in the Countryside
policy area. It lies within the parish of Hempstead although it is very much on the
boundary of that parish with the centre of the village being approx 1km away. The
centre of the village of Baconsthorpe is closer to the public house. There is a cluster
of houses in close proximity to the property.
The Hare and Hounds is the only local public house which remains available to serve
either Hempstead or Baconsthorpe. There are other licensed premises available in
Holt, Edgefield and Bodham but those settlements are 4, 5 and 6 kilometres away
respectively.
Development Committee
34
20 September 2012
An application to change of the use of the public house to a residential dwelling was
refused and dismissed on appeal in 2008 (08/0555). The application was refused on
the following grounds:
‘The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Local Plan on 2 April 1998 for all
planning purposes. The following saved policy as listed in the Direction issued by
Government Office for the East of England on 14 September 2007 is considered
relevant to the proposed development: Policy 87: Country Pubs The applicants
have failed to establish through a marketing exercise whether or not the public house
is potentially viable. Furthermore, the proposals would result in the loss of an
important social and community facility in the Countryside policy area in conflict with
the objectives of the above policy.’
This application is for the same proposal. Whilst the Core Strategy has been
introduced since those decisions, the policy context of retaining local facilities and
services in countryside locations where they are the last of their kind still remains.
The site lies in the parish of Hempstead which for the purpose of development is
designated as Countryside in the North Norfolk Core Strategy. The public house is
the last in the village and as such, although the applicant indicates it has not been
open for a number of years, it is protected by Policy CT3.
Policy CT3 requires that development proposals that would result in the loss of sites
or premises currently, or last used for, important local facilities and services, which
include public houses, will not be permitted unless:
1. Alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available in the area or will be
provided and made available prior to commencement of redevelopment; or
2. It can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and if it is a commercial operation, that a viability test has demonstrated
that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell
or let the property at a realistic price for a period of at least 12 months.
In this case there is no alternative provision proposed or available in the area and the
applicant is therefore seeking to demonstrate in her application that she can comply
with part 2 of the policy. There are three elements to this requirement.
The applicant's supporting information details the reasons that she believes the
public house is no longer viable. As the drainage at the site is poor and cannot be
improved to cope with the capacity of a commercial business it is no longer feasible
to run a commercial business from the site; the local community did not use or
support the pub; the public house is in an unsustainable location with insufficient
dwellings in the area to support it; it is too far away from tourist attractions to attract
tourists; parking is restricted at the pub and this is restrictive as the pub is dependent
on drive in trade; there are no footpaths in the village; there is no scope on the site to
expand or diversify; the recession and continuing rise of overheads; and the
increasing price of alcohol and food.
As to whether there is any reasonable prospect of retention of the public house, the
applicant has submitted a large amount of information suggesting that the poor
drainage (foul water soakaway) is a significant factor in why she is unable to continue
to run the public house. The applicant asserts that she no longer has access to the
existing foul water soakaway system as this is on right of way behind the premises
and not on land in ownership of the public house. She suggests that due to the
ground conditions of the site (clay soils, sloping site and no drainage ditches to soak
in to) that it will be difficult to have foul drainage soakaways. She suggests therefore
Development Committee
35
20 September 2012
that the drainage cannot be improved to accommodate a public house. The
Council's Building Control service has confirmed that adequate provision for drainage
may be possible but due to the site conditions and likely output this would require a
specialist consultant to design a suitable system. Critically however they have
advised the same drainage issues and need for specialist design would apply for
either the existing public house use or any change of use to a residential dwelling.
The drainage issues raised by the applicant are not therefore considered to be
significantly material to the decision and nor do they satisfactorily demonstrate that
there is no reasonable prospect of retention of the public house on the site.
In respect of viability, no financial information has been submitted. The applicant
indicates that the public house was forced to shut in 2010 due to loss of trade and
continuing losses and insufficient turnover. Apart from an assertion from the applicant
that the business continued to lose money and was only kept open as long as it was
by being subsidised by the owner, no financial information in support of this has been
submitted. Furthermore, as was established by the Inspector on appeal in 2009, no
significant or sufficient information has been submitted about efforts to make the
business viable. The applicant describes advertising in local newspapers and in
tourist and restaurant guides but no detail has been provided about the extent or
timing of this activity. The applicant also asserts that there is insufficient on-site
parking to accommodate customers for a public house in a rural location who depend
on people driving to the site. There is however a very large car park at the site and it
is not therefore considered that a lack of parking would be a problem at this site.
Therefore based on the information submitted, it is considered that the applicant has
failed to demonstrate that the public house is no longer viable or that it has no
reasonable prospect of retention.
The applicant also indicates that reasonable efforts have been made to sell the
property at a realistic price since January 2010 but these have met with no success.
Information regarding the changing price and duration of marketing in 2008 by UK
Pub Sales Ltd has been submitted. The applicant indicates that the pub was for sale
with UK Pub Sales from Jan 2008 until the end of 2010. Two letters have been
submitted from UK Pub Sales which indicates commencement of marketing took
place in Jan 2008 and a letter detailing an offer which was later withdrawn in March
2008. No further evidence has been submitted as to the duration that UK Pub Sales
marketed the dwelling, nor of the extent to which they marketed the property.
Information submitted indicates that the applicant appointed local agents to market
the business in March 2011. A letter from them on 17 January 2012 indicates there
was no significant interest to date. No particulars of the marketing that was carried
out have been submitted. A check of their website on 9 August 2012 indicates that
the business was not being marketed on their website.
In respect of the marketing exercise, by UK Pubs Ltd, this same information was
submitted on the 2008 application and considered by the Planning Inspector for the
lodged appeal where it was considered that the applicant had failed to demonstrate
that they had made all reasonable efforts to market the property as required by the
policy. To summarise the Inspector commented that from the information submitted
at that time in respect of the marketing by UK Pub Sales Ltd, that it was 'clear that
the public house has been on the market since January 2008, but I have not been
provided with evidence as to the efforts made to sell it during that period, or that a
realistic price which might achieve a sale has been sought for the whole of that 12
month period.' He therefore concluded that it 'it had not been shown that all
reasonable efforts have been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a
period of at least 12 months.'
Development Committee
36
20 September 2012
Following that appeal decision, the applicant indicates that (Cockertons) have
marketed the property since March 2011. It appears from the supporting information
submitted by the applicant that during the marketing period with the local agents that
no financial accounts or trends for the business were provided. This is detailed in an
email between the local agents and an interested party in September 2011.
Furthermore no detailed information has been submitted to the Council to
demonstrate the extent to which the marketing has been undertaken - how the public
house was marketed, where, the precise duration, the applicant indicates no price
was specified on the marketing details and it is clear that no basic financial
information was supplied in respect of accounts of the business. No satisfactory
evidence has therefore been submitted as to the efforts to sell the business during
that period, or that a realistic price which might achieve a sale has been sought for
the whole of that 12 month period. The same conclusion must therefore be drawn as
with the 2008 refusal and dismissed appeal that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that the property has been satisfactorily marketed for sale or to let at a
realistic price for a period of at least 12 months.
Therefore in summary in respect of policy CT3, based on the information submitted it
is not considered that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that there is no
reasonable prospect of the retention of the Hare and Hounds as a Public House; that
it has not been demonstrated by undertaking a viability test that the use is no longer
viable; and that it has not been shown that all reasonable efforts have been made to
sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of a least 12 months. The
requirements of Policy CT3 have not therefore been met and the application is
therefore recommended for refusal. Furthermore, it is not considered that there are
any material considerations which would outweigh these policy conflicts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
CT 3 - Provision and retention of local facilities and services
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that there is no reasonable prospect of the retention of the Hare and Hounds as a
public house; nor that the use is no longer viable. Furthermore, it has not been
shown that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell or let the property at a
realistic price for a period of at least 12 months. The proposal would therefore result
in the loss of an important social and community facility in the Countryside policy
area in conflict with the objectives of the above policy and it is not considered that
there are any material considerations which would outweigh these policy conflicts.
Development Committee
37
20 September 2012
9.
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 April 2012
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19740171
PO - Erection of one detached residence and double garage
(outline)
Approved 17/05/1974
PLA/19771706 HR - Erection of house and garage
Approved 21/03/1978
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling adjacent to the applicant's
house.
The dwelling would be a one bedroom two storey house sited within the garden
belonging to 28 Waveney Drive (applicant).
The existing house is placed on the east side of the curtilage with the largest part of
the garden to the west. The plot would be on this part of the garden, extending up to
the boundary with 26 Waveney Drive to the west and up to the A1062 to the south.
Two sets of amended plans have been received. The plans initially submitted were
for a two storey two bedroom house with accommodation in the roof. The first set of
amended plans showed a similar proposal, but with a small gable on the rear. The
second set of amended plans indicated removal of an internal garage and the
accommodation in the roof to create a narrower, smaller two storey house.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Dixon having regard to the following planning issues;
1. Plot size
2. Impact on character and appearance of the area
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection to any plan received.
REPRESENTATIONS
5 letters of objection have been received from 4 neighbours.
3 letters of objection originally received, raising the following concerns:
1. Design of dwelling not in keeping with the rest of the road (including the 3 storey
element).
2. Proposed plot restricted and siting of dwelling close to the immediate neighbours.
3. Waveney Drive is currently an open estate with adequate space between each
dwelling. This development could encourage similar applications.
4. Whilst no trees need to be removed for the development, at least one tree has
already been removed.
Development Committee
38
20 September 2012
Following advertisement of the first amended plans one letter of objection was
received, from the immediate neighbour to the east, as follows:
1. 3 storey dwelling inappropriate for Waveney Drive.
2. Dwelling would appear to be squeezed in between the two immediate
neighbours.
3. Possible encourage similar applications.
Following advertisement of the second amended plans one letter of objection was
received, from number 12 (6 properties away), as follows:
1. Plot is undersized and would encourage other similar applications along
Waveney Drive.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Code Level 3 condition required on any approval in
order to ensure compliance with Policy EN 6. No further comments on the amended
plans.
County Council (Highways) - No objection. Conditions are required to ensure that the
vehicular access is constructed prior to the first use of the house; access is in
accordance with Highway Authority standards; and no direct access is created from
or onto the A1062.
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 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on the character and appearance of the area
3. Design
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Hoveton where new dwellings
are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
Development Committee
39
20 September 2012
Policy EN 4 requires that all development is designed to a high quality, has regard to
the North Norfolk Design Guide, is of a scale and massing that relates
sympathetically to the surrounding area, whilst at the same time making efficient use
of the land. Design which fails to reinforce or preserve local distinctiveness and
character will not be considered acceptable. Proposals should also not have a
significantly detrimental effect upon the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
This area of Hoveton contains a mixture of detached residential properties in terms of
size and style. However the majority of dwellings in Waveney Drive appear to date
from the 1960's. The siting of the dwellings and plot sizes are varied along the road,
but in the immediate area there are several dwellings on fairly large plots, which are
sited in the centre of their curtilages. Further north and north-east plot sizes become
more varied and both properties and plots are generally smaller. In addition new
dwellings have recently been permitted to the south of Waveney Drive along Church
Road, reducing the size of the curtilage of 30 Church Road.
To the west of the site lies a chalet bungalow, directly opposite a 2 storey dwelling.
The house to the east (applicant's) has an attached garage only 3m from the road.
The proposed dwelling would be set back approximately 8m with the main roof ridge
in line with number 28. The line of dwellings in this part of Waveney Drive is relatively
varied.
The rear garden is more than the footprint of the dwelling, complying with the
guidance within the Design Guide. In addition, as a south facing garden it is
reasonable to expect the majority of it to be substantially free from shading during the
year.
On balance therefore the size of the plot in relation to the dwelling and impact of the
dwelling on the overall form and character of the area are considered to be
acceptable.
In terms of the impact upon neighbouring dwellings the only neighbours directly
affected would be the immediate neighbours on either side. As the dwelling would be
sited in line with the dwelling to the east (the applicants' property), no significant
overshadowing is anticipated. The neighbouring dwelling to the west is sited a
minimum of 8m away, with the boundary being served with a boarded fence some
1m high and vegetation, varying in height between approximately 2m and 6m which
provides an almost continuous barrier. With south facing rear gardens the impact on
neighbours in terms of overshadowing is considered to be acceptable under Policy
EN 4.
In terms of overlooking no windows are proposed on the western elevation. A window
in the western elevation of the applicants’ house is thought to be a secondary kitchen
window and would face a wall including a door and two windows, serving a utility
room and study, on the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling. The windows
would all be on the ground floor and set 3.5m apart, with the common boundary
served with a 1.8m boarded fence. Whilst this distance is less than the 9m required
to meet fully guidelines for secondary to tertiary arrangements under the Design
Guide Amenity Criteria, since the fence would provide screening at ground floor level,
this shortfall is not considered sufficient justification for refusal of the application on
amenity grounds.
Policies CT 5 and CT 6 aim to ensure that any new development includes sufficient
parking and that any transport impact is acceptable. The proposed dwelling would be
served by a new access from Waveney Drive which would lead onto a driveway with
Development Committee
40
20 September 2012
room for two cars. With appropriate conditions both policies are considered to be
complied with.
It is considered in this case that the development would not be significantly out of
character with the area. Furthermore the development would not affect significantly
the amenities of the neighbouring properties and would provide adequate amenity
space and parking. The development is therefore considered to comply with
Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0803 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 10/1045 to permit retention of slate roof covering; White Horse, 34
High Street for Mr D A Walsgrove
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 September 2012
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061859 PF - Construction of access ramp and installation of new entrance
door and canopy
Approved 25/01/2007
PLA/20090931 PF - Erection of single-storey rear extension, conversion of barn to
restaurant and retention of umbrella to front of premises
Approved 28/10/2009
NMA1/09/0931 NMA - Non-material amendment request to permit revisions to
fenestration, roof height and projection and materials
Refused 05/07/2010
PF/10/1045 PF - Retention of rear extension
Approved 31/01/2011
THE APPLICATION
Removal of condition 2 of planning permission reference: 10/1045 to permit retention
of slate roof covering.
Condition 2 required as follows:
Within 12 months of the date of this planning permission, the roof covering shall be
replaced with clay pantiles the details of which have first been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The replacement shall then be
carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Fitch-Tillett having regard to the following planning
issues:
Socio-economic and design matters.
Development Committee
41
20 September 2012
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects, the slate roof is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings.
REPRESENTATIONS
In support of the application the agent claims that the slate effect roof tiles have
weathered in the two years since the building was completed and the "as built"
construction has provided a visually albeit contemporary pleasing link between the
Victorian Public House and the period flint barn.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager The site lies within the designated Overstrand Conservation Area and the White
Horse Public House is a traditional late 18th/early 19th century building which makes a
significant contribution to the prevailing character and appearance of the Village. The
building holds a prominent position in the street scene being located on the junction
of High Street and Cliff Road. Furthermore it is recognised in the draft ‘Overstrand
Conservation Area Appraisal’ as being worthy of Local Listing.
The extension in question has not been erected in accordance with the approved
plans and the Committee required a compromise to be reached where the changes
to the form, materials, detailing and design of the extension be overlooked as long as
the extension was re-roofed with pantiles to reduce visual impact. C&D consider the
inclusion of the pantiles is vital in order to once again link the extension into the host
building and create a more harmonious relationship.
As it currently stands, the extension has a harmful impact on the significance of the
host building and Conservation Area for the following reasons:1. Materials
‘Colourwashed render’ has been used instead of facing bricks to match the
existing; slate effect roof covering used instead of clay pantiles; white uPVC
fenestration used instead of timber. As a result the extension has lost its
connection/relationship with the host building and wider architectural context. The
extension has a stark and harsh appearance which contrasts with the host
building and its general character.
2. Design and Detailing
There are a number of aspects which represent a distinct move away from the
originally approved development. The window proportions on both the north and
east elevations have been altered; the timber boarding on the gable apex has
been changed; and the overhanging eaves with timber posts have been entirely
left out of the scheme.
3. Visual Impact
The extension can be clearly seen from the public domain from Cliff Road.
Furthermore the site is overlooked on the north and east boundary. For these
reasons it can be perceived as having a visual impact on the Conservation Area.
4. Form
The length, height and footprint of the extension has been enlarged; this has
resulted in engendering a less subservient relationship with the host building.
Given the poor relationship/incompatibility between the new and historic elements
and the number of discrepancies with the original plans, these factors all add a
greater premium to the importance of the pantiles in linking the structures together.
Development Committee
42
20 September 2012
In conclusion, it is considered that the extension has both an adverse impact on the
significance of the Conservation Area and the appearance of the White Horse
building itself. For the reasons stated above it is recommended that the Condition to
re-roof remains in place in order to comply with Policy EN4 and EN8 of the Local
Development Framework.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of retaining the roof as constructed on the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The background to this application is that a rear extension to the White Horse Public
House was originally granted planning permission in 2009. However, the extension
that was subsequently constructed differed in many respects from that approved; i.e.
the facing materials for the walls and roof, the size of the extension and other
detailing. A subsequent planning application to retain the extension as built was
considered by the Development Committee on the 20 January 2011 when it was
resolved to approve the application as follows;
'The Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve subject to the
imposition of conditions requiring repainting of the render and bargeboard/eaves, the
replacement of the slates within a time period to be agreed, and the details of the
materials to be submitted and agreed.'
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had at that meeting withdrawn
his objection to the retention of the building as constructed if the roof tiles were
replaced with pantiles.
More than 18 months has passed since that resolution and the tiles have not been
replaced. Furthermore, it is considered that more than adequate time has elapsed
for the tiles to have been replaced during the off-peak holiday season.
Development Committee
43
20 September 2012
Despite the agent's claim that the slate effect tiles have weathered, the change is not
apparent and they have certainly not weathered in a favourable way. In fact, the
slate effect tile has a tendency to fade, worsening the appearance, rather than age in
a manner that would mellow and blend with the host building. It is considered that
given the building's prominence within the street scene (despite being a rear
extension), retention of the slate tiles as proposed would continue to harm the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers the compromise
reached by Committee to re-roof the extension was more than reasonable and there
has been no material change in policy or circumstances that would alter that view. It
is considered that the previous decision made should be upheld in order to mitigate
the impact of the extension.
For the reasons stated above the removal of condition 2 is considered to conflict with
Policies EN 4 and EN 8 and would not therefore comply with the Development Plan
for the area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Refuse on the grounds that the retention of the slate tiles would fail to preserve
or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as required
by Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to instigate
enforcement action to have the slate effect tiles removed and replaced with
pantiles in accordance with condition two of planning approval 10/1045, the
period of compliance to be three months.
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/12/0701 - Conversion and extension of barn to
provide residential dwelling and erection of car shelter; Alby Hill Farm,
Dovehouse Lane, Alby Hill for Mr Riley Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/12/0767 - Erection of detached building for use as
annexe; Oaklea, Thwaite Common, Erpingham for Mr J Taylor and Miss M Harris
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/12/0505 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 06/0072 to permit occupation as independent holiday
accommodation; The Green Pavilion, Common Farm, Sustead Road, Lower
Gresham for Mr & Mrs A Young
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0640 - Erection of single-storey front extension, extension to
front porch and front extension to garage to form car port; Spring Cottage,
Langham Road for Mr Hackford
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PO/12/0779 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent Sedges, Back Lane for Mrs S Fardell
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Committee
44
20 September 2012
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0781 - Erection of lobby extension, construction of
replacement roof to side/rear extension and installation of blind dormer
window; St. Nicholas Lodge, Back Lane for Mrs P Short
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0793 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions;
Westrop, Saxlingham Road for The Estate of the late J Ross-Collins
(Householder application)
BODHAM - AN/12/0378 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; Crayford
And Abbs, Weybourne Road for Crayford & Abbs
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BODHAM - PF/12/0867 - Change of use from residential to a mixed use of
residential/dog grooming salon; 13 Hart Lane for Mr S Poulton
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/12/0704 - Erection of a amateur radio mast; Richard House, The
Street for Mr R Banester
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/12/0734 - Installation of additional telecommunications dish;
Water Tower, Watering Piece Lane, Ludham for T-Mobile (UK) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - LA/12/0458 - Internal & external alterations to attached
barn to provide annexe accommodation; Green Farm House, Holt Road for Mr S
Lambert
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0461 - Conversion of attached barn to provide
annexe accommodation; Green Farm House, Holt Road for Mr S Lambert
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0748 - Erection of replacement single-storey
extension; Driftwood Cottage, Long House Yard, High Street for Mr & Mrs Kemp
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - LE/12/0749 - Demolition of single-storey extension and
outbuilding; Driftwood Cottage, Long House Yard, High Street for Mr & Mrs
Kemp
(Conservation Area Demolition)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0597 - Erection of two-storey rear extension;
Forge House, High Street for Mrs Askew
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/12/0362 - Change of use of land from agricultural to car-park and
formation of vehicular access; The Crown Inn, Colby Road, Banningham for Mr
& Mrs Feneron
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
45
20 September 2012
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/0628 - Change of use of land from
agricultural to burial ground; Land at St Andrews Church, The Street, Saxthorpe
for Saxthorpe Parochial Church Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0829 - Re-instatement of windows to facilitate conversion of
function room to bedroom accommodation; Red Lion Hotel, Tucker Street for
Real Hospitality Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0670 - Conversion of dwelling to four residential flats; Esher
House, 16 Cabbell Road for A A & S M Bennett Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0326 - Structural refurbishment of sea walls; Sea Walls, The
Promenade for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - AI/12/0563 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements; Argos Stores Unit B, North Norfolk Retail Park, Holt Road for
Home Retail Group
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/12/0740 - Installation of extraction pipework; 31 Station Road for
Mr P Mann
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PF/12/0415 - Conversion of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation and erection of double carport; New Barn, Honing Road for J R
Concepts Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/0586 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Boots Barn, Rear of Baker's Cottage, School Road for Mr
McLeod
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/10/0323 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of side gable windows to garage; The Flintstones, Plumstead Road for Mr J
Glasspoole
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EDGEFIELD - PF/12/0735 - Variation of Condition 7 of planning permission
reference: 10/1187 to require compliance with a Code for Sustainable Homes
level of 49.19 points; Jordans Yard, Norwich Road for Belcombe Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0755 - Variation of Condition 27 of planning permission
reference: 03/1947 to permit extension of opening hours on Sundays to between
09.00 and 20.00 from 22 July 2012 to 9 September 2012; Tescos, 17 Oak Street
for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
46
20 September 2012
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0798 - Erection of side and rear extensions, siting of
changing cabin, retention of plant housing on roof, installation of water tank
and provision of additional car parking; Hain Celestial Frozen Foods, Holt Road
for Hain Celestial Frozen Foods
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0736 - Change of use of part first floor from B1 (office) to D1
(cosmetic beauty treatment salon); 46 Wells Road for Miss H Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0791 - Erection of first floor side extension; 80 Wells Road
for Mr & Mrs R Ward
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PO/12/0656 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land at 2
Gladstone Road for The Estate of Margaret Thorsen
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0696 - Variation of Condition 2 of Planning permission
reference: 10/0109 to permit installation of solar panels to units 9 & 14 and brick
plinths to all plots; Land adjacent Anglian Water Tower, Holt Road for Pigeon
Investments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PM/12/0543 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings and one one
and a half storey dwelling; 204 Norwich Road for GCMD Developments Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
FAKENHAM - LA/12/0825 - Installation of advertisements (part retrospective); 46
Wells Road for Hayley Wright Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
FELBRIGG - PF/12/0523 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
annexe; 9 The Green for Ms S Shorter
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0725 - Variation of Conditions 2 and 3 of planning
permission reference: 10/0975 to permit revised design and materials and
variation of condition 4 to allow revised window arrangements; 90 Holt Road for
Mr & Mrs T Hayward
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - NMA1/11/0557 - Non-material amendment request for relocation of personnel door and change of external materials; Longfield
Workshops, The Street, Barney for Mr T Peck
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
GIMINGHAM - PF/12/0542 - Formation of vehicular access; The Nest, Mundesley
Road for Mrs J Smith
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - PF/12/0747 - Erection of front porch and insertion of dormer
window to front; Honeysuckle Cottage, Thursford Road for Mr Tivey
(Householder application)
Development Committee
47
20 September 2012
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0690 - Erection of cart lodge; Apple Tree Cottage, 7
Avenue Road for Mr & Mrs G Neal
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0743 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0265 to permit conversion of barns to farm manager's dwelling
(revised scheme); Park Farm, 61 Fulmodeston Road for Dick Seaman Farms
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0619 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions; 86 The Street for Mr & Mrs Richell
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/12/0752 - Erection of replacement side extension; 156 Wells
Road for Mr & Mrs A Parcell
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0355 - Siting of storage container; Car Park, Letheringsett Hill for
Holt Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/12/0731 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference:
11/0703 to permit retention of unit 5 as constructed; 1 Bull Street for Mrs J West
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/12/0571 - Non-material amendment request for a reduction in the
length of the conservatory, reducing amount of glass in the north and west
elevations, a change in roof design and colour and an increase to the height of
the flank walls.; Shackleton House, 2 Burrell Close for Mr & Mrs Stubbs
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/12/0722 - Installation of replacement
dormer windows and construction of pitched roof to garage; Glavenbrook, 1
Home Farm, Blakeney Road for Mr R Peterson
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/12/0612 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide annexe
and change of use of land to residential curtilage; Mill House, High Mill Hill,
Yarmouth Road for Mr Trowse
(Full Planning Permission)
MORSTON - PF/12/0550 - Erection of detached garage/storage building;
Scaldbeck House, Stiffkey Road for Mr Keith
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0029 - Erection of five two-storey terraced dwellings
with accommodation in roof space; 48 - 50 Bacton Road for AMF Developments
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0682 - Erection of replacement single-storey side
extension and single-storey rear extension; 3 William Paston Road for Mr & Mrs
Billington
(Householder application)
Development Committee
48
20 September 2012
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0865 - Installation of front and side windows; 12A St
Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for Len Bullimore + Sons Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/12/0214 - Erection of two office buildings and car
showroom and formation of access; 34-36 Cromer Road for Bullen
Developments Ltd
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0762 - Change of use from C3 (residential) to A1
(hairdressing salon); The Cottage, 1A Grammar School Road for Snippers
Artistic Hairdressing Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0773 - Renewal of planning permission ref: 09/0509 for
conversion of A1 (hairdressing salon) to two-storey dwelling; 50A High Street
for Ms Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/12/0409 - Erection of link extension and bio-mass plant room
and fuel store and erection of fences to enclose kitchen garden; Raynham Hall,
Swaffham Road, East Raynham for The Executors of the 7th Marquess
Townshend
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - LA/12/0410 - Internal alterations to provide up-graded bathroom,
kitchen and staff facilities. Construction of link extension and internal and
external alterations to Kent Wing; Raynham Hall, Swaffham Road, East
Raynham for The Executors of the 7th Marquess Townshend
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - PF/12/0718 - Erection of replacement porch; 11 The Street, West
Raynham for Mrs I Andrews
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - LA/12/0719 - Erection of replacement porch and installation of three
replacement windows and door; 11 The Street, West Raynham for Mrs I
Andrews
(Listed Building Alterations)
ROUGHTON - PF/12/0744 - Construction of front and rear dormers to cart shed
and revised link extension; Highview House, Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs G Last
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/12/0566 - Use of garage forecourt for hand car wash facility;
Langor Bridge Garage, Norwich Road for Langor Bridge Hand Car Wash
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - NMA1/11/1242 - Non-material amendment request for re-location of
door; 38 Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr B Collins
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0726 - Retention of storage shed and raised deck; Abbeyhey, The Marrams for Mr F Page
(Householder application)
Development Committee
49
20 September 2012
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0769 - Erection of rear conservatory; Melrose, 17 Morris
Street for Miss J Elvin
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA2/95/0722 - Non-material amendment request for revisions
to windows and porch roof coverings; Land at Cremer Street for Badger
Building (East Anglia) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SKEYTON - PF/12/0724 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Rowans Corner,
New Road for Mr J Hughes
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/12/0635 - Erection of two-storey/single storey side extension and
single-storey rear extension; Oakhurst, Cross Road for Miss P Ford
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/0108 - Conversion of redundant chapel to residential
dwelling; Southrepps Methodist Chapel, Chapel Road for North Norfolk
Methodist Circuit
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/12/0756 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference 01/1185 to permit to extension of opening hours on Sundays to
between 09.00 and 20.00 from 22 July 2012 to 9 September 2012; Tesco Stores
Limited, Old Market Road for Tesco Stores Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - NP/12/0839 - Prior notification of intention to erect
seasonal turkey rearing building; Hall Farm, Black Horse Road for Mortons
Traditional Taste Ltd
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
THORNAGE - NMA1/12/0424 - Non-material amendment request for reduction in
length of building and removal of 5 windows and internal corridor & WC;
Thornage Hall, The Street for Camphill Communities E. A.
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
TRUNCH - NMA1/09/0082 - Non-material amendment request for increase in size
of building; St Crispin, Chapel Road for RGW Portugal Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
TUNSTEAD - PF/12/0689 - Conversion of existing barn to one dwelling; New
Barn Farm, Church Lane for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0730 - Erection of rear extension to provide plant
room; Visitor Facility Building, Sheringham Park for The National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/12/0703 - Removal of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 of planning permission
reference: 09/0610 to permit permanent residential occupation; Barn adjacent to
The Malthouse Farm, Coast Road for Mr T Love
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
50
20 September 2012
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0809 - Erection of rear veranda; 54 Mill Road, for
Mr G M Warren
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/0810 - Installation of veranda; 54 Mill Road for
Mr G M Warren
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0727 - Erection of front extension to garage; 20
Russell Close for Ms J Gray
(Householder application)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PF/12/0778 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 99/1235 to permit siting of three additional touring caravans;
Moorland Park, Holt Road for Moorland Park Caravans
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/12/0783 - Retention of security fence; Electricity Substation,
Abbey Street for UK Power Networks
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/12/0761 - Use of land for siting residential log cabin; Land at
Beeches Farm, Horse Fen Road for Mr N Brooks
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - PF/12/0588 - Continued use of land for siting caravan for storage
purposes; Land at King Street for Mrs S Hunter
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PO/12/0729 - Erection of residential dwelling or business building
(B8 (storage)/B1 (office)/D1 (art gallery)); Land adjacent Tasty Tavern Meats, The
Street for Lord Watts
(Outline Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/12/0788 - Conversion of stables and storage building to
two units of holiday accommodation; Four Acre Farm, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs
Palmer
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0134 - Erection of boundary fence and porch; 6 Hoveton
Place, Badersfield, Scottow, Norwich, NR10 5JS for Mr Wadey
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
Development Committee
51
20 September 2012
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items.
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
SITE VISIT:- 17 September 2012
CROMER - PF/11/0460 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Land at Cadogan
Road for Mr Roberts
CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/0270 - Erection of four-bay garage; Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mr Barnes
SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre
galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, Waxham for ES Renewables Ltd
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0160 - Retention of balcony and installation of screening;
31 Beeston Road for Mr H Ahrens
THURSFORD - PF/11/1434 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
garden/amenity land; Land adjacent Bell Cottage, 3 Gunthorpe Road for Mrs B
Bullard
WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash
Tree Farm, Well Street for Mrs C Leggett
SHERINGHAM - ENF/10/0221 - Erection of a Balcony; 31 Beeston Road
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BACTON - PF/11/1000 - Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use
of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for
Castaways Holiday Park
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
52
20 September 2012