OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 21 JULY 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
CROMER – ENF/10/0002 – Update regarding unauthorised installation of a
shopfront and roller shutter and display of illuminated advertisements within
Cromer Conservation Area at 57 Church Street by Iceland Foods Ltd
This report updates the Committee on the current situation with regard to
unauthorised works at the premises and requests the Committee’s further
instructions with regard to enforcement action.
BACKGROUND
Planning application 20090929 for “Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller
Shutter and Air Conditioning System” and advertisement consent application
20090930 for “Display of Illuminated Advertisements” were submitted on 17
September 2009 on behalf of Iceland Foods Ltd, who had bought the former
Woolworths premises at 57 Church Street, Cromer.
At the same time as submitting the application, work began to replace the shopfront
at the premises and the applications were therefore retrospective in nature by the
time that the Development Control Committee considered the planning application on
26 November 2009. The planning application was refused by way of decision notice
dated 18 December 2009 on the grounds that “the design for the replacement
shopfront is damaging to the character and appearance of this highly prominent part
of the Conservation Area in that it fails to respect the balance and symmetry of the
building, creates a flat and featureless facade, lacking depth and modelling, and
includes a deep fascia which bears no relationship to the capitals which define the
lateral extent of the shopfront. The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and conflicts with the above
policies of the Development Plan”.
An Enforcement Notice was served on 8 January 2010 which required the applicant
to remove the unauthorised shopfront and roller shutter within three months from the
effective date of the notice, which was due to take effect on 12 February 2010.
On 10 February 2010 appeals were submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in relation
to the planning application, advertisement consent and enforcement notice and dealt
with by the Planning Inspector by way of Informal Hearing. A copy of the Inspector’s
decision is attached at Appendix 1.
Whilst the Inspector allowed part of appeal relating to the non-illuminated loading bay
door sign, in all other respects the appeals were dismissed and the Enforcement
Notice was upheld but with a varied compliance period of 8 months, which took effect
from 11 October 2011. The applicant therefore had to comply with the requirements
of the notice to remove the unauthorised shopfront and roller shutter by 10 June
2011.
Development Committee
1
21 July 2011
Subsequent to receipt of the Inspector’s decision, on 26 January 2011 the applicants
put forward their first proposal to try and address the concerns raised by the
Inspector. However, the proposals were considered to fall well short of what the
Council was expecting or would accept and Officers advised the applicant in very
clear terms what was needed to make the proposal acceptable. Further plans were
received from the applicants on 8 March 2011 but again, whilst the proposals were
an improvement, they still were considered to fall short of what was considered
acceptable.
On 19 May 2011 further correspondence was submitted from the applicants, who
indicated that they “have been working tirelessly with various specialist shopfront
designers to try and present to you an acceptable solution but unfortunately have not
managed to do this to date.” A request was made by Iceland Foods Ltd for an
extension of time before enforcement action is taken to enable new proposals to be
produced. The request to defer the enforcement action is considered to be a matter
for consideration by the Development Committee. As such the request from Iceland
Foods Ltd was declined by Officers but is a matter which the Committee may need to
consider further.
A meeting took place on 14 June 2011 with the applicants’ newly appointed shopfront
designer and again Officers gave clear advice and outlined the steps necessary to
produce an acceptable scheme. Plans were prepared and submitted to Iceland
Foods Ltd by their appointed shopfront designer but these plans were not acceptable
to Iceland with the applicant commenting that “this scheme proves to be a problem
with us in terms of expenditure and I would be grateful if you could assess the
scheme again”.
The applicants were advised to submit a proposal that they would be prepared to
accept prior to this Committee meeting and, at the time of writing this report, these
plans were still awaited.
SUMMARY
It will be clear from the above report that every effort has been made to guide the
applicants towards producing an acceptable solution. However, it is of concern that
to date no acceptable proposals have been formally proposed. It is evident that
matters are not progressing in a timely manner and more than one month has
passed since the Enforcement Notice should have been complied with and an
offence has therefore been committed since that date. The Council therefore has to
consider the options open to it including prosecution in the Magistrates Court or, if
acceptable plans are submitted, to consider deferring enforcement action pending
Committee consideration of any such proposals and subject to remediation works
taking place promptly if any subsequent approvals or consents are given.
The Committee will be updated orally regarding the latest position.
RECOMMENDATION
That unless acceptable plans have been submitted as a formal application by
the date of the meeting the Committee authorises a prosecution against
Iceland Foods Ltd for failure to comply with Enforcement Notice ENF/10/0002
under section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
(Source: Geoff Lyon, Ext: 6226)
Development Committee
2
21 July 2011
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
CASTAWAYS HOLIDAY PARK, PASTON ROAD, BACTON
ALLEGED UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENTS
A report advising members of alleged unauthorised developments at the Castaways
Holiday Park, Paston Road, Bacton
Relevant Planning History:PF/76/1537 – Three number touring caravan standings. Registered 25/10/1976,
Refused 14/12/1976
PF/83/0094 – Removing and replacing 3 caravans; Removing and replacing 2
caravans. Registered
20/01/1983, Approved 13/05/1983
PF/92/0661 – Variation of holiday occupancy restriction. Registered 14 May 1992,
Approved 13/08/1992
PF/93/0716 - Remove 6 obsolete twin units & replace with 9 modern caravans.
Registered 25/05/1993, Approved 02/08/1993
PF/93/1251 – Alteration including pitched roof to reception and shop building.
Registered 21/09/1993, Approved 19/10/1993
PF/96/0351 - Change of use of first floor storage area to residential and alterations
including dormer windows. Registered 22/03/1996, Approved 15/05/1996
PF/96/0352 - Modifications and extension to existing clubroom building. Registered
22/03/1996, Approved 09/05/1996
PF/02/1131 – Installation of steel piling at cliff base. Registered 18/07/2002,
Approved 30/08/2002
PF/10/0963 – Removal of Condition 2 of Planning Permission Ref 92/0661 to permit
all year occupancy of caravans and lodges. Registered 17/08/2010, Approved
13/10/2010
PF/10/1033 – Construction of replacement sea-defences. Registered 03/09/2010,
Approved 26/10/2010
Background:The Castaways Holiday Park site has operated from the clifftop on Paston Road,
Bacton since the 1950s and in 2004 was bought by Mr and Mrs Hollis, who own and
manage the site. The site lies to the north of the coast road to the north-west of
Bacton village and east of the Bacton Gas Terminal site. The site has direct
pedestrian access on to the beach.
The site comprises 38 pitches for static caravans / park homes, the majority of which
are operated by the Hollis’, with up to 10 pitches let to private individuals who provide
their own static caravan for placing on the site. In addition at the centre of the site is
Development Committee
3
21 July 2011
a large residential property (known as Cliffholm) which provides accommodation for
the Hollis family and has five flats – two of which have been let on a long-term basis
and three advertised for holiday let. There is then a building on the site which
accommodates a reception / shop and two flats advertised for holiday let and a
clubhouse type building. There is also a dedicated play area.
Since purchasing the site in 2004, the owners have taken forward a programme of
investment to upgrade the caravans, flats and communal buildings / facilities.
Investment has also been made in the promotion of the site to tourist visitors via the
web and printed copy advertising and through participation in the English Tourist
Board quality grading scheme, including adaption of some units for people with
disabilities.
Allegations of unauthorised development at the site:Over the past two years the Council has received two complaints regarding alleged
breaches of planning control / site licence requirements at the site – one dating from
the summer of 2009, and a second made in early 2011. These complaints have
been investigated, with some elements dismissed in part; and others regularised
through applications ref: PF/10/0963 approving lifting of holiday occupancy restriction
for period of five years from 15th October 2010 and PF/10/1033 approving
construction of replacement sea defences; leaving three issues where it is
considered that breaches of planning control may have occurred. These three issues
are as follows:•
•
•
Western extension to site boundary of club-house building
Creation of a holiday let flat (Flat No.6) to rear of reception / shop building
Creation of a holiday let flat (Flat No.7) at eastern end of Cliffholm
Investigation of the complaints made in respect of these alleged unauthorised
developments has involved Enforcement Officers visiting the Holiday Park site and
establishing that the buildings do exist as described above and through the issuing of
a Planning Contravention Notice asking Mr Hollis, the site owner and operator, a
series of questions about when works to the various buildings on the site were
undertaken. These responses have been shared with the complainants who
maintain that the works were undertaken without consent in the period 2007 – 2010
and inspection of aerial photos of the site covering this period does suggest that
some works were undertaken in the areas of the site occupied by Flats 6 and 7 and
through a modest extension to the club-house building.
Potential options available to the local planning authority:Whilst the alleged unauthorised developments are of quite modest scale and
arguably do not have any significant or direct impact beyond the site boundaries, it is
not considered that they are of a ‘de minimis’ scale or fall within the definition of
permitted development and the local planning authority therefore needs to consider
what action it should take with respect to enforcement or regularising the
development through inviting retrospective planning applications for the unauthorised
developments.
Development Committee
4
21 July 2011
Recommendation:That the owners of the Castaways site, Bacton, be advised that the Council
believes that unauthorised development has taken place on the site through
the extension of the club-house building and creation of flat nos. 6 & 7 and that
retrospective applications for these developments therefore need to be
submitted to the authority for consideration. Without prejudice to their
determination, such applications should be lodged with the authority within a
period of three months from the date of this Committee meeting, failing which
a further report will be submitted to the Committee to consider enforcement
action to secure the removal of the unauthorised development or to impose
appropriate conditions.
(Source: Steve Blatch, Strategic Director (Communities), ext 6232)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
BRISTON – TPO 2011 No.10 Briston Lodge Holt Road
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
The Council received several telephone calls from members of public regarding tree
works at Briston Lodge, Holt Road Briston. Callers were concerned at the loss of
trees and the poor standard of work. A Tree Preservation Order was served to
protect amenity and to ensure any work was appropriate to meet the standards set
out in BS3998: Tree Work Recommendations.
Briston Lodge is a prominent site situated on the crossroads of two busy roads and
the wooded area is a feature of the landscape, being clearly seen as you approach or
leave the village. Following loss of trees on the opposite side of the road a Woodland
TPO was served in 2004 to protect amenity. The two areas of trees provide a major
part of the tree line in this part of Briston.
Representations
One letter of objection has been received, a copy of which is set out in Appendix 2.
The objections to the TPO are the heavy-handed methods of applying the Order
without consultation or discussion with any of the people affected and the fact it is not
a woodland area.
Human Rights Implications
The serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8 Human Rights Act: The
right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right
to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individuals human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Appraisal
It is considered that it is expedient to serve a TPO to protect amenity.
consultation or representation can be accommodated in the process.
Development Committee
5
Any
21 July 2011
The area is heavily treed and it is recognised and standard practice to designate
areas of this kind as woodland for the purposes of a TPO.
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 Briston and their removal or poor
management would be detrimental to amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: Simon Case Landscape Officer (Ext 6142))
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
GREAT SNORING - PF/11/0521 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 101
Fakenham Road for Mr and Mrs Roberts
- Target Date: 21 June 2011
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090730 PF - Installation of dormer window and erection of single-storey rear
extension and garage
Approved 11/09/2009
PF/09/1242 HOU - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension
Approved 04/02/2010
PF/11/0341 HOU - First floor side / rear extension
Withdrawn by Applicant 21/04/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a first floor rear extension.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr FitzPatrick having regard to the following planning issue:
Over-development of the area.
Development Committee
6
21 July 2011
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection although there was a comment that it might be over-development of a
Norfolk cottage.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been sent on behalf of a neighbour on the following
grounds:
Overbearing form, scale and bulk of the development
Design of the development
Detrimental impact on neighbour
Detrimental impact on the Conservation Area
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager: On the basis that the proposed
scheme would not have a detrimental impact upon the appearance and character of
the host property and would not harm the significance of the Great Snoring
Conservation Area, there can be no Conservation and Design objections to the
application.
In the event of the scheme being approved, Conservation and Design would require a
condition requiring the external facing materials to match the existing as far as is
practical.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Impact on neighbour's amenities
Development Committee
7
21 July 2011
APPRAISAL
The property lies within an area designated as Countryside, where proposals for
extensions to dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with relevant
Core Strategy policies. The site also lies within the Great Snoring Conservation Area,
where proposals should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
area.
The property is a semi-detached property facing onto the Fakenham Road.
Permission was granted in 2009 for the erection of a single-storey side/rear extension,
which has already been built. The current application follows a previous withdrawn
application (PF/11/0341) for a first floor side and rear extension which had a wider
north-facing gable. The proposal seeks to provide a new bedroom and en-suite facility
at first floor level, which would be built on top of the existing single-storey side/rear
extension. The extension would measure approximately 6m wide and with a depth of
4m. Height to ridge would be 6m.
The extension would be mainly to the rear of the original property to avoid visual
competition with the original cottage and to ensure that there would be a clear break
between old and new. The proportions proposed are considered to be acceptable; the
ridge height of 6m would be lower than the height of the original cottage. The new
gable created would mirror the existing gable whilst being more than a metre
narrower.
Materials proposed are considered to be compatible with the original dwelling; brick
and flint, red clay pantiles and timber windows and doors to match existing.
If approved, the increase in floor area from the original property would be
approximately 57%. This is considered to be acceptable under the aims of Policy HO8
and would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling. The impact would be lessened given that the extension would be to
the rear of the property; the extension would not significantly detract from the
appearance of the surrounding countryside.
It is considered that the design as proposed would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with policies EN8 and EN4 of the
adopted Core Strategy. In addition, public views of the extension would be partial and
only from the road to the west of the property, and given that the design would mirror
the existing gable, it is considered to be acceptable.
In terms of impact on the adjoining property to the west (which would be
approximately 4.1m away from the extension), it is not considered that the proposal
would result in a significantly detrimental impact in terms of loss of light or privacy or
overbearing impact. The extension would be built onto the western side of the singlestorey rear extension and the elevation would now feature a fairly narrow gable and
also a link extension with a roof that would slope away from the neighbour. No east
facing windows have been proposed and Permitted Development rights could be
removed to protect neighbour privacy. As such, it is not considered that the extension
proposed would result in a significantly detrimental impact compared with the current
situation.
In summary, the proposal is considered to comply with adopted Development Plan
policy.
Development Committee
8
21 July 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the
removal of permitted development rights for windows in the eastern elevation of
the extension and the requirement for external facing materials to match the
existing as far as is practical.
5.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0517 - Erection of 36 dwellings; Land off Wood View
for Youngs Homes
Major Development
- Target Date: 26 July 2011
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
The construction of 36 dwellings which following the submission of amended plans
comprises the following :Six 1 bedroom flats
Four 2 bedroom flats
Twelve 2 bedroom houses
Five 3 bedroom houses
Three 4 bedroom houses
Six 2 bedroom bungalows (one being wheelchair accessible)
The development would form a cul-de-sac with access from Woodview.
An area of open space is proposed as an extension to an existing open space which
currently serves the adjoining housing estate.
The northern boundary of the site borders existing housing development. New
landscaping is proposed around the western and southern boundaries.
Supporting information with the application indicates the intention that the dwellings
would be let on a social rented basis under a local lettings policy by a registered social
landlord.
Amended plans have been submitted proposing minor changes to the mix, layout and
some of the house types within the scheme.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request on Councillor Gay in view of public concerns expressed on grounds of
access and loss of green space particularly when there are many derelict brownfield
sites far closer to the town centre.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on highway grounds, infrastructure, greenfield site and countryside. Whilst
concerned that there is a large number on the waiting list for affordable housing, with
all the derelict sites in North Walsham, the District Council should concentrate on
getting funding for affordable housing on these sites rather than approving a greenfield
site to the detriment of existing residents in this immediate area.
Development Committee
9
21 July 2011
REPRESENTATIONS
113 letters of objection received, the majority being from residents of the adjoining
estate served off Wood View and roads served off it. The objections broadly cover
issues relating to the inappropriateness of the site for this type of development,
highway safety and local amenity. A more detailed summary of these objections is as
follows:
- Applicants have taken no account of the objections raised by local residents to the
proposals first publicised in June 2010
- Road network leading to the site is inadequate. Narrow with poor visibility at road
junctions both within and leading to the existing estate. Also unsuitable in the case of
emergencies. Refuse and other lorries already have difficulty in accessing the narrow
road network. Poor condition of roads particularly for construction traffic.
- Direct pedestrian access from Wood View / Brookes Drive should be provided to
Buxton Road / South View.
- Wrong location for a social housing development. Site is on the edge of the town,
distant from local services, shops, community facilities and public transport. Residents
will be socially isolated.
- Local infrastructure and services already under strain.
- Previous planning applications on the edge of North Walsham have been refused on
grounds of the distance from the town centre and local services (Wood View is further
from the town centre than these sites).
- The present balance between social and private housing in the area would be
adversely affected.
- Problems associated with locating a social housing development at the end of an
existing estate (reference made to similar situation at Ashfield Road, North Walsham).
- Predominantly elderly population (plus shift workers) who fear noise, disturbance,
anti-social behaviour and crime.
- Existing close knit community, will lead to loss of community spirit.
- Lack of employment opportunities for the new residents.
- Will stretch local services (i.e. schools, doctors surgeries, dentists).
- Inadequate local play facilities for children.
- Loss of amenity to existing properties which adjoin boundary with proposed
development.
- Opposition to possible footpath link to South Rise.
- Will lead to devaluation of property.
- Site not identified for development in Local Development Framework for North
Walsham.
- Proposal contrary to guidance in PPS3 (Housing) in relation to the location of new
residential development and its impact upon the character of existing areas.
- 'Thin end of the wedge'. Approval of the application will be a precedent for further
development.
- Loss of open farmland and rural views. Damage to the character and quality of this
peaceful area.
- Derelict sites within the town should be developed for this type of use in preference
to and instead of greenfield sites such as this one.
- Preferable location would be on derelict land at Cromer Road next to the Victory
Housing offices.
- Problems of surface water drainage and sewage disposal in area / instances of
localised flooding.
- Possibility of archaeological remains on the site.
- Possible impact on bat colony and nesting birds.
Copy of a petition of objection submitted, signed by approximately 160 local residents.
The petition was raised at the time of the public consultation undertaken by the
applicants in June 2010.
Development Committee
10
21 July 2011
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - No objection. recommends a condition regarding surface water
drainage.
Environment Agency - No objection. Recommends conditions regarding surface water
drainage and details of sustainable design and construction.
Norfolk Constabulary (Crime Prevention Design Advisor) - Refers to positive
discussions which have taken place with the applicants in respect to the principles of
designing out crime. Provides further comments and recommends additional
amendments with regard to car parking, private space, physical security, landscaping
and lighting.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations Co-ordinator) - Advises that there is
sufficient capacity at local schools to accommodate the expected numbers of children
arising from the development. Seeks payments of £802 and £2,160 towards fire
hydrant and library provision respectively.
Housing Strategy Team Leader - Considers that the proposed development fully
complies with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy HO3, and that the amended
plans now provide a mix of dwelling types which reflect the needs identified in a recent
review of housing required by those households who have a local connection to North
Walsham and immediately adjacent parishes. Comments specifically in relation to
Policy HO 3 as follows:
There is a proven local need in North Walsham which this scheme will meet which has
been evidenced through an analysis of the Housing Register. Whilst there has been
recent affordable housing provided in North Walsham, these properties were to meet
general needs and residents with a local connection to North Walsham and the
immediately adjacent civil parishes were not prioritised for these properties.
Properties on an Exception Housing Scheme as proposed in this application would be
prioritised for households who have a local connection to North Walsham and the
immediately adjacent civil parishes.
The application site adjoins the settlement boundary of North Walsham.
Whilst the application has been submitted by Youngs Homes, the proposal is that, if
the scheme is approved, the homes would be owned and managed by Victory
Housing Trust. If the scheme was approved the homes would be let in accordance
with a nomination agreement between Victory Housing Trust and the Council which
would mean that the initial and all subsequent lets would be in accordance with the
Council’s Local Letting Agreement which would give priority to households who have a
local connection to North Walsham and the immediately adjacent civil parishes.
Analysis of the Housing Register showed that 343 households had a local connection
by residence to North Walsham. As this only included households who have a local
connection through residence in North Walsham, 343 is lower than the actual number
of applicants who will have a local connection to North Walsham and the adjoining civil
parishes through previous residence, family occupation or employment. This confirms
there is a significant local need which this scheme would go someway to address.
Additional comments:
There is no current identified funding for the scheme proposed by this application and
whilst Housing Services is supportive of an Exception Housing Scheme being
delivered in North Walsham in principle, such a scheme is not currently a priority in the
Council’s Local Investment Programme.
Development Committee
11
21 July 2011
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection. Recommends standard conditions
in respect of construction details to be submitted of roads, footways and drainage and
wheel washing facilities during construction.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - Comments
that whilst the layout of the proposed development is heavily dictated by the shape of
the site, the amended plans have now addressed previous concerns regarding the
entrance to the site and the south-eastern corner. With regard to the house types,
these are broadly compatible with their surroundings and generally display acceptable
proportions and massing. The amended plans in part address previous concerns
regarding a lack of visual interest across the elevations. Positive improvements
include:
•
•
•
A clearer hierarchy across the scheme whereby the most important plots have
received improved elevational treatment; i.e. boarding on the first floors which
help to break up the mass of brickwork and provide much needed relief to the
facades.
The introduction of chimney stacks on a number of plots.
The deletion of vernacular brick tumbling details
However there still remain a number of specific concerns in respect of certain plots in
relation to elevational treatments, roof design and the possible prospect of solar
panels.
Concludes that this is a scheme which continues to inch forward in terms of the quality
of the end result. With the implementation of the further suggestions above, it would
undoubtedly be improved further. Even with these changes, however, it must be
appreciated that the house types are still relatively standard offerings which are not
overly blessed with visual interest and innovation. In this sense, they follow the
general pattern of 20th century development which forms the south western expansion
of the town.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Considers that the
landscaping proposals indicated will be adequate subject to conditions to include a
detailed planting specification and tree protection measures.
Sustainability Officer - Advises that the application as submitted partially complies with
the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN6 in that it is proposed to meet the
required code for sustainable homes but the applicants have asked to be able to
review at a later date the specific measures to meet the 10% renewable energy
provision. Recommends conditions to secure compliance with these policy
requirements.
Environmental Health Officer - No objection. Provides comments regarding surface
water disposal.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Archaeologist) - Comments as follows:
"The proposed development site comprises a large area (c.1.4ha) located in an area
where cropmarks of an undated linear ditches, field boundaries and enclosures have
previously been recorded. Consequently there is potential that heritage assets (buried
archaeological remains) may be present at the site and that the significance of these
will be adversely affected by the proposed development.
Development Committee
12
21 July 2011
A heritage statement has not been submitted with the application to address the
impact of the proposed development on the historic environment. We therefore ask
that the applicant withdraw the application and resubmit with the results of an
archaeological evaluation in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning
for the Historic Environment (2010) Policy HE6.1. Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Service will provide a brief for the archaeological work on request."
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
Refer to the comments from Norfolk Constabulary (above).
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (specifies those types of developments
which are acceptable in a rural location)
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy 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 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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Principle of development / provision of affordable housing
2) Design / layout
3) Residential amenity
4) Landscape impact
5) Highway safety
Development Committee
13
21 July 2011
APPRAISAL
The application site (1.44 ha) is located adjacent to the south-eastern edge of North
Walsham. It is currently used as arable farmland. The site is adjacent to but outside
the development boundary for North Walsham, forming part of the Countryside
designation which surrounds the town (as indicated on the Proposals Map which
accompanies the adopted Core Strategy).
Core Strategy Policy SS 2 (Development in the Countryside) is permissive towards
proposals for affordable housing in areas of countryside "in accordance with the
Council's rural exceptions policy". Policy HO 3 (Affordable Housing in the Countryside)
states that for schemes of 10 dwellings or more the site should be situated within
100m of a settlement boundary; that the proposal would help to meet a proven local
need for affordable housing; and that the housing provided is made available to
people in local housing need at an affordable cost for the lifetime of the property. The
policy states that 'local housing need' in the context of the policy means the need
within the parish where the site is located in and adjacent parishes. The proposed
development complies with these criteria, subject to details of the occupancy and
permanency of the affordability being secured by means of an Obligation under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) as amended.
The acceptability of developing this greenfield site has been questioned by the Town
Council and local residents, particularly when, as is the case in North Walsham, there
are a number of vacant brownfield sites located more centrally within the town, which
are closer to most services and facilities. For the most part the sites referred to are
ones either with current planning permission or sites allocated for housing or
employment development as part of the recently adopted Site Allocations
Development Plan Document (DPD). Some of the larger sites with planning
permission are subject to their own requirements to provide an element of affordable
housing. In the case of the allocated sites there is a policy requirement to provide 45%
affordable housing (subject to viability) as part of any future development proposals.
Policy HO 3 allows additional opportunities to provide affordable housing in the District
over and above those which are negotiated with private housebuilders on sites within
settlement boundaries, reflecting the high level of need for affordable housing in the
District.
The site is located on the south-western periphery of the town. Whilst this location is
not ideal in terms of the immediate proximity to local services and facilities, it is
comparable in this respect with other outer residential areas of North Walsham.
Proposals made under Policy HO 3 will inevitably be on the fringe of a built up area.
As proposed both vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the site would be via
Wood View and Skeyton Road beyond. The plans do however include the provision of
a foot/cycle path at the eastern end of the site which would potentially in the future
allow for more convenient access over an adjacent area of private land (in particular to
the nearby Millfield Primary School), should the opportunity arise .
Access into the proposed development would be in the form of a cul-de-sac, a
continuation of Wood View. The road type leading into the site would be of a similar
standard to Wood View (same width with footways on either side), changing to a
different surface treatment and more informal private drive arrangement at the rear of
the site. The principal length of road through the site would have a curved alignment
which would help to provide an element of visual interest to the street scene. For the
most part bungalows would adjoin the boundaries of existing dwellings. These
relationships and those within the new development accord with the amenity criteria
for residential developments referred to in the Council's Design Guide.
Development Committee
14
21 July 2011
The proposal includes an extension to an existing area of open space which would
provide an overall area of approximately 2000 sq.m. This open space should provide a
positive amenity benefit for residents of the area and it should also enhance the
appearance of the development by providing a visual break between the buildings.
The open space would be overlooked by dwellings which is not the case with the
existing area.
The density of the proposed development equates to 25 dwellings per hectare which
is comparable to the existing estate. This is a relatively low density which is
considered appropriate for a site on the rural edge of a settlement.
Car parking on the site would be in the form of on-plot provision and small communal
parking courts (to serve the flats). The numbers of spaces proposed meets with
current standard requirements.
The proposed development comprises a mix of single storey and two storey properties
(predominantly two storey) similar to that of the existing adjacent estate. A variation in
building styles is proposed including detached and semi-detached bungalows, semidetached houses, two terraces of houses (3 & 5 units), and three separate blocks of
flats. The flats are of a similar scale and appearance to other two storey buildings
proposed. In terms of design the buildings incorporate a mix of gable and hipped roofs
and many include variations in the appearance of their facades. Several of the
properties include chimney features. The proposed materials are red facing brickwork
with dark grey brick detailing (string, dentil, soldier courses, quoins and plinths),
selective areas of weatherboarding, and anthracite roof tiles.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager who considers that the proposed layout of the development (given the
constraints of the shape of the site) is now acceptable. In terms of design, whist
improvements have been made since the initial submission of the application, there
still remain areas for improvement. These outstanding details are due to be discussed
with the applicants and the Committee will be updated at the meeting.
The surrounding landscape is flat and open although some mature trees and a
hedgerow provide a screen along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposals
include hedgerow and tree planting around the southern and western boundaries of
the site which, once established, should provide a soft edge to the development,
something that does not exist along the boundary of the existing estate. Subject to
conditions to agree the precise specification of the planting and to secure its
implementation (and subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of part of the
landscaped area which the applicants have chosen to exclude from the application
'red line' boundary), these landscaping proposals are considered to be satisfactory.
The site is classified as Grade 2 agricultural land, a classification which covers large
tracts of land to the west of North Walsham as well as elsewhere in the district. PPS 7
(Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) states that the presence of best and most
versatile agricultural land (defined as grades 1,2 and 3a) "should be taken into
account alongside other sustainability considerations (e.g. biodiversity; the quality and
character of the landscape; its amenity value or heritage interest; accessibility to
infrastructure, workforce and markets; maintaining viable communities; and the
protection of natural resources, including soil quality) when determining planning
applications". Bearing in mind these various considerations; the relatively small size of
the site; the fact that larger areas of land with the same classification have been
allocated for development at North Walsham; and the weight to be given to providing
local affordable housing, it is not considered that this issue represents a reason to
object to the application.
Development Committee
15
21 July 2011
Norfolk County Council (Archaeologist) has requested an archaeological evaluation of
the site. It is understood that the applicants have instructed this to be undertaken.
Many of the letters of objection received as well as the response from the Town
Council refer to concerns relating to highway safety. These concerns relate both to
perceived inadequacies of the existing road network to cater for additional traffic both
within and leading to the Wood View estate. The Committee will note, however, that
the Highway Authority has not raised an objection to the application.
In conclusion, the proposed development complies with Policy HO 3 in terms of an
'exceptions scheme' for affordable housing. Notwithstanding the level of public
objection to the development there would appear to be no substantive planning
reasons to refuse planning permission, subject to the resolution of certain remaining
concerns in respect of design details, an archaeological evaluation of the site being
undertaken, and completion of a S.106 Planning Obligation to secure, amongst other
matters, the provision of the housing as affordable dwellings in perpetuity (a draft
version has been submitted).
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the following:
1) An archaeological evaluation of the site being undertaken to the satisfaction
of Norfolk County Council.
2) The submission of satisfactory amendments in respect of design details;
3) The completion of a Section 106 Obligation to include securing the provision
of the affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of Core Strategy
Policy HO 3, payments towards library and fire hydrant provision to Norfolk
County Council, and the provision of landscaping which is not shown within the
application site.
4) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include road construction details,
landscaping, tree protection, materials, minimum code level 3 construction,
details of 10% renewable energy provision, surface water drainage and a
scheme for future maintenance of the open space, together with any other
conditions considered necessary by the Head of Planning and Building Control.
6.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0748 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 30
Bacton Road for Mr Inder-Grey & Ms Sullivan
- Target Date: 10 August 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20051723 PF - Erection of single-storey side extension
Approved 02/12/2005
THE APPLICATION
Is for a rear single storey extension at the dwelling, on the back of an existing single
storey extension.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
One of the applicants is a member of staff.
Development Committee
16
21 July 2011
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design of rear extension
2. Impact upon neighbours
APPRAISAL
The dwelling is a semi-detached dwelling house within the residential area of North
Walsham. Extensions to dwellings are permitted here in principle, subject to the
normal considerations of character, amenity and design.
The original house appears to be a two-storey pitched roof dwelling with a catslide two
storey rear section across both the applicants’ house and the neighbours. The
applicants’ property has an existing side/rear extension that wraps around the south
corner. The proposal is to extend from the rear of this into the rear garden.
The proposed extension is 4.3m by 3.6m and would be flat-roofed, with a lantern.
There would be glazed doors on the south-west elevation and a window on the southeast elevation. The materials would all match the existing house, although no flints are
proposed. However flints only occur on the rear of the original house and on a small
section of extension.
The impact upon the neighbours is considered minimal. At this point the southern
boundary is treated with a 1.8m fence, which borders the garden of the bungalow.
However the bungalow also has a timber shed at this side of their garden, minimising
the impact further. The extension would lie between 4.3m and 6.3m from this
boundary.
The northern boundary, with the adjacent neighbour, is treated with several bushes. In
addition the neighbour has an extension and an outbuilding that lie close/on this
boundary, both of which are blank walls on this side.
The proposal is considered to be a suitable form of development in this location and to
comply with Core Strategy policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
Development Committee
17
21 July 2011
7.
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0713 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling and
increase in fence height along northern boundary; The Low House, Campion
Way for Mr & Mrs Mash
Minor Development
- Target Date: 28 July 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070068 PO - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage
Approved 05/03/2007
PLA/20071947 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
Approved 08/02/2008
PLA/20081678 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 06/02/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the retention of a single storey dwelling as constructed. Whilst the dwelling is
largely complete and occupied, thee are items to finish on the site, principally the
vehicular access to the site. The application also includes a proposal to install a fence
of increased height along the northern boundary of the site. The fence proposed
would add an additional 0.45m on top of the existing 1.8m fence and so would sit at
1.8m above the finished floor level of the erected dwelling and approx 2.25m above
the ground level.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Shepherd and Oliver having regard to the following
planning issues:
Impact of the dwelling on the amenities of the adjacent dwelling.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection to the height of the fence to reach the top of the ground floor windows of
the Low House.
REPRESENTATIONS
At the time of writing the report, 16 letters of objection have been received on the
following grounds:
1. The applicant has not complied with the conditions of the original permission in
terms of provision of access on to the highway and details of the garage doors. These
should be enforced if this application is approved.
2. There is no kerb drop or properly constructed driveway.
3. The dwelling is out of keeping with the area and an eyesore.
4. The dwelling is oversized for the plot.
5. Due to the slope of the land there is a large cavity half way along the property which
is ideal for harbouring vermin. This should be filled in.
6. How will the fence be increased in height without infringing on the neighbouring
property?
7. Concern if there is a fire to the rear that there is only access from the front.
8. Suggest Councillor's visit the site to assess the visual impact for themselves.
9. Access for the maintenance of large sections of the building and dividing fence
would appear impossible.
Development Committee
18
21 July 2011
10. When the original permission was granted a traditional brick built dwelling was
expected.
11. Close proximity to neighbouring property.
12. Overlooking of property to the north.
13. Property to the north is floodlit by all of the windows in the evening.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the increased height of the building would harm the visual amenity of the
area.
2. Whether the increased height of the building and fence would result in a
significantly detrimental loss of light and overlooking of the dwelling to the north and
whether the proposed fence of increased height would reduce these potential impacts.
APPRAISAL
Permission was granted for a single storey dwelling on the site in February 2009
(application reference 2008/1678). The approved dwelling is of a contemporary flatroofed design with a mix of dark ply membrane roof to the atrium and sedum roof to
the main sections of the building and has a white render finish and timber windows. It
has an unconventional layout with the outdoor amenity area in courtyards in the
middle of the site rather than at the rear.
The current application relates to the increased height of the building as constructed at
one end of the site (max height 4.5m) compared to the approved height (max height
4.1m)
The site is slightly sloping, decreasing in height from south to north and also from the
back to the front of the site. As a result of the sloping site, the approved building has
been erected on a plinth of varying heights to provide a level base for the building.
This plinth is approximately 0.4m - 0.45m on the northern eastern corner of the
building at its greatest depth and reduces in depth towards the southern end of the
building to nothing and towards the rear of the building (west). The plinth is of a
timber construction.
As a result, the finished floor level of the accommodation internally and the height of
the building is approx 0.4m higher than that approved. The roof of the main section of
the main building is as constructed, 3.3m high for the main section of the dwelling and
4.5m high for the atrium section of the building.
Development Committee
19
21 July 2011
Neither the principle of the dwelling, nor its general appearance, design, scale or
materials are for consideration in the determination of this application. These matters
have already been considered under the original planning permission.
As the building has not been built in accordance with the approved plan in terms of its
height, the application is to solely consider whether the dwelling as constructed at the
increased height is acceptable. The application also includes a proposal to install a
fence of increased height along the northern boundary of the site. The fence
proposed would add an additional 0.45m on top of the existing 1.8m fence and so
would sit at 1.8m above the finished floor level of the erected dwelling and 2.25m
above the ground level. Whether the increased fence height is acceptable is also for
consideration.
In terms of its visual impact, although the design approach differs from the existing
traditional built dwellings, in terms of its scale, massing and general design it was not
considered that the building would adversely affect the appearance and character of
the area. Accordingly permission for the dwelling was granted. This application for
the revised design incorporates an increased height of the building by virtue of the
addition of a plinth. Whilst the increased height of the building makes it appear slightly
more prominent in the street scene, it is not considered that the additional height
results in any significantly detrimental impact on the character of the area or the
appearance of the street scene.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, the addition of the plinth to the building has resulted
in the finished floor level of the accommodation internally sitting at approx 0.4m above
the ground level of the neighbouring property to the north. Officers have visited the
new dwelling and the existing boundary fence at 1.8m above ground level and the
close proximity of the windows to the fence already ensures that the occupants of the
partially constructed dwelling cannot see into the windows or garden of that dwelling to
the north. However it is appreciated that there is a perception of being overlooked
with the large amount of glazing visible above the existing height of the fence. The
application proposes to increase the height of the fence along the northern boundary
by 0.45m so that it is 1.8m above the finished floor level of the approved dwelling. It is
considered that this would help lessen the perception of being overlooked from the
occupants of the dwelling to the north. The proposed increase in the height of the
fence is therefore considered acceptable and to overcome concerns of overlooking of
the residential property to the north.
As a result of the increased height of the fence, given that this fence would sit at a
lower height than the dwelling to be retained, it is not considered that the additional
section of fence would result in any adverse loss of light or overshadowing to the
occupiers of the dwelling to the north. In the light of the above the development is
considered acceptable under Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Previous permission 08/1678 was conditional upon details of the garage door being
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of
development. Whilst these details were never submitted prior to the commencement
of the building, this revised application has confirmed that the doors installed are white
sectional insulated overhead doors operated by remote control. Comments are
awaited from County Highways as to whether these are acceptable and would affect
the ability of the occupants to pull safely off the road on to the drive.
Development Committee
20
21 July 2011
Permission 08/1678 was also conditional upon construction of the vehicular access
from the highway and the provision of a visibility splay prior to the first occupation of
the development. The vehicular access from the highway has not to date been
constructed and the applicant has been advised that this needs to be completed.
Conditions relating to the construction of the access from the highway and other
highways conditions relating to visibility splays imposed on the original permission
would therefore need to be re-imposed.
The dwelling as erected at its increased height and the proposal of a higher fence to
screen the development from the dwelling to the north are considered acceptable and
to accord with the Development Plan, subject to the imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from County Highways
in respect of the garage door details and subject to the imposition of conditions,
including the erection of a fence to 1.8m above internal finished floor level of
the dwelling in accordance with the submitted plans and details and the reimposition of highways conditions relating to the construction of an access
from the highway and provision of visibility splays.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
9.
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL LETTER RE CONTINUED USE
OF AIRFIELD AT WINSPURS FARM, NORTHREPPS
Report seeking the Committee’s response to a letter warning of the potential
judicial review of the Council’s alleged failure to take enforcement action following
expiration of temporary planning permission in respect of continued use of an
airfield.
Background
Under application PF/09/1082 planning permission was granted on 14 May 2010 for
removal of conditions 1 and 3 of planning permission 20081434 and variation of
conditions 4, 5 and 8 to continue use of land as an aerodrome with an increase in
aircraft movement from 1,780 to 2,100 per annum and to permit take-off and landing
at any time in an emergency and limited banner towing at Northrepps Aerodrome,
North Walsham Road, Northrepps.
Permission PF/09/1082 was temporary and expired on 31 May 2011. Condition 1
stated that unless on or before that date application is made for an extension of the
period of permission and such application is approved by the Local Planning
Authority the use of the site as an airfield shall cease and that all ancillary buildings
and structures on the site shall be removed.
On 17 March 2011 application PF/11/0232 was submitted seeking planning
permission for continued use of the land at Winspurs Farm as an airfield on a
permanent basis. This is a complex application and has required extensive
consultation. Many representations have been received, both in support and
objecting to the application. It is hoped to prepare a report for the Committee’s
consideration in the near future.
Development Committee
21
21 July 2011
On 8 July 2011, Solicitors acting on behalf of local residents and others affected by
the airfield submitted a letter seeking a response within seven days prior to initiating
action for judicial review in respect of the Council’s failure to take enforcement action
following expiry of the temporary permission on 31 May. The details of this proposed
legal action are set out in the letter which is attached in full at Appendix 3.
Paragraph 4 on page 2 summarises their contention that the Council’s failure to take
enforcement action amounted to the giving of development consent for the project
without following the requirements of the EIA Directive and Regulations and agreeing
to the project without first adopting an Appropriate Assessment as required under the
Habitats Directive and Regulations. It is submitted that the Council is bound to
ensure that the aviation use of Winspurs Farm must cease immediately.
Paragraph 8 (page 2) explains that Orders will be sought from the Court as follows:
a)
A mandatory Order requiring the Council to take, or alternatively lawfully to
consider taking, enforcement action (which is likely to include service of a
Breach of Condition Notice and meanwhile a temporary Stop Notice);
b)
If necessary pending consideration of a) above, an Interim Injunction against
the operators of the airfield; and
c)
Costs.
Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the appended letter rehearse previous correspondence
between Council Officers and the Solicitors, but the Committee will note that their
clients’ position is that the Council’s stance in relation to the use of enforcement
powers is unlawful and that by not taking enforcement action the Council is in effect
granting development consent without compliance with the process for doing so. It is
asserted that the Council does not have the discretion to wait until the current
planning application matter is considered by Committee, which is normal practice in
the case of the renewal of an extant temporary permission and accords with the
Council’s Planning Enforcement Policy.
The appended letter was received very shortly before the closing date for submission
of reports to this meeting and Officers will be giving further consideration to the legal
and procedural matters set out in that letter prior to the meeting on 21 July. These
matters will be the subject of oral reports and at the meeting the Committee will be
asked whether it wishes to take enforcement action as set out in paragraph 24 of the
appended letter (some of which are not covered by the approved Scheme of
Delegation to Officers).
In considering this matter the Committee will need to have regard to the following
issues:
1.
The requirements of the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC and the relevant High
Court and Court of Appeal decisions (further advice will be given upon these
legal issues).
2.
The nature and significance of any breach of conditions of planning
permission PF/09/1082 and evidence in respect of such breaches.
3.
The requirements of the Habitats Directive and the requirement for an
Appropriate Assessment in relation to the continued use of the airfield beyond
31 May 2011.
Development Committee
22
21 July 2011
In respect of these three matters, the following comments are made:
The Council’s use of statutory enforcement powers is also guided by the advice given
to Planning Authorities by the Government in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG)
18 “Enforcing Planning Control”. The general approach to enforcement is stated to
include the following (PPG18, paragraph 5).
“Nothing in this Note should be taken as condoning a wilful breach of planning law.
LPAs have a general discretion to take enforcement action, when they regard it as
expedient. They should be guided by the following considerations:(1) Parliament has given LPAs the primary responsibility for taking whatever
enforcement action may be necessary, in the public interest, in their
administrative area (the private citizen cannot initiate planning enforcement
action);
(2) the Commissioner for Local Administration (the local ombudsman) has held,
in a number of investigated cases, that there is “maladministration” if the
authority fail to take effective enforcement action which was plainly
necessary and has occasionally recommended a compensatory payment to
the complainant for the consequent injustice;
(3) in considering any enforcement action, the decisive issue for the LPA
should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public
amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the
public interest;
(4) enforcement action should always be commensurate with the breach of
planning control to which it relates (for example, it is usually inappropriate to
take formal enforcement action against a trivial or technical breach of
control which causes no harm to amenity in the locality of the site).”
An issue of concern to a number of local residents is the noise resulting from aircraft,
including microlights, using the airfield. The Environmental Protection team has been
consulted in respect of the Solicitors’ letter and has commented as follows:
“We have received 8 complaints since the last application in 2009, 6 of these
complainants never returned log sheets so cases were not progressed. The others
provided historic information that could not be used to monitor current activity. A visit
was made in November and the log book was checked and the aerodrome was
meeting planning conditions also a discussion was had with the operator regarding
the introduction of a complaints procedure, which resulted in this being introduced
and a website page being created.
We have received 6 complaints since the date of new application, 3 of these are
objections to the new application on noise grounds, 2 from local businesses and 1
from a local resident. One of the other complaints has again provided limited
information which could not be used effectively to monitor noise issues. The other 2
have been received more recently and are being dealt with via the proposed
monitoring on 23rd July as part of the new application.”
It is understood that Environmental Protection Officers are currently monitoring the
site and an Officer from that team will attend the Committee meeting when the
application will be considered.
Development Committee
23
21 July 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
An oral recommendation will be made at the Committee meeting subject to
further consideration of the legal, procedural and other matters referred to in
the report.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control (ext 6135) and Roger
Howe, Planning Legal Manager (ext 6016)).
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - NMA1/11/0237 - Non-material amendment request for
revised roofs to dormer windows; Sloe Cottage, Alby Hill for Miss S Hogg
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
AYLMERTON - NMA1/09/0582 - Non-material amendment request for alterations
to fenestration and drive layout and change of wall finish; The Canadas, Roman
Camp, West Runton for Mr & Mrs P Tatum
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
AYLMERTON - PO/11/0543 - Erection of replacement single-storey dwelling
(extension of period for submission of reserved matters on permission
reference: 08/0919); One Acre, Sandy Lane, West Runton for Mr D Oliver
(Outline Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/11/0550 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Keys Cottage,
The Street, Cockthorpe for Mr Vernon
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0406 - Erection of side extension, pitched roof to side
extension, installation of bay window, dormer windows and construction of
verandah; Staplewood, Back Lane for Mr Scott
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/0547 - Internal alterations to provide bathrooms; 127 & 129
High Street for Blakeney Neighbourhood Housing Soc.
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0554 - Conversion of bus shelter to public toilet, parish
council store and shelter; Village Hall car park, Langham Road for Blakeney
Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0642 - Erection of replacement rear extension with attached
car port; Richmond, Morston Road for Mr and Mrs Feerick
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/11/0059 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to D1 (drop-in centre)
(Retrospective); 179 Fakenham Road for Mr R Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/11/0535 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 3 of permission reference:
10/0143 to permit increased size of caravans; Seven Acres, Thurning Road for
Mrs T Kidd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
24
21 July 2011
BRISTON - NMA1/10/1466 - Non-material amendment request for revised front
elevation of extension; 130B Hall Street for Mr & Mrs I Shaw
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/0566 - Construction of dormer window to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation; 4 The Old Maltings, High
Street for Mr M Rigby
(Householder application)
COLBY - NMA1/10/1252 - Non-material amendment request for wideneing of
building and revised front window sizes; The Old Cottage, Colby Corner for Mr
S Clarke
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
COLBY - NMA1/07/1104 - Non-material amendment request for re-siting of
dwelling; Holmlea, Colby Road, Banningham for Mr M Howarth
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/0632 - Variation of condition 3 of
planning permission reference 08/1684 to permit replacement of render with
fibre-cement sheet cladding and change door and window frames to timber;
Salween, Norwich Road, Corpusty for Mr D Green
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0462 - Alterations and change of use of ground floor
amusement arcade to residential flat and amusement arcade; Home House,
High Street for Mr R Parkin
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/11/0131 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation, installation of solar panels and erection of double
garage with home office above; Poplar Farm, Chequers Street for Ms D Hopton
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0486 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 10 Rectory
Road for Victory Housing Trust
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - LA/11/0533 - Demolition of side and rear extensions and erection
of replacement extensions (revised internal layout); Lowes Farm House,
Hunworth Road for Stody Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0111 - Erection of two storey dwelling; 111 Queens Road for
Mr Grocott
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0444 - Conversion of first and second floors from
office/storage to 2 residential flats; 11a Bridge Street for Mr K Leonard
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/11/0445 - Internal alterations to facilitate conversion to 2 flats;
11a Bridge Street for Mr K Leonard
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
25
21 July 2011
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0561 - Installation of metal louvres; Telephone Exchange,
Queens Road for British Telecom
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/11/0501 - Erection of double garage (revised design & siting);
Raptor House, Metton Road for Mr Husar
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - LA/11/0505 - Installation of replacement windows; Sidney
Farm, Field Dalling Road, Saxlingham for Albanwise Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
GIMINGHAM - PF/11/0356 - Erection of replacement football clubhouse/changing
room; 1 Harvey Estate, Gimingham for Gimingham Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - NMA1/10/0277 - Non-material amendment request for alterations to
French doors and windows, installation of timber cladding to dormer cheeks
and erection of boundary fence; Plot 2, The Loke for Mr G Last
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
GUNTHORPE - PF/11/0582 - Erection of Garden Room; The Old Forge, Bale
Road for Mr & Mrs R Kelly
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/11/0667 - Alterations to outbuilding to provide cart-shed
garages; Church House, Gunthorpe Road, Bale for Mr & Mrs M Moore
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - LA/11/0668 - Alterations to outbuilding; Church House,
Gunthorpe Road, Bale for Mr & Mrs M Moore
(Listed Building Alterations)
HAPPISBURGH - NMA1/07/1881 - Non-material amendment request to amend
roof tiles to Norfolk Red pantiles and cladding to wooden feather edge boarding
left as a natural colouring; Glenhern, Short Lane for Mr D Horsnell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/11/0576 - Erection of detached dwelling; 38 Park Lane for
Mrs R Freeman
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - NMA1/10/1060 - Non-material amendment request for revised door
and window arrangements; Eastfield Farm, Eastfield Road for Mr S Ellis
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0598 - Erection of detached shed; Coldham House, Wells
Road for Mr and Mrs R Green
(Householder application)
HOLT - AI/11/0549 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated advertisements;
Associated Tyre Specialists Ltd, Hempstead Road Inudstrial Estate, Glaven
Road for ATS Euromaster
(Advertisement Illuminated)
Development Committee
26
21 July 2011
HOLT - PF/11/0617 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 19 Peacock Lane
for Mrs Perrett
(Householder application)
HONING - NMA1/11/0139 - Non-material amendment request for increase in
width of patio doors; 2 Fairview, The Street for Mrs D Chowns
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HORNING - PF/11/0519 - Conversion of Gospel Hall to single-storey dwelling;
Broadland Gospel Hall, 65 Leeds Way for Mr A Byford
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/11/0439 - Erection of conservatory; 6 Three Acre Close for Mr
Barnett
(Householder application)
HOVETON - BX/11/0494 - Removal of existing corridor link and erection of
extension to sports hall to include changing rooms, ICT suite and facilities
(County Council Ref: Y/1/2011/1003); Broadland High School, Tunstead Road for
Norfolk County Council
(County General Reg 3)
HOVETON - PF/11/0589 - Erection of covered swimming pool; 9 Grange Close
for Mr D Risby
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/11/0560 - Erection of single-storey extension to holiday annexe;
Brickle Barn, Brick Kiln Lane for Mr B Weeks
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - NMA1/10/0637 - Non material amendment request for revised door
opening on south elevation and installation of door on north elevation; Home
Close, North Street for Mr Allen
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/11/0453 - Conversion of garage to
habitable accommodation; Lowes Barn, Riverside Road, Letheringsett for Mr O
Haynes
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/11/0536 - Erection of toilet block
(revised design); Manor Farm Barns, Wiveton Road, Glandford for Bayfield
Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/11/0601 - Change of use from A1
(retail) to mixed use A1 (retail shop) and A3 (restaurant/cafe); Units 3 & 4, Manor
Farm Barns, Blakeney Road, Glandford for Dragon Hall Enterprises Ltd t/a Art
Cafe
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - LA/10/1296 - Removal of fireplace to reveal original fireplace and
installation of wood burner; Ludham Hall, Hall Road for Mrs A Ritchie
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
27
21 July 2011
LUDHAM - PF/11/0407 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Oakleigh, Malthouse Lane for Mr N Franklin
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - NMA1/10/1283 - Non-material amendment request for changes to
doors and windows, addition of dormer window and revised porch details;
Garden Cottage, Watery Lane for Mr G Salmond & Miss M Hodgkinson
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/11/0542 - Erection of rear sunroom extension;
Markshall Game Farm, Craymere Beck for Mr J Daniels
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/09/1193 - Request for non-material amendment for
construction of pitched roof to front extension and flat to rear extension; 59
Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Keast
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NEATISHEAD - PF/11/0470 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extension;
Cangate Cottage, Cangate Road, Cangate for Mr M Claxton
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0485 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 54
Wharton Drive for Mr & Mrs Taylor
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0562 - Raising of ridge height and erection of singlestorey rear extension; 35 Bradfield Road for Mr B Duker
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/11/0607 - Internal alterations and installation of
windows to facilitate conversion of first and second floors into one maisonette
and one flat; 10 Church Street for R G W Portugal Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/0389 - Installation of extractor flue; Foundry Arms,
Church Street for Mr I Humphrey
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/11/0483 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions
with accommodation in roofspace; 9 Pauls Lane for Mr & Mrs Holyoak
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/11/0497 - Refurbishment of two toilet block buildings and
construction of access ramps; Ingleborough Fields Caravan Site, Station Close,
West Runton for The Caravan Club
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/11/0572 - Erection of replacement single-storey front extension; 1
Orchard Cottages, The Common, West Runton for Mrs M Osborne
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0578 - Erection of garage; 62 Moor Lane for Mr G
Saunders
(Householder application)
Development Committee
28
21 July 2011
SEA PALLING - PF/11/0552 - Change of use from holiday accommodation to
residential/bed and breakfast business; Willow Barn, Stalham Road for Mr Clark
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0252 - Installation of replacement doors and windows;
12A St Peters Road for Mr A Dolan
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0287 - Change of use from B8 (storage) to A1 (auction
rooms); The Granary, 51 Station Road for Mr G Hare
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0491 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions; 6
Woodland Rise West for Mrs Waple
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0575 - Installation of facade to side extension and
addition of fire door; 36 Cromer Road for Sheringham Masonic Association
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0669 - Formation of vehicle access and car-parking
space; 84 Cromer Road for Mr Marling
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA2/09/0903 - Non-material amendment request for revised
door and window details; 56 Cooper Road for Mr N Dawson
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SIDESTRAND - BX/11/0573 - County Council Reference Y/1/2011/1007
Change of use of former school staff houses to provide for residential
institutional units for students with specific learning and educational needs;
Staff Houses, Sidestrand Hall, Cromer Road for Norfolk County Council
(County General Reg 3)
SLOLEY - PF/11/0088 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to 3 residential
dwellings; Sloley Farm, High Street for Mr & Mrs A Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - PF/10/1019 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
churchyard; Land adjacent St Peter's Church, Hall Road for Mr G Dixon
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - NMA1/10/0754 - Non-material amendment request for omission of
front window and gable window, repositioning of side window, new window in
side elevation and installation of side door; Gleedale, Camping Field Lane for Mr
P Frizell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
THORNAGE - PF/11/0538 - Conversion of garage/outbuilding to residential
annexe; Whitehouse, Stody Road for Mr & Mrs N Andrew
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - LA/11/0539 - Alterations to garage/outbuilding to facilitate
conversion to residential annexe; Whitehouse, Stody Road for Mr and Mrs N
Andrew
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
29
21 July 2011
THURNING - PF/11/0564 - Erection of detached car port; Craymere Beck House,
Craymere Beck Road for Mr S Garner
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/11/0574 - Erection of link extension to convert two dwellings
to one dwelling; Walnut Tree Cottage, The Street for Mr and Mrs Bramwell
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/11/0527 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; First and
Last, Middle Street for Ms D Hiatt
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/11/0318 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning ref: 04/0087 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Rooster Barn, Mundesley Road for Mr
& Mrs R Jelliff
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - LA/11/0500 - Removal of internal wall of barn and infilling of doorway;
Ivy Farmhouse, Mundesley Road for Mrs A Binny
(Listed Building Alterations)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0565 - Erection of first floor side extension and single-storey
side and rear extensions; Hawthorn Cottage, Market Street for Mr & Mrs Badger
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/11/0468 - Retention of garden shed; White Horses, Poplar Drive
for Mr & Mrs Hardy
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0579 - Erection of single-storey front extension,
installation of dormer window and alterations to access; 45 Scarborough Road
for Mr J A H Clark
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0399 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
45 High Street for Mr & Mrs Goode
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0400 - Removal of conservatory, erection of
single-storey rear extension and internal alterations; 45 High Street for Mr & Mrs
Goode
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0464 - Erection of two-storey rear extension;
Little Rosa, 18 Dogger Lane for Mr and Mrs Potter
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0504 - Re-siting of staff cottages, formation of
veranda, installation of first floor window, revisions to internal layout and
installation of replacement windows; Blenheim House, Theatre Road for Mr &
Mrs Lewthwaite
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
30
21 July 2011
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0590 - Subdivision of dwelling into two
dwellings; 11 Mindhams Yard for Mr A Styman
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0591 - Formation of parking area; 6 Masseys
Yard for Mr P De La Grange
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/11/0599 - Demolition of wall to facilitate formation
of parking area; 6 Masseys Yard for Mr P De La Grange
(Conservation Area Demolition)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/10/1400 - Non-material amendment request for change of
windows to glazed doors, erection of brick and flint section to dwelling,
installation of WC in porch and relocation of front door.; South Cottage, The
Street for Mrs G Atkinson
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WICKMERE - NP/11/0685 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Hall Farm, Itteringham Road, Mannington for Mr K Pigott
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WITTON - LA/11/0080 - Internal alterations, re-thatching and installation of
replacement doors and windows; Dairy Farm, The Street, Ridlington for Mr &
Mrs J Grier
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/11/0431 - Conversion of barns to one residential dwelling and two
units of holiday accommodation; Manor Farm, Manor Farm Road, Witton Bridge
for Mr A Cuss
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/0633 - Construction of manège; Land at Windy Ridge,
Meeting Hill for Mr T Nash
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - NMA1/10/1077 - Non-material amendment request for revised roof
profile; White House, Meeting Hill for Mr & Mrs Holland
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PF/10/1476 - Erection of garden equipment store; Land adjacent
Indarra, Beechwood Avenue for Mr Howell
(Full Planning Permission)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/11/0362 - Erection of two 15m wind turbines; Hall Farm
Piggeries, Hall Lane for Miss Rhatigan
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0403 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land off Back
Lane, 4 The Quay for Derek Foreman House Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
31
21 July 2011
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0530 - Erection of 15m wind turbine; Moat Farm, School
Common Road for Mr N Popay
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/11/0551 - Use of land for siting seasonal marquee for the sale of
mix of clothes/summer beach products from 1 March to 31 October each year;
Tesco Stores Limited, Old Market Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - PF/11/0526 - Erection of carpentry and joinery workshop; Green
Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Mr L Saunders
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - NMA1/07/0046 - Non-material amendment request for revised
fenestration and layout; Stody Hall, Brinton Lane for Mr & Mrs M Baker
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0382 - Erection of single-storey extension; 3 The Old
Vicarage, Scarborough Road for Mr J Barnes
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
No items
12.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/0205 - Retention of one temporary storage building and
erection of two further temporary storage buildings; Land at Church Farm,
Church Street for Mr Codling
INFORMAL HEARING 6 July 2011
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0898 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings; Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1111 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 43
Sculthorpe Road for Mr Patrick & J Brady
NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/0161 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 5 Meadow Way for Mr James
Development Committee
32
21 July 2011
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BINHAM - PF/09/0870 - Retention of Single-Storey Building Used for Saw-Milling
and Storage/Distribution of Logs; Land adjacent to Langham Road for Mr Taylor
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
BODHAM - PF/10/1469 - Continued siting of caravan for agricultural purposes
and 4 mobile animal shelters and erection of polytunnel; Windrush Farm, Hart
Lane for Mr D Gay
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
BODHAM - PF/09/1269 - Erection of agricultural building; Land at Hart Lane for
Mr D Gay
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/1411 - Erection of single-storey extension; 5 The
Sheltons, Barsham Road for Mr G M Grimwade
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
PASTON - PO/10/1058 - Erection of single-storey dwelling to replace demolished
dwelling; Spyglass Hill, North Walsham Road for Mr D Briggs
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
33
21 July 2011