OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 21 NOVEMBER 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BINHAM - PF/13/1192 - Conversion of two-storey barn to residential and erection
of three bay cartshed garage; Old Barn Farm, Binham Road, Wighton for S C &
G M Savory & Sons
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 December 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19980602
PF - Conversion of farm buildings to provide eight holiday units and
communal recreation facilities
Approved 03/09/1998
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of the barn to a five bedroom dwelling, which would involve the
insertion of a first floor and result in a total floor area of 415 sq. metres.
As part of the scheme it is intended that the existing corrugated roof sheeting would
be replaced with thatch.
In addition, it is proposed to erect a three bay cart shed garage in the north eastern
corner of the site with additional parking for three vehicles.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is a Member of the Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Binham - No objection but would prefer to see a pantile roof rather than thatch.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Whilst the access visibility from the site is far from ideal
given the previous agricultural use of the buildings it is not considered that an
objection could be sustained.
Development Committee
1
21 November 2013
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to minor design changes to gable end windows.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The Protected Species
Survey revealed limited evidence of bats, whilst barn owl activity appeared to be
confined to a single-storey outbuildings with no signs of nesting activity. As such the
Landscape Officer has no objection to the development subject to it being carried out
in accordance with the mitigation measures, and the location of a barn owl loft or box
on the proposed cart shed /garages.
Environmental Health - No objection
Building Control - No objection
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
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 conversion
2. Design
3. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies HO9, EN1, EN4, CT5
and CT6 are considered to be relevant.
Development Committee
2
21 November 2013
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
Countryside for permanent residential where they are worthy of retention due to their
appearance, historic, landscape or architectural value and are structurally sound and
suitable for conversion without substantial rebuilding and or extension.
Policy EN1 states that development proposals should not detract from the special
qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, and be suitably designed for the context within which they are
set. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or
enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. The policy also
requires that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that there is safe access to the highway network and
that there is adequate car parking to meet the needs of the development.
In 1998 planning permission was granted for the conversion of the barn to an indoor
swimming pool as part of a scheme to convert the whole group of former agricultural
buildings at Old Barn Farm to eight units of holiday accommodation and communal
recreation facilities. Works were started under this permission and as such the
scheme could be implemented.
As far as Policy HO9 is concerned the building is considered worthy of retention due
to its appearance, historic, and architectural value, is structurally sound and the
scheme would not involve substantial rebuilding and/or extension. Furthermore, it is
considered that a residential use appears to be the only real way to secure the future
of this building. The scheme as submitted would therefore accord with the
requirements of this policy.
In design terms the principal changes relate to the east and west gable ends where at
first floor level a blocked opening to the western gable end would be re-opened and
French doors with a fan light above inserted. This would be replicated in the eastern
end of the building, whilst at ground floor it is intended that two sets of French doors
would be inserted in each gable. In addition, to the south elevation is it proposed to
cut back the central section of roof above the lean to element of the building so as to
allow light into the first floor of the main barn. Officers are seeking to negotiate minor
design changes to the first floor gable window proposals.
Given the barn's location to the rear of the site, which is some 35 metres back from
the Binham Road it is not considered that the alterations to the gable ends, whilst less
than desirable, would have a significant detrimental impact on the appearance of the
building in the wider landscape. Whilst the alterations to the roof would hardly be
discernible due to the fact that the remaining outbuildings within the group front the
highway and mask views of the main barn.
As far as the replacement of the corrugated steel roof covering with thatch this is to be
broadly welcomed.
It is therefore considered that overall the alterations to the exterior of the building are
acceptable and would preserve its character and appearance.
Whilst the proposed cart shed garaged to the rear of the site which would have vertical
timber boarding with cover splines to the walls and reclaimed Norfolk pantiles to the
roof would be in keeping with other buildings within the site.
Development Committee
3
21 November 2013
At the time of writing the report the comments of the Council‟s Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager are awaited.
Within the immediate area of the site are three residential dwellings, Old Barn Cottage
some 80 metres to the south west, Old Barn Farm Bungalow approximately 50 metres
to the south east and Barn Farm 60 metres to the south to the opposite side of the
Binham Road. Given the separation distances involved together with intervening tree
and buildings it is not considered that there would be any issues of loss of privacy to
the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
In terms of access and parking it is intended that the barn would be served by the
existing access adjacent to the western boundary of the site which is some 5.5 metres
in width and has good visibility in both directions from the point of access. In addition,
a turning head is proposed to the north of the barn which would provide adequate
manoeuvring area for emergency vehicles. Whilst in terms of car parking the parking
standards contained in the Core Strategy requires a minimum of 3 parking spaces for
a five bedroom dwelling, which would be more than adequately catered for with the
proposed three bay cart lodge garage and three parking spaces in the north eastern
corner of the site.
In respect of the access, although the Highway Authority has indicated that visibility
from the site is far from ideal given the previous agricultural use of the buildings they
do not wish to raise an objection.
In summary, it considered that the proposed scheme of conversion would accord with
the requirements of Policy HO9 and the submitted plans demonstrate that the building
is capable of conversion without substantial harm to either the fabric or its
appearance. Furthermore, the alteration would not have a significantly detrimental
effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and the new dwelling would
provide acceptable residential amenity, in accordance with Policies EN4. Whilst in
terms of access and car parking this would accord with the parking standards
contained in the Core Strategy and the Highways Authority has confirmed that it has
no objection to the proposal.
It is therefore considered that proposal would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to receipt of
amended plans in respect of the design of the gable windows and appropriate
conditions.
2.
BRINTON - PF/13/0985 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extensions,
detached car port, formation of vehicular access and render of existing dwelling
and insertion of first floor side windows; The Villa, Old Hall Lane for Mr & Mrs
Kemp
- Target Date: 15 October 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
Flood Zone 2 - 1:1000 chance
Development Committee
4
21 November 2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect two-storey side and rear extensions, render over the existing brickwork
in a light cream colour, insert first floor side windows serving a bathroom and en-suite,
create a new access and erect a car port.
The side extension would measure approximately 5.35m wide by 4.5m deep.
Maximum height would be 7m.
The rear extension would measure approximately 5.95m wide by 7m deep. Maximum
height would be 7.5m.
The detached car port would measure approximately 6.9m wide by 6.9m deep by
4.95m high.
Two sets of amended plans have been received in respect of elements of the design.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle, with regard to the following issues:
Impact on Conservation Area and immediate neighbour, size, design and given local
objections.
PARISH COUNCIL
Response on first amended plans: The Parish Council confirms its objection to the
retrospective development at The Villa, Old Hall Lane, Brinton. There are concerns
about the size of the extension and its design. The style is considered to be out of
keeping with surrounding properties in the Conservation Area, and the scale of the
proposed house is out of place in this neighbourhood. Concern is also expressed that
the planning application states under materials specified for the extension 'terracotta
tiles to match existing house'. The existing roof tiles are being replaced with new tiles
so the applicants will now presumably want to use the same 'new' tiles on the
extension, thereby contradicting the statement about matching because when the
application was presented the pantiles on the house were 'original' and in keeping with
the building and its surroundings.
Response awaited on further amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 representations, 1 comment and 3 objections (to the original and first set of
amendments), raising the below points (summarised):
Comments:
Understand site is within Conservation Area. Has this been taken into account? No
mention of it within application form.
Work has already started. Does this mean that informal planning permission has
been granted already?
Objections:
Impact on Conservation Area. Makes a mockery of so called Conservation Area of
Brinton;
Proposed development not compatible with existing dwelling. Proposed extensions
would not have regard to appearance and character of host dwelling;
Out of character with other houses in village;
Scale;
Extension would unbalance the frontage seen from the road (NE view). Extension
Development Committee
5
21 November 2013
half as wide as original house. Roof level of extension slightly lower than house but
two-storey extension gives a jarring note to facade. Single-storey would be
preferable creating a more balanced appearance from the road and giving
prominence to the original house. This would follow recommendations for
extensions to front of house in NNDC LDF. Stated that two-storey end extension
should only be considered if no other option for less sensitive properties;
Two proposed extensions almost double size of the house. Extension to the back
of the house is as deep as the house itself when seen from the SE side. Together
the extensions visually overwhelm the original house;
House constructed in red brick, a material commonly used in North Norfolk.
Proposed house be partially coated in cream render. White render would be more
in keeping but why not keep red brick. Cladding rarely seen on houses in this part
of North Norfolk. The North Norfolk LDF states that cladding only occasionally
appropriate in Conservation Area (section 10.3.3) and that it is normally vertical on
domestic work. Proposed horizontal cladding is more appropriate for farm
buildings. A mixture of brick, rendering and wooden cladding is aesthetically
unsatisfactory particularly for a house within a Conservation Area;
Original house would double in size in the most inappropriate, ugly and glaring way
possible;
Original house would be disguised to match extensions using render;
No attempt made to blend proposed extension with existing house, rather the
house would be made to fit the demands of the new build;
Proposed extensions shed-like in appearance with totally inappropriate industrial
type aluminium doors and windows - the cheapest development possible;
Use of cladding on this scale is out of scale and unsuitable in village;
Precedent that cannot be undone would be set;
Architectural character of original building greatly compromised by changes such
as rendering and overwhelmed by scale of proposed extensions;
Detailing and materials not compatible with original building;
Horizontal wooden cladding not a feature of domestic buildings within village;
Use of new aluminium framed doors and windows seems inappropriate in this
situation where timber would be the norm;
Lighting- light pollution concerns. Motion-activated lights can be triggered by wildlife
or blown tree branches, creating a nuisance to neighbours. Not suitable for this
neighbourhood;
Would not have regard to guidelines within North Norfolk Design Guide in a
Conservation Area;
No mains drainage in Old Hall Lane. House would be enlarged but no indication of
how additional waste water would be managed from this property which stands
close to a water course;
Note that single-storey extensions normally more acceptable than two-storey
extensions as have less impact on original building;
Plans incorrectly labelled;
The Committee will be updated verbally on any further representations received
resulting from further re-advertisement.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways):
I am able to comment that in relation to highways issues only, as this proposal does
not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic, that Norfolk County
Council does not wish to raise any highway objection.
Recommends conditions.
Development Committee
6
21 November 2013
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design):
Response on further amended plans: As the latest amended plan has not materially
altered the scheme, there are still no sustainable Conservation & Design objections to
this application. Providing the new pantiles do indeed match the existing, the
extensions should take their place comfortably on the side and rear of the existing
building without detriment to the wider Brinton & Thornage Conservation Area.
In the event of an approval being issued on the current plans, tile and boarding
samples would need to be conditioned prior to their use on site.
Environmental Health:
I have noted the information submitted by the applicant. There are no adverse
Environmental Health concerns in relation to this proposal therefore I have no
comments to make.
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).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council‟s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Design
3. Impact on Conservation Area
4. Highway Issues
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the village of Brinton, 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
Development Committee
7
21 November 2013
EN4. The site also lies within the Brinton Conservation Area, where development
proposals are expected to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
area, in accordance with Policy EN8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
The scale and proportions proposed are considered to be acceptable and would allow
the architectural character of the host dwelling to remain dominant; the side extension
would have a step-down and a step-back from the main ridge and front building line to
avoid competing with the host dwelling. The larger extension would be to the rear to
avoid competing with the original dwelling and would ensure that the character of the
original building would remain clearly distinguished.
The loss of the fletton brick is considered to be acceptable, as is the
cladding/rendering of the existing dwelling/proposed extensions. Whilst there are no
examples of clad properties in the close vicinity, it is recognised that the existing brick
is of little architectural merit and that there are a variety of other materials used on
properties within the streetscene. The brick arches would be retained.
Officers have had discussions with the agent to try and secure a scheme that would
best preserve the existing character and appearance of the property and reinforce
local distinctiveness, and the resultant scheme would ensure that windows to the front
elevation better reflected those on the original dwelling. Cladding has also been
removed and a brick plinth has been introduced to the front/side elevation of the side
extension.
There are no significant concerns in respect of the proposed car port, which would
appear to be of appropriate scale and appearance.
The floor area of the original dwelling is approximately 132sqm. The floor area of the
proposed extension would be approximately 124sqm. As such, it is recognised that
the proposed extensions would result in a dwelling almost 100% larger than original.
Extensions in the designated Countryside Policy area are subject to Policy HO 8 of the
adopted Core Strategy. In this instance, it is not considered that the proposed
development would have a significantly detrimental impact on the host dwelling or
surrounding landscape. The larger of the extensions would be sited to the rear of the
main dwelling to avoid competing with the host dwelling. Further it is considered that
the dwelling can support the proposed extensions and with properties within the area
varying in size, it is not considered that the resultant size of the proposed dwelling
would be out of keeping.
On balance, it is considered that the proposed development would preserve the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and comply with policy EN8.
It is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
In the absence of Highway objections and subject to the imposition of conditions
recommended by County Council Highway, it is considered that the proposed use of
the building would be in accordance with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new material
grounds of objection resulting from re-advertisement and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including those listed below:
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the originally submitted plan
Development Committee
8
21 November 2013
(drawing number PL03) and the amended plans (drawing number PL04 Rev A)
received by the Local Planning Authority on 20 September 2013, the amended
plan (drawing number PL02 Rev B) received by the Local Planning Authority
on 30 October 2013 and the further amended plan drawing number PL01 Rev
B) received by the Local Planning Authority on 4 November 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Prior to their first use on site, samples of the tiles to be used for the proposed
development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4
Prior to their first use on site, samples of the boarding (including the proposed
finish) to be used for the proposed development shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall
then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5
Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted the vehicular access
shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the
approved plan in accordance with the highway specification (Dwg. No. TRAD
5) attached. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be
intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or
onto the highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous
material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy
CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6
Vehicular and pedestrian (and cyclist) access to and egress from the adjoining
highway shall be limited to the access shown on the approved drawing only.
Any other access or egress shall be permanently closed, and the highway
verge shall be reinstated in accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed
with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority,
concurrently with the bringing into use of the new access.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
9
21 November 2013
7
Prior to commencement of the use hereby permitted any access gate(s),
bollard, chain or other means of obstruction shall be hung to open inwards, set
back, and thereafter retained a minimum distance of 5 metres from the near
channel edge of the adjacent carriageway. Any sidewalls / fences / hedges
adjacent to the access shall be splayed at an angle of 45 degrees from each of
the (outside) gateposts to the front boundary of the site.
Reason:
To enable vehicles to safely draw off the highway before the gate(s) or
obstruction is opened, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the proposed access,
on-site car parking and turning area shall be laid out, surfaced and drained in
accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for that
specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, before the
development hereby permitted is begun, trees T6 and T7 on PL04 Rev A shall
be protected from damage during the course of the development by means of
protective fencing in accordance with the details specified in BS5837 'Trees in
Relation to Construction' to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
The protective fencing shall be maintained during the period of construction
works on the site to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Within the fenced area(s) no soil, fuel, chemicals or materials shall be stored,
temporary buildings erected plant or vehicles parked or fires lit.
Reason:
In order to protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10
Within three months of commencement of development, details of a tree to
replace T5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
The replanting as approved shall be carried out not later than the next
available planting season following the commencement of development or
such further period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11
Any new tree which within a period of ten years from the date of planting dies,
is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced
Development Committee
10
21 November 2013
during the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to
the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval is
given to any variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with
the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(3)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0914 - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to
residential dwelling; Land adjacent 2 High House for Miss L Hughes & Mr P
James
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 September 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Policy HO 9 zone Rural Residential Conversion area
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20060759 PF - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden
Approved 26/06/2006
PLA/20061295 PF - Erection of stables and hay barn
Approved 09/10/2006
PLA/20080443 PF - Erection of barn/stable (amended scheme providing raised roof
height)
Withdrawn 27/03/2008
THE APPLICATION
To convert a barn and stables to a three bedroom dwelling. Access to the application
site is via an unmade track which is also a public footpath.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor L Walker having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Acceptable re-use of a building in a sustainable location for a local young family.
Should be supported under paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
PARISH COUNCIL
Happisburgh Parish Council - no objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirty six representations have been received in support of the application citing
reasons of
1. New housing is need in the village and supports the local school and businesses.
2. The development will enable the family to remain in the village.
3. The family is a valuable asset to the community supporting and fund raising for
local charities, schools and projects.
Development Committee
11
21 November 2013
4. It will enable the applicant to be close to and care for parents in later life.
5. Redevelopment will prevent the redundant agricultural building from deteriorating
and becoming an eyesore.
6. Reuse of unused buildings is good for the environment and will conserve energy.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways – Whilst there are some concerns regarding the suitability of the
surrounding highway network on the basis the application seeks to convert an existing
building which has historically the potential to generate some level of traffic
movements there are no objections. The Authority would draw your attention to the
fact the track is designated a Public Right of Way.
Environmental Health – In view of the information submitted in the Contaminated Land
Questionnaire there are no concerns about the residential use of the building.
Planning Policy Manager It would appear that the key determining consideration in relation to this proposal is
the weight to be attached to the fact that the building has only recently been erected
for another purpose and therefore is not a qualifying building for the purposes of
applying policy HO 9.
Policy HO 9 provides the opportunity to convert structurally sound buildings in the
countryside which are worthy of retention to a residential use. In preparing this policy
the Council was mindful of the possibility that this might result in an undesirable
consequence of buildings being erected apparently for one purpose with the express
intention of seeking a residential conversion at a later date or buildings genuinely
erected for another purposes being subject to requests to convert to a dwelling a short
time later. Two provisions are included within the adopted Core Strategy to address
this risk, namely:
Paragraph 3.1.3 states that ‘all buildings should be designed for the purpose
for which they are intended and applicants should be prepared to justify the
design and specification of the proposed development’.
And, in relation to buildings which will be considered unsuitable for conversion
Paragraph 3.2.24 states ‘those which have recently been constructed for
another purpose will not be eligible’.
Looking at the files there appears to have been some concern about the specification
of the building with requests to incorporate design changes during the construction
period and a planning application (withdrawn) in 2008 proposing an increase in height
and cavity wall construction. The files indicate that the building was under construction
in March 2008 and by not later than November 2009 appears to have been in use for
the intended purpose. However in the March of 2009 the owner had already sought
advice from the Council concerning the possibility of holiday use and was advised:
‘Taking into account the recent completion of this structure along with the construction
changes made, I consider that such a proposal would have to be treated as a new
build holiday unit rather than re-use of an existing building and will be treated as
though it were a permanent residential dwelling and will not be permitted‟(e-mail –
March 2009).
There is no definition in the Core Strategy of what constitutes recently erected,
however, there is a similar provision in national permitted development legislation
Development Committee
12
21 November 2013
which requires the removal of agricultural buildings if they are no longer required for
agriculture within a period of ten years of their construction. I consider that a similar
ten year period would be an appropriate and reasonable definition of recently erected
for the purposes of applying the Policy HO 9 exclusion.
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 HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact 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
Whether the proposal complies with the terms of Policy HO 9.
APPRAISAL
The application site is located within the Countryside Policy about 0.5 km outside the
Coastal Service Village of Happisburgh, it also falls within the Policy HO 9 zone
around the village and the area of Undeveloped Coast policy area. Policy HO 9 could
allow a residential conversion and reuse of suitably constructed buildings within the
zone. The Policy and the supporting text for the policy however also sets out the
types of building which are to be considered „suitable for such a conversion.
Paragraph 3.2.24 elaborates on Criteria 2 of the Policy which requires that the building
should be worthy of retention due to its appearance, historic, architectural or
landscape value It also sets out which buildings should not be considered eligible
under the policy, those include buildings which have recently been constructed for
another purpose and those outbuildings providing an ancillary domestic function.
The concern with regard to this application is that the buildings are of recent
construction having only been completed in 2009 and are of a type of outbuilding
which can be classified as providing an ancillary domestic function.
Development Committee
13
21 November 2013
It should also be noted that buildings erected for equestrian purposes, unless being
used for farm working horses or horses raised for meat, are not agricultural buildings.
Otherwise they are either a sui generis use or classed as having an ancillary domestic
function. The original application to erect the buildings (2006/0759/PF) identified the
land as garden belonging to the adjacent dwelling where the applicant‟s parents still
reside. Consequently, it is considered the barn and stables should be regarded as
buildings serving an ancillary domestic function.
In terms of the Policy the view of the Planning Policy Manager was sought, his
comments are reported in full above. Members will note that although there is no
precise definition of „recently constructed‟ in the Core Strategy there are parallels
within planning legislation. Therefore his conclusion is that ten years from the date of
construction would be a reasonable definition of time elapsed for buildings to avoid
being considered as new build for residential conversion purposes.
As regards the design of the conversion proposal, although erected as a barn and
stables the larger barn is not strictly typical of the Norfolk vernacular in the proportions
of the roof or choice of facing materials used on the larger barn. Nevertheless it is so
close an approximation of a Norfolk barn that the building could be considered worthy
of retention for its appearance. As the proposal primarily reuses the existing openings
the new openings proposed are not viewed as compromising the character of these
particular buildings.
The parking and turning is indicated on the site layout would comply with the Council‟s
adopted parking standards.
The local Member in referring the application to Committee has quoted Paragraph 187
of the National Planning Policy Framework as relevant to this application. Paragraph
187 states;
Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and
decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable
development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with
applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and
environmental conditions of the area.
The Council has an up to date, sustainably led, Core Strategy that is broadly in line
with the National Planning Policy Framework. With the adopted planning policy being
the overwhelming material consideration the ability to work proactively with a proposal
that is contrary to policy is very limited. Moreover, the statement requires the
developments should improve conditions for the area. The benefit to the applicants is
personal and clear, however, any benefits of the proposed development to the area
are far less apparent or certain.
Members will note there are a substantial number of representations in support of this
application, though they primarily focus on the personal circumstances of the
applicants.
The personal circumstances of applicants are rarely material
considerations and in this case the circumstances quoted are not by themselves of
such material significance as to justify overriding the adopted planning policy HO9 of
the Core Strategy.
In summary, the key factors in determining this application are whether the buildings
because of their age and function are „suitable‟ for conversion under the qualifying
terms of Policy HO 9. Documentation on the earlier planning permissions show that
these building are only five years old and taking into account the recommendations of
the Planning Policy Manager with regards to the age of the building and their function
as ancillary domestic buildings it is clear they do not accord with the „suitability‟ criteria
Development Committee
14
21 November 2013
and should be considered contrary to Policy HO 9. Consequently, it is recommended
that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse as contrary to the suitability criteria set out in
Policy HO 9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(4)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0951 - Change of use from D1 (chapel) to C3
(residential); Methodist Church, The Street for Central Norfolk Methodist Circuit
Minor Development
- Target Date: 23 October 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/11/0233 ENQ - Conversion of chapel to residential - 31/08/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change of use of the former Methodist chapel, which is a Grade II listed
building from D1 (Chapel) to C3 (Residential).
Amended plans and a Design and Access / Heritage Statement have been received
which illustrate how the building could be converted. In addition, the originally
proposed parking area within the site has been deleted from the scheme. An existing
rear wing is being reduced in size to provide a larger amenity area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wright having regard to the following planning issue:
Lack of car parking and highway safety.
PARISH COUNCIL
Hindolveston Parish Council - Objects of the grounds:Traffic hazard if parking is allowed on the road - The Street is not only used by village
traffic but also by farm vehicles and HGVs, and the road narrows at this point,
exacerbating the dangers. The site is close to the junction with Melton Road and
opposite a private road for a number of dwellings and a B&B. Access from the private
road would be greatly compromised if vehicles were to be parked on the road outside
the Methodist chapel as they would be if this was changed to a residence. This would
greatly increase the risk of collision with vehicles and pedestrians on The Street.
Lack of space for parking on site - It is erroneously stated in the application that the
parking will be similar to when the Methodist chapel was in use. However, this would
not be the case: users of the Methodist chapel always parked on the village hall car
park, unfortunately, this facility would not be available for residential use.
Parking on the highway in front of the building would adversely affect its listed building
status.
Development Committee
15
21 November 2013
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letter of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):A community use would be less damaging than conversion to residential.
The dwelling should be connected to the mains sewer.
It could be used as a cinema, or for drama or as a gallery.
Would affect access and egress from our property which is opposite the site with
vehicles parked on The Street.
There should be no parking on The Street.
Parking should be within the grounds of the village hall.
Parking on the public highway would cause an additional hazard.
Parking on The Street would make it difficult for residents exiting the track
opposite the chapel.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) (Original comments) – Given the existing use of the site and the fact that proposed
parking and turning area within the site is inadequate to serve the needs of the
development the Highways Authority would be unlikely to object to a revised plan
which indicated no on-site parking.
(Comments in respect of amended plans) - No objection on the grounds that whilst the
proposal would result in parking within the public highway it is likely that this would be
of much lower volumes, 2 - 3 vehicles only, than the previous congregational use,
which accommodated vehicles either within the highway or the village hall car park.
Furthermore, given the alignment of the highway it is not considered parking on the
public highway would cause any highway safety issues or affect the free flow of traffic.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
(Original comments) – There are no details as to how the scheme of conversion would
be undertaken or indeed the potential effects on the historic fabric or the treatment of
the internal spaces.
(Comments in respect of amended plans) - Although presently structurally sound, the
building has on-going want of repair which is unlikely to be met as existing. As such
given the limited number of external openings and relatively open layout internally the
building would best be suited to a low key community and / or an office / workshop
use. However given that the village is reasonably well served with community facilities,
and because the site lies within a rural, predominately residential area, neither of
these options are particularly realistic. Instead the choice seems to be one of either
continued deterioration or accepting a potentially less compatible conversion to
habitable accommodation. However, mindful of the wider public benefits associated
with securing the good repair of the building and long term future of the heritage asset,
whilst there would inevitably be a level of harm associated with the change of use on
balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable.
In addition, there is no objection to the partial demolition of the modern rear wing or to
the site not supporting any off-street parking, the latter being considered to be a
positive move.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection, however
requires the imposition of a condition that as part of the submission of full details for
the scheme conversion, further protected species survey work (including for nesting
birds) in respect of roof voids for the chapel and the rear single-storey element be
undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Development Committee
16
21 November 2013
Environmental Health - No objection.
Building Control - No objection.
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services - No objection subject to a
condition requiring the implementation of a programme of historic building recording
comprising a photographic survey.
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 HO9: Conversion and Re-use of Rural Buildings as Dwellings (The site lies
within an area where the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy 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 conversion.
2. Impact on heritage asset.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Parking and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Core Strategy Policies HO9,
EN4, EN8, CT5 and CT6 are considered to be relevant.
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
Countryside for permanent residential where they are worthy of retention due to their
appearance, historic, landscape or architectural value. In addition, the policy makes
allowance for the residential conversion of listed buildings or building worth of local
listing where it is the optimum viable use and it can be demonstrated that a residential
use would be the best to secure the future of the building.
Development Committee
17
21 November 2013
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, and be suitably designed for the context within which they are
set. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or
enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable. The policy also
requires that proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals, including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets, in
this case the Grade II listed building. Development that would have an adverse
impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted. The reuse of Listed Buildings and buildings identified on a Local List will be encouraged and
the optimum viable use that is compatible with the fabric, interior and setting of the
building will be permitted. Evidence supporting this should be submitted with
proposals. New uses which result in harm to their fabric, character, appearance or
setting will not be permitted.
Policies CT5 and CT6 requires that there is safe access to the highway network and
that there is adequate car parking to meet the needs of the development.
The chapel which is a Grade II listed building dating from the early 19th Century is
situated in a central location within the village to the north side of The Street. Closed in
2009 as a result of dwindling congregations it has fallen into gradual decline and
needs a new use to prevent its continuing deterioration. Although various options for
conversion have been explored, including offices or workshop, given the buildings
relatively rural location and proximity to residential properties these have been
dismissed as not being realistic options. It is therefore considered that as the building
is clearly worthy of retention due to its appearance, historic, and architectural value
that a residential use appears to be the only real way to secure the future of this listed
building and the proposal would accord with the requirements of Policy HO9.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that the change of
use of the chapel to residential would raise some difficult heritage issues. Most
notably, it would mean the removal of the existing pews and pulpit and the reworking
of the lobby and balcony areas. With parallel concerns around a possible direct
connection to the garden area, and around the upgrading work to comply with Building
Regulations, there would inevitably be a level of harm associated with the change of
use. However, the amended plans demonstrate that the building can house a viable
dwelling unit without unduly compromising its main internal space and its external
elevations. Therefore, providing as part of any future listed building application, details
are agreed in respect of a satisfactory visual connection internally between the „high‟
and „low‟ ends of the building, the upgrading and structural support of the balcony, a
schedule for upgrading the floors/walls/ceilings and amended access into the garden,
the harm should be less than substantial as defined by Para 134 of the NPPF.
The nearest property to the site is No. 61 The Street, the former Maids Head public
house, which adjoins the site to the west. This has a driveway adjacent to the chapel
which serves this property and a dwelling to the rear known as Homely Acre. Based
on the proposed scheme of conversion the only windows looking towards these
properties would be a ground floor windows to the rear single storey extension which
would serve a bathroom/utility room and bedroom. Whilst to the opposite side of The
Street No.85 is set back some 30 metres from the edge of the carriageway as are
other properties to the west.
Development Committee
18
21 November 2013
It is therefore not considered that the proposed scheme of conversion would have a
significantly detrimental effect on the amenities of any neighbouring properties.
The indicative site layout originally submitted with the application indicates the existing
access gates in the frontage wall widened and the provision of a single parking space
within the courtyard area to the front of building. However, as the chapel has the
potential for conversion to a four bedroom dwelling the parking standards contained in
the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy would seek the
provision of a minimum of 3 spaces. The preamble to the parking standards does
however indicate that reduced provision may be appropriate in Conservation Areas if
this would result in an improved building design which better enhances the character
of the built environment. In addition, variations in the standards may also be
considered where there is no realistic alternative in remote rural areas.
Having consulted the Highways Authority they consider that the parking and turning
area as originally proposed would be inadequate to serve the needs of the
development. However given the existing use of the building they would be unlikely to
object to a revised plan which indicated no on-site parking.
The revised Design and Access Statement indicates that potential options for
vehicular access to the rear of the site through neighbouring land have been
discounted and as such it is not possible to site any parking at the rear of the building.
Therefore in line with the suggestion of the Highways Authority no vehicular access or
parking is proposed within the site. Instead occupiers of the dwelling would park within
the public highway, which is unrestricted.
The Highways Authority has confirmed that it has no objection to this arrangement on
the grounds that whilst the proposal would result in parking within the public highway it
is likely that this would be of a much lower volumes, 2 - 3 vehicles only, than the
previous congregational use, which accommodated vehicles either within the highway
or the village hall car park. Furthermore, given the alignment of the highway it is not
considered parking on the public highway would cause any highway safety issues or
affect the free flow of traffic.
Whilst the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has also confirmed that the
deletion of the off-street parking area to be a positive move as this would have
detracted from the setting of the listed building.
Therefore, mindful of the wider public benefits associated with securing the good
repair and long term future of this heritage asset, it is considered that a change of use
of the building to residential would comply with the requirements of Polices HO9.
Whilst the submitted elevations and plans demonstrate that the building is capable of
conversion without substantial harm to either the fabric or appearance of the building
and that the alteration would not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and the new dwelling would provide
acceptable residential amenity, in accordance with Policies EN4 and EN8.
In respect of the issue of car parking whilst the proposal does not comply strictly with
the parking standards contained in the Core Strategy the lack of parking provision in
itself would it is considered not justify refusal of the application.
It is therefore considered that on balance the proposed change of use is acceptable
and does not significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan Policies.
Development Committee
19
21 November 2013
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to an advisory note that this approval is
for change of use only and does not provide for any physical alterations to the
exterior or interior of the building. Such works would need to be the subject of
fresh submissions for planning permission and listed building consent.
5.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0866 - Erection of 176 dwellings with access, open
space and associated works and formation of station car park and outline
application for employment development; Land at, Norwich Road for Hopkins
Homes
Major Development
- Target Date: 20 November 2013
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Development within 60m of Class A road
Mixed Use Allocation
Tree Preservation Order
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080134 PO - Erection of one hundred and forty-nine dwellings, (forty of
which are sheltered), sixty-bed care home, ten employment units and convenience
store
Refused 04/08/2008
Appeal Dismissed 20/04/2009
PLA/20030646 PO - Residential development, associated infrastructure, open
space, landscaping and pedestrian footpath to railway station
Refused 03/07/2003
THE APPLICATION
This is a 'hybrid' planning application, partly including full details and partly seeking
outline consent only. The full details comprise proposals for road access serving the
whole of the site, 176 dwellings, open space and the laying out of a 50 space car
park. The outline element seeks approval in principle for employment related
development.
The application comprises the following principal details:
A single main spine road serving the site which would run from a mid-point along
the frontage with Norwich Road to the site's southern boundary. A secondary
estate road serving the majority of the residential area, together with a series of
cul-de-sacs and private drives.
176 dwellings, mostly two storey (with some three storey), comprising a mix of
short terraces (84 units), semi-detached (23 units) and detached properties (34
units). together with 35 flats.
Two areas of public open space. A larger area positioned between the spine road
and the bulk of the residential development and a smaller area at the site's southeastern corner.
A 50 space car park served directly off the spine road and backing on to the
eastern site boundary with the adjacent North Walsham railway station. The car
park is intended to serve railway users.
Development Committee
20
21 November 2013
Either side of the car park and between the spine road and railway line is the land
proposed for employment purposes.
The application is accompanied by a (revised) draft S.106 Obligation which allows for
the following:
a commuted sum payment towards future maintenance of the public open space
(£106,000)
completion of the car park (prior to the 100th dwelling being occupied)
contribution of £50,000 towards off-site highway improvements
a development profit 'uplift' clause
a housing completion incentive clause
Submitted with the application are the following documents:
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Transport Assessment (plus subsequent Technical Note)
Flood Risk Assessment
Utility and Foul Water Appraisal
Land Contamination Report
Geodiversity Report
Arboricultural Assessment / Tree Report
Ecology Survey
Heritage Assessment
Acoustic Assessment
Landscaping Masterplan
Viability Statement (Confidential)
Viability Statement (Executive Summary)
Amended layout plans have recently been received.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds of departure from policy; no S.106 money for schools, library,
doctors' surgeries, and sewage infrastructure. No affordable housing provided. Would
like to see the viability statement (executive summary provided). Would also like to
see the car park remain free and a suitable clause to this effect built into the S.106
Agreement.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection received on the following grounds:
- Additional volume of traffic generation and highway / pedestrian safety on Norwich
Road.
- Lack of affordable housing.
- Lack of infrastructure to support the development (jobs, health facilities, schools).
- Adverse impact upon all aspects of community life and associated amenities in this
part of North Walsham.
One letter in support of developing the site but raising concerns regarding the position
of the proposed access from Norwich Road to serve the site, which it is feared will
result in traffic congestion, poor visibility for vehicles exiting onto Norwich Road,
difficulty in residents of Norwich Road exiting their properties, and headlight pollution
into these properties. Suggests that the access is moved to opposite the junction with
Development Committee
21
21 November 2013
Millfield Road where there is the possibility of a mini-roundabout. Also raises concerns
over the insufficient level of community consultation which took place prior to the
planning application being submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - .Requires the following
financial contributions to be secured via a section 106 agreement:
£512,336 for education.
£3472 for 4 fire hydrants
£10,560 for library provision (£60 per dwelling).
The education contribution is derived from a standard formula of the number school
age children resident at the completed development at any one time (based on the
house types proposed) and the existing capacity of local schools to accommodate the
additional pupil numbers. In their response the County Council advise that here is an
existing over capacity at North Walsham Infant School and that North Walsham Junior
School has over capacity in its lower year group as numbers continue to grow and
children move through from the Infant School. With the expectation that this trend will
continue, any additional housing would justify the need for additional accommodation.
It is likely that at least 5 FE (form of entry) will be needed for North Walsham in the
future up to 2026 with around 4.5 available at the current schools. Some expansion
will be necessary at either North Walsham Infant/Junior or Millfield School to cater for
these additional children.
The County Council raises an objection if the above funding requirements are not
adequately addressed as part of the grant of planning permission.
County Council (Highways) - Recognises that this site is part of a larger allocation
for North Walsham. The submitted Transport Assessment does not consider the
transport impacts of the rest of the allocation and so it is not possible to establish the
full impacts of the allocation and so establish how much mitigation should be borne by
this development. The developer must provide an assessment of the whole allocation
and potential mitigation package to enable the Highway Authority to judge the
appropriate mitigation measures for this application.
Raises a holding objection until the extra assessment work described above is carried
out and a mitigation package agreed is with the Highway Authority.
If the additional information is not supplied the Highway Authority would recommend
an objection for the following reason:
The application is not supported by sufficient highways and transport information to
demonstrate that the proposed development will not be prejudicial to the satisfactory
functioning of the highway. Contrary to Development Plan Policies.
In addition the Highway Authority has provided a list of technical matters regarding the
proposed layout of the development which are required to be addressed.
Comments on amended plans and submitted Technical Note awaited.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - No comment.
Environment Agency Raises a holding objection on flood risk grounds. The
submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) fails to comply with the requirements of
paragraph 9 of the technical guide to the National Planning Policy Framework. It does
not therefore provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks
arising from the proposed development. In particular, the submitted FRA fails to:
Development Committee
22
21 November 2013
1) take account of the range of infiltration rates across the site and provide a drainage
scheme suitable for the whole site.
2) consider how people will be kept safe from the surface water flow hazards identified
in the Flood Map for surface water.
Suitable amendments to the FRA could overcome the objection.
In addition, recommends conditions in respect of contaminated land.
Anglian Water - Advises that there is currently existing capacity in the sewerage
network and at North Walsham sewage treatment works to accommodate the
additional foul water flows from the propose development.
Comments that the preferred method of surface water drainage is via a sustainable
drainage system with connection to a sewer to be a last option.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - In terms
of the proposed layout recommends that footpaths / cycle ways should be re-aligned
through the open space rather than as currently alongside the main spine road.
Comments that because the same hierarchical approach has been applied to the road
network throughout the site and because architecturally the buildings are relatively
constant throughout, it is unfortunately difficult to identify genuinely different character
areas within the scheme.
In terms of scale and massing the residential development would not appear out of
scale with its surroundings.
In terms of design, comments that the comparatively mixed nature of the surrounding
area offers a rare blank canvas in which to create a truly imaginative scheme which
could make a positive contribution to this part of the town. This could be achieved in
either a traditional or contemporary idiom. It is therefore disappointing that what is
being offered is a series of buildings which are generally politely detailed and well
proportioned, but which ultimately offer precious little in the way of architectural
originality or innovation. In essence they are generic house types which could be built
anywhere but which ultimately belong nowhere. Suggests a number of design
amendments on some of the more publicly prominent plots within the development.
Comments that the repeat palette of materials as that proposed on other sites within
the district by the same developer reinforces the point about the scheme not having
any real local distinctiveness.
In conclusion comments that the development will help to regenerate the existing
derelict site. It will also make a valuable contribution to the provision of new housing
within the District . In architectural terms, however, it misses a real opportunity to
create an exemplar scheme which would genuinely enhance the town as a whole.
Instead, although the end result would doubtless be reasonably pleasant as proposed,
particularly when the landscaping and open space matures, it cannot hope to add
anything substantively to our built environment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No overall concerns,
but suggests a number of changes to the submitted landscape masterplan (in
particular the footpath / cycle way route through the open space). In addition seeks
clarification on a number of discrepancies between plans and trees to be retained on
the site.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Advises that a commuted sum in the region of
£106,000 would be required for the adoption of the two areas of public open space.
Suggests that the smaller area of public open space could potentially be used for
allotments of which there is a shortage in the area.
Environmental Health - Recommends the imposition of a condition requiring further
investigation of potential contaminants on the site, prior to the commencement of
Development Committee
23
21 November 2013
development.
Satisfied with sewage disposal provisions and relatively satisfied with the surface
water disposal provisions, subject to the Environment Agency's concerns being
addressed.
Refers to the acoustic report which has been undertaken to investigate noise from
road traffic, rail, nearby builders merchants and an electricity substation. Noise from
road and rail traffic is highlighted as being an issue for parts of the site. Concerns are
also raised about substation noise for parts of the site at night. Recommends a
condition requiring submission of a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from
noise to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.
Strategic Housing - Comments that the proposed development falls short of the
requirement to provide at least 40% of the dwellings with not more than 2 bedrooms
and a floorspace of 70 sqm or less (Policy HO1). In addition it is not clear how the
scheme meets the requirement of H01 that at least 20% of the dwellings shall be
suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled.
Advises that there are currently 636 households on the housing list who have stated
that they want to live in North Walsham, of these 130 are on the Housing Register as
they have a high level of housing need. A further 82 are on the Transfer Register and
424 are on the Housing Options Register. In 2013/14, 31 new affordable homes for
rent will be delivered in North Walsham. Of these homes, 16 are already complete
and occupied with the remaining 15 due to be completed in January. A further 36
homes are onsite and due to be completed in April 2014, these 36 homes are being
provided as an Exception Housing Scheme and therefore will be prioritised to
households who have a connection through residence, family or employment to North
Walsham or one of its adjoining parishes.
Confirms that the viability information submitted with the application does show a
lower level of profit even though there is no affordable housing provision, no Policy
EN6 compliance and no education and library contributions. Raises concern that
some of the costs in the viability report are too high, however, when considering the
scheme viability it is clear that there is an issue of viability associated with the
development which means that it will not be possible to provide any onsite affordable
housing at the current time.
Comments that in mitigation to there currently being insufficient viability to provide any
affordable housing, a Development Uplift clause will be included in a Section 106
Obligation (if the application is approved). The Uplift clause will allow contributions
towards affordable housing, education and libraries to be provided on a pro-rata basis
if the scheme profitability increases beyond a specified level. In this event the profit
would be split on a 50/50 basis, with the developer providing half the increased profit
as a financial contribution and retaining half as increased profit. If the viability of the
scheme does not increase sufficiently above the specified profit level, the developer
will not be required to provide any contributions. If the viability does improve, the
developer contribution would be capped so as not to exceed the amount of funding
needed to provide 79 affordable dwellings (which would be 45% of the proposed 176
dwellings) and the required contributions for education and libraries.
In addition comments that in order to encourage quick delivery of at least some of the
proposed new homes, the Section 106 Agreement will provide a financial incentive to
make a quick start on the construction of the scheme. If the applicant meets the
requirements specified in the Section 106 Agreement (to complete externally at least
30 dwellings within 2 years of the date of the planning permission) the Development
Development Committee
24
21 November 2013
Uplift will be capped at the amount of funding needed to provide 35 affordable
dwellings (which would be 20% affordable housing provision).
Advises that any financial contribution received for affordable housing would be used
to provide more affordable housing in North Norfolk, with the Council undertaking to
use its best endeavours to use any contribution firstly within North Walsham (and if no
suitable site or sites are identified) secondly in the adjoining parishes to North
Walsham. Only if the financial contribution could not be spent in these areas, would it
be used elsewhere in North Norfolk. The financial contribution would have to be
repaid with interest if it was not committed to the provision of affordable housing within
10 years, although It is not expected that such circumstances would arise.
On the above basis, the Housing Strategy Team supports the approval of this
application.
Health & Safety Executive Does not advise, on safety grounds, against the
granting of planning permission as currently proposed. However draws to attention to
the fact that the HSE could advise against future detailed applications on the land
proposed for employment use, depending on the type and nature of the developments
proposed.
Norfolk Police - Refers to the additional pressures to deliver effective policing and
securing safe and sustainable communities caused by new housing developments
and the need for developer contributions to assist in this delivery. Raises a holding
objection pending further guidance from the District Council as to what information is
required to advance the request for developer contributions.
In terms of the details of the proposed development, comments that it appears to have
been put together with some thought and care to the Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design principles. This is particularly evident when looking at the
provision of natural surveillance that is afforded to the open spaces on the site and
documented in the Design and Access Statement.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy NW01 Land at Norwich Road / Nursery Drive:
Land amounting to approximately 24.5 hectares is allocated for a mixed use
development of approximately 400 dwellings, 5 hectares of serviced employment
premises, 4 hectares of Public Open Space and provision of car parking for the
railway station. Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy
policies including on-site provision of the required proportion of affordable housing
(currently 45%) and contributions towards infrastructure, services, and other
community needs as required and:
Development Committee
25
21 November 2013
a. The prior approval of a development brief to address access, movement, mix of
uses, layout, built form, density of development, landscaping, phasing and conceptual
appearance;
b. phased provision of buildings for employment uses (Class B1, B2 and B8 ), the
size, nature, amount and location of the units to be specified in the brief;
c. provision of two points of vehicle access to Norwich Road;
d. provision of improved pedestrian links to the railway station, town centre and local
schools;
e. investigation and remediation of any land contamination;
f. development layout that complies with PADHI methodology;
g. measures to prevent the input of hazardous substances to groundwater;
h. archaeological investigation if required;
i. demonstration that there is adequate capacity in electricity provision, sewage
treatment works and the foul sewerage network, and that proposals have regard to
water quality standards; and,
j. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the Broads
SAC/ Broadland SAC / Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor pressure,
and on-going monitoring of such measures.
Retail development, other than that serving the needs of the proposed development,
will not be permitted.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO2: 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 EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Background and principle of development
2. Development layout, landscaping and design
Development Committee
26
21 November 2013
3.
4.
5.
6
Housing mix
Highway issues
Development viability
S.106 Planning Obligation
APPRAISAL
Background and Principle of Development
The application site forms a combination of 'brownfield' and 'greenfield' land;
comprising the former (now demolished) H L Foods factory premises and an adjoining
agricultural field.
The factory site was the subject to two refusals of planning permission for residential
development in 2003 and 2009 when the former North Norfolk Local Plan was
operative and the land was designated solely for employment use. Since then the
North Norfolk Site Specific Allocations DPD has been adopted in which the application
site now forms part of a larger mixed use allocation (Policy NW01 - referred to above).
Accordingly the principle of developing the site for residential and employment related
purposes is now acceptable.
The total allocation measures 24.5 hectares. In addition to residential development
Policy NW01 requires the provision of 5.0 hectares of employment land and 4.0
hectares of public open space. It is reasonable to assume that in order to comply with
this requirement, a pro-rata amount is provided as part of this proposed development.
This would require 1.77ha. of employment land and 1.42ha. of public open space. The
amounts proposed are less than this; approximately 1.4ha. of employment land and
1.3ha. of open space.
Development layout, landscaping and design
The proposed layout is characterised by the four different land uses, (housing, open
space, employment and the station car park), together with the need to provide a
principal access road through the site. The road entrance to the site is in the only
practical position it can be, midway along the relatively short boundary with Norwich
Road (the only public highway bordering the site). The access road takes a
meandering route through the site which allows for a degree of visual variety and
traffic calming. It terminates at a point on the southern site boundary, providing a
future link to the rest of the allocated land. For much of its route the access road
provides a division between the proposed employment land to its eastern side and the
largest proportion of open space and housing to its western side. This would seem a
sensible arrangement with the employment land (and station car park) bordering the
adjacent railway line and the main residential area bordering with existing housing
development.
A further factor influencing the proposed layout is the close proximity of two gas
condensate storage tanks which are located next to the nearby railway station. Part of
the site falls within the identified hazard zones relating to these storage tanks.
Guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in relation to such hazard
zones is dependent upon the types of development uses proposed and which zones
they fall within (there are three zones - inner/middle/outer; the inner zone being the
more hazardous). Whilst much of the site is affected by this zoning, the residential
development would only be affected by the outer zone. On this basis the HSE has not
advised against the granting of planning permission, but has advised that when more
detailed proposals come forward, there could be certain types of employment uses
(located in the inner zone) which would not be acceptable on safety grounds.
The applicants have agreed to show a pedestrian gate access at a point on the
boundary of the station car park and the railway property. This would have the
Development Committee
27
21 November 2013
potential to provide direct access with the northbound station platform, subject to the
future agreement of the train operating company.
Practically all of the residential development will be served from, and front onto,
secondary estate roads and private drives, and parts of it will front onto the two areas
of open space. Generally this layout is considered to be acceptable, although the
highway authority has raised a number of technical issues which require the
submission of amended plans.
The main area of open space will provide a beneficial buffer between much of the
residential development and the main spine road and the employment land. It is of a
size which will provide an appreciable amenity to residents and will include a
children's play area. Amendments have been discussed with the applicants to reroute a footway/cycle path through this open space as opposed to alongside the spine
road. The second smaller area of open space will provide less of an accessible
amenity to the whole development because of its location in the southern corner of the
site. However it has the potential of forming part of a larger, more worthwhile area of
public open space when the adjoining part of the allocation comes forward for
development. Both areas of open space provide an opportunity for good quality
landscaping treatment, which following discussions with the applicants are to be
reflected in a revised version of the submitted landscape masterplan. It is considered
that this landscaping will provide adequate mitigation against the necessary loss of
two hornbeam trees (subject to a tree preservation order) on the frontage with
Norwich Road.
In terms of design the Committee will note the reservations expressed by the
Conservation and Design Manager with regard to the house types proposed, on the
basis that they are similar in style to others recently approved elsewhere in the district,
and the opportunity to create a more innovative development on this unconstrained
site is being lost. Notwithstanding this there are no substantive reasons on design
grounds to object to the proposals, although the applicants have indicated a
willingness to revisit the finished appearance of certain of the more prominent plots
and amended plans are awaited.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms with a floorspace
not more than 70 sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district. This policy requirement has
been met (or closely met) on other large housing sites by a combination of genuinely
'affordable' dwellings and lower cost market dwellings.
In the case of this proposal the applicants state (para. 4.9 of the executive summary)
that "despite there being no 'affordable housing', there are a significant amount of
smaller, hence more 'affordable' dwellings included within the proposal..."
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 actually shows that only 25.5% (45 units)
of the development are to comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less.
Counterbalancing this, the figure rises to 37.5% (66 units) if 3 bedroom properties of
less than 75 sqm are included, and it rises further to 55% if 3 bedroom units of less
than 85 sqm are included. Larger 4 bedroom properties comprise a relatively small
proportion (17% - 30 units) of the overall development.
Highway Issues
The Committee will note that in addition to requiring a number of technical
Development Committee
28
21 November 2013
amendments to the submitted plans, the Highway Authority has raised a holding
objection to the application on grounds that the submitted Transport Assessment (TA)
does not adequately address the full impacts of the development. Their basis for this
is that the TA should firstly consider the traffic impacts of the whole allocation, and
that any necessary contributions towards off-site highway improvements which arise
from this should be required on a pro-rata basis as part of the current application. In
response the applicants have recently submitted a Technical Note to supplement the
TA. The conclusions of this Note are that the impact of the full allocation is likely to
cause the nearby junction of the A149 / B1150 (Norwich Road) to operate above its
theoretical capacity and mitigation in the form of a revised junction layout is likely to
be required.
Previously as part of the planning permission granted early this year for a new 6th
Form College on nearby land, the accompanying S.106 Obligation requires a
contribution of £100,000 towards traffic control improvements at this junction. The
Obligation allows for a review of this requirement in the event of other developments
coming forward nearby, so as to apportion the sum between the respective
developments.
The current applicants have recently offered a contribution of £50,000 towards
highway improvements in the revised draft S.106 Obligation.
The further comments of the Highway Authority with regard to the Technical Note, the
financial contribution and amended plans were awaited at the time of preparing this
report.
Development Viability Implications
A confidential development viability report has been submitted with the planning
application together with a non-confidential executive summary, the latter of which is
attached in Appendix 1. The conclusions presented in the report are that the
proposed development is one which is finely balanced in commercial terms. The
report's assessment when comparing the costs of developing the site (including land
purchase) with predicted sales revenue, is that it would provide a developer profit
significantly below the 'industry norm'. Notwithstanding this, a number of reasons are
given why the applicants are prepared to progress with the development (see para.
4.6 of the executive summary).
Critically from a planning policy viewpoint, the development costs applied in the
viability assessment exclude any provision for affordable housing, education and
library contributions, (a contribution of £50,000 has since been offered towards off-site
highway improvements). In addition compliance with Core Strategy Policy EN6 (code
level for sustainable homes and renewable energy provision) is not being proposed.
The applicants claim that if the costs of any of these requirements were to be
included, the developer profit would be reduced further, to such an extent that it would
not be viable to proceed with the development in the foreseeable future.
The Council's policy regarding the provision of affordable housing on sites such as
this (Core Strategy Policy HO2) is that 45% of the dwellings should be affordable (i.e
social rented or shared equity) 'where it is viable to do so'. Theoretically therefore the
policy allows for circumstances whereby no provision of affordable housing is
possible, although this would represent a drastic reduction compared to the levels
which have so far been negotiated on other major allocated sites in the district.
Furthermore put in context with the Council's recently introduced Housing Incentive
Scheme (which is intended to secure the quick delivery of housing in exchange for a
reduced level of affordable housing), the minimum level of affordable housing
Development Committee
29
21 November 2013
available under the scheme is 20%.
The Committee will note that an education contribution of £512,336 is sought by
Norfolk County Council (NCC) towards an identified shortfall in primary school
capacity. NCC has subsequently advised that this payment (along with a library
contribution of £10,560) would be ring-fenced for North Walsham and that there are
no alternative sources of funding immediately available. NCC goes on to state that as
a consequence (of no education funding) there is a strong likelihood that class sizes
would increase and necessitate the need for temporary mobile accommodation.
Alternatively pupils may need to 'be bussed' to the next nearest available schools.
It is acknowledged that there are additional development costs associated in meeting
compliance with code level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and installing
renewable energy to provide for 20% of a development's predicted energy needs
(Core Strategy Policy EN6). The Council has previously agreed elsewhere to partly
relax these requirements for development viability reasons, but not in totality. The
Housing Incentive Scheme does provide for a relaxation of these requirements, but
only on the basis of a secured amount of quick development delivery.
Under the heading of 'Ensuring viability and deliverability', paragraph 173 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the following advise with regard
to the issue of development viability:
Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in
plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites
and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a
scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is
threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any affordable housing, standards,
infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the
normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing
land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.
The provision of affordable housing and local infrastructure contributions are secured
by means of S.106 Obligations. The NPPF states that S.106 Obligations should only
be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
directly related to the development; and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Having considered the submitted viability report in detail, officers have had to concur
with its conclusions, namely that in view of the indicated developer profit, there is no
scope to require affordable housing provision, nor education or library contributions,
as part of the proposed development (see the Strategic Housing Officers comment
above).
S.106 Planning Obligation
During the course of this application a revised (draft) S.106 Obligation has been
submitted by the applicants. It includes the following:
1) A commuted sum payment towards future maintenance of the public open space
(£106,000).
2) Completion of the car park (prior to the 100th dwelling being occupied).
3) The contribution of £50,000 towards off-site highway improvements.
4) A development profit 'uplift' clause.
5) A housing completion incentive clause.
Development Committee
30
21 November 2013
The purpose of the „uplift‟ clause is to secure a financial contribution in the event of
the development profit level increasing (over what is currently assumed) during the
construction period. Uplift clauses are already used in the case of planning
permissions where affordable housing requirements are not fully met, so there is all
the more justification for such a clause in the case of this application where no
affordable housing or other contributions are being provided.
The basis of the uplift clause proposed by the applicants is as follows:
It would apply in the event of the development profit exceeding 20%.
Any additional profit above 20% would be split 50/50 between the developer and
the Local Planning Authority.
The upper cap of the profit share would be the equivalent of providing 45%
affordable housing plus contributions towards education and libraries.
Any uplift contributions to be apportioned on a pro-rata basis towards affordable
housing, education and libraries.
In practical terms this would require the submission of an updated viability report at a
specified time towards the end of the construction period. It should be appreciated
that any monies received would be put towards affordable housing elsewhere and not
on the application site.
The proposed housing completion incentive clause would allow for the amount
payable towards affordable housing to be reduced to 20% in the event of 30 dwellings
being completed within two years of the grant of planning permission.
Conclusions
The benefits of this proposed development are clearly apparent. It will:
bring forward a significant portion of the district's second largest land allocation.
provide road and drainage infrastructure to assist in bringing forward the
remaining allocated land.
regenerate a prominent area of derelict land which has been a eyesore and a
cause of local concern for several years.
contribute to the Council's projected requirement for new housing in the district
(and potentially accelerate delivery of housing development on the site resulting
from the S.106 incentive clause).
provide readily serviced employment land.
provide a car park to serve the adjacent railway station.
However all of these benefits come with a price in terms of the exclusion of any of the
community benefits which are normally secured as part of a major residential
development, as well as the non- compliance with a number of adopted planning
policy requirements. For clarity these 'exclusions' comprise:
no affordable housing provision
no financial contribution towards education
no financial contribution towards library provision
In addition the application does not comply with:
the provision of on-site renewable energy or compliance with the Code for
Sustainable Homes (Policy EN6)
the required mix of housing (Policy HO1)
the required provision of employment land and open space, based on a 'pro-rata'
basis (Policy NW01).
Development Committee
31
21 November 2013
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in
accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. In this case the development plan comprises the Council's adopted Core
Strategy and Site Allocations DPD. Guidance contained in the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes a material consideration. At the heart of the
NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 173 of the NPPF (quoted in the Development Viability section above)
makes it clear that the financial viability to undertake developments should not be
prevented by onerous costs associated with the provision of affordable housing,
infrastructure contributions and other requirements. In view of this and given that
officers concur with the overall conclusions of the submitted viability assessment, it is
not considered justifiable that the application should be refused on the lack of these
items.
Neither, on balance, is the application considered unacceptable for reasons of noncompliance with the other policy requirements previously referred to, when it is
considered in a wider view against the three dimensions of sustainable development
referred to in the NPPF. These being an economic role (the provision of land to
support economic growth, including providing infrastructure); a social role (provision of
housing to meet the needs of present and future generations); and an environmental
role (enhancing the built environment).
Notwithstanding these conclusions the application is only considered acceptable on
the basis of the 'uplift' clause being included in the S.106 Obligation. The Committee
will need to consider whether it considers that the terms of the uplift clause being
offered are reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
At the time of preparing this report there remain a number of other matters to be
resolved, including the submission of a revised Flood Risk Assessment, the further
comments of the Highway Authority, and the submission of revised plans to address
landscaping and design issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the following:
1. Satisfactory completion of the S.106 Obligation.
2. No new grounds of objection being received following readvertisement of
amended plans.
3. Submission of a satisfactorily revised Flood Risk Assessment and no
further objection received from the Environment Agency.
4. No objection from the Highway Authority in response to the amended plans
and proposed financial contribution towards off-site highway improvements.
5. Satisfactory submission of amended plans (landscaping and design).
6. The imposition of appropriate conditions.
(6)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 September 2013
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
32
21 November 2013
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0148 PF
Erection of first and second floor rear extensions to provide self-contained unit of
holiday accommodation
Refused 18/04/2013
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single storey rear extension to provide a self-contained unit of
holiday accommodation and installation of roof light.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of inadequate access, lack of amenity space and the lack of
parking.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
Pedestrian access
Not adjacent to car park
Existing parking problems
Will result in noise, disturbance and detriment of neighbouring properties
Does not afford adequate privacy
Human Rights
Un-neighbourly
No vehicular access
No disabled access
Security issues with rear access
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The site
lies within the designated Sheringham Conservation Area. The building forms the end
property to the original terrace fronting onto Morris Street. Whilst the building is not of
special architectural merit it does make a contribution to the prevailing character of the
area.
With regard to the proposal, the buildings position being adjacent to the public car
park means the rear elevation is visible from the public domain. The previous
application submitted (PF/13/0148) was for a two-storey extension which carried much
more visual impact and was much bulkier in its massing the current proposal being
considered.
This revised scheme being single-storey is subservient and in terms of design is much
more in-keeping in terms of form and proportions. The use of render and tiles raise no
heritage cause for concern.
By virtue that the proposal will not harm the significance of the heritage asset,
Conservation, Design and Landscape raise no objection to the application.
Development Committee
33
21 November 2013
County Highways - Whilst this development for holiday accommodation does not
provide any parking provision, given the sites proximity to public car parks and the
availability of suitable on street parking places, I find that I am unable to raise any
sustainable objection. Therefore, I am able to comment that in relation to highways
issues only that Norfolk County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.
Building Control - It is not considered that compliance with Building Regulation B5 has
been achieved as paragraph 11.2 requires access to "all points within the dwelling" to
be within 45m of the vehicle access and not just to the building face. An alternative
would be to provide the dwelling with a domestic sprinkler system. Additionally, the
windows in the rear wall of the existing dwelling, which overlook the proposed unit, will
be "unprotected areas" creating a fire risk between the buildings and may need to be
blocked up or protected in some way.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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 neighbouring properties
3. Impact on Conservation Area
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for a consultation to be
carried out regarding access to the application site by emergency services and
construction traffic.
This application follows the refusal of application reference 13/0148 which was for first
and second floor rear extensions to provide for a unit of holiday accommodation. That
application was not considered acceptable by Officers and was refused under
delegated authority for the following reasons:
Development Committee
34
21 November 2013
"The Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposal constitutes an
unacceptable form of development. It is considered that the proposed alterations
would result in a building out of proportion with the existing terrace form, and that the
overall scale and massing of the proposal is unsympathetic to its surroundings and
would result in a development that would be overbearing, overshadow and would
exacerbate overlooking and loss of privacy to the significant detriment of the privacy
and amenities of the occupiers of the immediate surrounding dwellings.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development Plan
policies."
However, since that refusal the current application has been submitted for
consideration (13/0851).The site is located within the Residential Policy Area and
Conservation Area. The High Street and designated Town Centre are located just to
the east of the site. There is on street parking along Morris Street as well as a public
car park. Given the location of the proposed development the principle is considered
to be acceptable, subject to appropriate scale, design and materials, relationship to
neighbouring dwellings and car parking.
The current application has quite significantly reduced the scale of the proposed
extension from the previous application to single storey only. The extension will project
approximately 0.5m further to the rear with the addition of a rear bay of approximately
1.3m x 3m. The width at ground floor has been increased for only part of its length
from 3.5m to 4.5m. A pitched roof will be added to the rear with highest point to the
ridge being some 4.3m, the gable ends would face south west and north east. There is
no change to the scale or form of the first floor from that which is already there. In the
existing south west first floor elevation instead of a window to a bedroom and wc there
will only be a single window to a bedroom. At ground floor there are currently windows
to a kitchen, utility/porch and back door. Under this proposal the windows in this
ground floor elevation will be to a bedroom and bathroom and a door to the entrance
hall. There is also a high level circular window in the gable end of the extension. There
will also be a roof light in this elevation to the roof space in the loft. It is considered
that the alterations to the fenestration are minimal and would not have a significant
detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring
dwellings. Furthermore, the scale of the single storey extension is also acceptable in
this location and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and
amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
raised no objection to the application. Whilst the building is not considered to be of
special architectural merit it does make a contribution to the prevailing character of the
area. However, the proposal under this application is subservient in terms of its design
and more in keeping with the form and proportion with the existing dwelling. It is not
therefore considered that the proposal would have significant harm on the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The holiday accommodation proposed would be self-contained, and have its own
pedestrian access to the rear of the site. The existing dwelling of 8 Morris Street would
maintain its pedestrian access onto Morris Street. It should be noted that any one of
the dwellings along this road could be used for holiday accommodation and this would
not actually require planning permission. It is not therefore considered that this
proposal would cause any more noise or disturbance to residents than if it was a
dwelling.
Development Committee
35
21 November 2013
With regard to car parking the existing dwelling has no on site car parking provision,
which is the same for the majority of dwellings along Morris Street. Parking for
dwellings in this location is on the road. Whilst one unit of holiday accommodation
would be created, if this application were to be approved, and would normally require
the provision of two car parking spaces the site is located within the Conservation
Area and in close proximity to the Town Centre where there is on street parking and a
public car park. The site is located within a Conservation Area where a reduced
provision may be appropriate. In this case the Highway Authority have been consulted
and have advised that whilst the proposal does not provide any parking provision
given the sites proximity to public car parks and the availability of on street parking
they are not able to raise an objection in this case. In view of this it is not considered
that there is sufficient justification to warrant a refusal on lack of parking grounds.
Whilst the District Council has no control over access to the site by construction traffic
the agent has confirmed that access by construction traffic would be gained via the
alleyway to the rear of the site which is referred to by the agent as a public right of
way, and also through the existing building itself at ground floor level from Morris
Street. The alleyway is not actually defined as a public right of way, but provides
pedestrian access to the rear of the dwellings along this side of Morris Street.
With regard to access to the application site by emergency services the agent has
advised that this would again be via the alleyway to the rear of the site and that the
travel distances from the location of the pump appliance at the end of West
Cliff/Barchams Yard to the accommodation complies with the requirements of Building
Regulations B5 Volume 1. 11.2, which states that there should be "35 metres travel
distance to the rear site boundary and 10 metres to the building face", notwithstanding
the provision of a self-contained fire alarm system and a full solid fire/party wall
between the units. Building Control have been consulted on this matter and the
Committee will note the comments of the Building Control Manager that whilst it does
not comply with Building Regulation B5 a sprinkler system can be installed which
would address this matter and be dealt with through a Building Regulations application
along with rear fire escape from the existing dwelling.
Whilst the objections of local residents and the Town Council have been taken into
consideration the Committee will note that the scale and design of the proposal is
considered acceptable and that no objections have been received from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Highways Officer. It is not
therefore considered that a refusal can be justified in this instance. The proposal is
therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan
policies for the reasons explained in this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including agreeing roof tiles prior to use, removal of permitted
development rights for alterations and extensions including insertion of further
windows and rooflights, and holiday occupancy restriction.
(7)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0889 - Conversion of D1 (community hall) to A5 (hot food
take-away) and first floor residential flat; 10 Wyndham Street for Mr P Crouch
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 September 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
36
21 November 2013
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Town Centre
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to change the use of the D1 (community hall) to an A5 (hot food take-away)
and ground floor level and to a residential flat at first floor level.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Smith and Hannah having regard to the following issues:
Number of concerns raised locally;
Location near numerous pubs;
Anti-social behaviour with CCTV possibly going and noise for residents;
Concerns in respect of crime prevention and community safety;
Parking concerns.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections to conversion to first floor residential flat but objections to conversion of
ground floor to a Hot Food Takeaway instead of retail.
REPRESENTATIONS
12 representations have been received from 9 objectors, on the following grounds:
Traffic and congestion concerns;
Parking issues including parking on kerbs and in area waiting and illegal parking.
Would only be exacerbated by opening of another takeaway outlet. Narrow road
already means vehicles park half across pavement making necessary for those
with wheelchairs or stroller to walk up middle of Street- situation would only get
worse;
Property just before a blind bend and would make parking outside dangerous.
Path very narrow;
Vehicles knocking over nearby business signs and blocking shop frontage;
Would be 47th food outlet in Sheringham - unnecessary and not needed/59 food
establishments in town already;
Ownership of alleyway - back gate of alleyway for sole use of number 8 and front
gate as access point to back door. Storage of bins there unacceptable and would
not be permitted. Would be enforced legally if necessary;
Disturbance of a late night take-away including leavers from nearby public houses
after 11pm;
Intention to open hearing clinic and relocate travel business to Wyndham Street at
number 8 and a kebab shop not the type of business that would encourage trade
during the daytime and encourage locals and holiday makers to frequent this part
of town;
Street is part residential;
Smell;
Litter. Waste with people eating in street and then having packaging to be
disposed of in the vicinity of the outlet. Fear that this would be left in street or
thrown onto residents property or placed in unlocked dustbins. Situation already
experienced which has forced them to make alternative arrangements in the past;
Nuisance, noise and anti-social behaviour. Centre of Sheringham already has
issues with noise and disturbances, largely unchecked. Often awoken at pub
closing time. Abusive language outside, fights and general bad behaviour as
drinkers make their way from the Crown through the alley past the Windham Arms
onto Wyndham Street and home and anything that may hold them in the area
longer than necessary would be hideous. Shouting and screaming. Aggressive
behaviour. Streetlight already seems to give pause to chat. Already sit on an
Development Committee
37
21 November 2013
objector's window ledges to make phone call and have drinks. Cigarette ends,
bottles and glasses left;
Proposed development would not benefit and improve what is a lovely seaside
town. Impact on ambience;
Location in a predominantly residential area occupied in the main by older people
as houses tend to be small and without gardens and parking;
Impact on resident's quality of life;
Increased competition would be detrimental to those already trading;
Important not to lose town centre community space;
Wyndham Street already blighted by noise and vermin problems from poorly run
licensed premises, illegal parking, especially outside Chinese take-away and tattoo
parlour and addition of another take-away would do little to improve situation;
Inappropriate use within residential area and Conservation Area.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: no objection subject to conditions:
Occupancy of the first floor flat shall only be undertaken by the operator or
employee of the business. Should this alter, then the applicant would need to
provide an acoustic report which specifies measures which would be taken in the
flat to prevent noise nuisance from the business below. Recommends other
conditions in respect of ventilation and extraction equipment.
Architectural Liaison Officer: No objections. The proposed opening / closing times are
suitable for this area. (Open to the public between 4.00 pm and 11.00 pm on any day).
County Council (Highways): Proposal would not affect the current traffic patterns. No
objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): No
objection in principle to the conversion, however note should be added to any
approval reminding the applicant that they may need separate applications for
advertisement consent.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues (see comment from
Architectural Liaison Officer).
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
38
21 November 2013
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Loss of community use / acceptability of A5 use
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Potential anti-social behaviour, noise and disturbance, safety concerns
4. Highway issues
APPRAISAL
The building fronts onto Wyndham Street.
The site is located in an area identified as Town Centre. The hall is not the last of its
kind within the area and, as such, there is not a policy objection to its loss under policy
CT3. On the basis that Policy SS5 of the adopted Core Strategy supports a broad
range of uses and a change of the use of the premises from D1 (community hall) to an
A5 (hot food take-away) and residential use above is acceptable in terms of adopted
Core Strategy policy.
The proposal is for the change of use of the unit. With the exception of ground floor
fenestration alterations and a flue, no material changes to the building are being
considered under this application. No advertisement details have been submitted as
part of this application. Any future applications for material changes or advertisements
would need to be considered on their merits and against relevant policies.
It is considered that the proposed development would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and would not harm the special qualities of the
area.
In terms of potential anti-social behaviour, littering, smell, noise and disturbance and
safety concerns, the Committee will note that both the Council's Environmental Health
team and the Architectural Liaison Officer have been consulted on the application. The
Council's Environmental Health team have considered the application and consider
that it is acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions. The Architectural Liaison
Officer has been consulted on the application and has not raised any objections.
It is considered that the requested Environmental Health conditions, requiring details
in respect of ventilation, extractor system and requiring the first floor flat being
occupied by the operator or employee of the business would help to limit the potential
for noise and odour concerns for immediate neighbours.
It is also proposed to limit the opening hours. Environmental Health and the
Architectural Liaison Officer (Police) have raised no objections.
Development Committee
39
21 November 2013
In the absence of Highway objections, it is considered that the proposed use of the
building as a take-away and flat above would be acceptable in terms of highway safety
and parking issues.
In summary, it is considered that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
the proposed development would be acceptable and compliant with the relevant Core
Strategy policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the
conditions attached below:
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plan (drawing
number PL 01 Rev B) received by the Local Planning Authority on 16
September 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The premises subject to this permission shall only be open to the public
between the hours of 4pm and 11pm on any day.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity
in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text and to protect
the character of the countryside in accordance with Policy SS 2 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
The first floor residential flat hereby approved shall be occupied by the
operator or employee and their dependents of the ground floor take-away only
and shall not at any time be occupied as a separate and un-associated unit of
accommodation.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity
in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5
Prior to the first use of the premises hereby permitted full details of any
proposed ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration or mechanical extractor
systems to be installed as part of the approved development, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
submitted details shall specify measures to control noise/dust/odour from the
equipment. The equipment shall be installed and maintained thereafter in full
accordance with the approved details (unless otherwise approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority).
Reason:
To control the noise, dust or odour emitted from the site in the interests of
residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the
explanatory text.
Development Committee
40
21 November 2013
6
Prior to the commencement of use of the ground floor take-away hereby
permitted a scheme for a kitchen extractor system shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme submitted
shall include measures to control noise and odour from the extractor system.
The scheme as approved shall be installed prior to the commencement of use
of the ground floor take-away and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To control the noise dust or odour emitted from the site in the interests of
residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the
explanatory text.
(8)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1035 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission ref:
12/0429 to permit permanent extension to opening hours to 12 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays (excluding religious/bank holidays); Zahras, 8A Station
Approach for Mr M Miah
Minor Development
- Target Date: 25 October 2013
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS:
Conservation Area
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT HISTORY:
PF/10/0639 PF - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A5 (hot food take-away)
Approved 17/09/2010
PF/10/1151 PF - Installation of extraction system
Approved 04/05/2011
PF/11/0753 PF - Erection of A1 (retail) unit, A5 (hot food take-away) unit, 2 B1
(offices) and 4 residential flats
Approved 08/09/2011
PF/11/0892 PF - Variation of condition 3 of permission reference 10/0639 to permit
extension of opening hours to 12.00 midnight on Fridays & Saturdays (excluding
religious holidays)
Refused 09/09/2011
PF/12/0429 PF - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission reference 10/0639
to permit extension of opening hours to 12.00 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays
(excluding religious bank holidays)
Approved 24/08/2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a variation of Condition 1 of planning permission reference PF/12/0429. The
variation to the condition would allow a permanent extension to opening hours to 12
midnight on Fridays and Saturdays (excluding religious/bank holidays)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE:
At the request of Councillors B. Hannah and R. Smith having regard to the following
issue:
Development Committee
41
21 November 2013
1) Policy EN4: The site is not in a suitable area for late night opening as it is close to
a residential area.
2) To prevent the proliferation of late night opening hours.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the application on the grounds that it is not sited in a suitable area for late
night opening and it is close to a residential area.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - No objection
Environmental Health - No objection
Norfolk Constabulary (Sheringham Safer Neighbourhood Team) - No objection subject
to conditions
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, (see Norfolk
Constabulary Comments).
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN13: Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation (minimise and where
possible reduce all emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise
pollution and ensure no deterioration in water quality).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Would the proposed change fail to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring
occupiers?
2) Would the proposed change be out of keeping with other similar businesses
operating in the area?
APPRAISAL
The principle of the premises being used as a take-away was established with the
granting of approval to planning application number PF/10/0639.
Development Committee
42
21 November 2013
In 2012 the applicant applied for an extension to the businesses opening hours.
Planning Application PF/12/0429 granted a one year temporary permission for the
business to remain open until 12 midnight on Friday and Saturday nights (excluding
religious/bank holidays).
The current application seeks a variation to Condition No 1 of PF/12/0429, to enable a
permanent extension to the opening hours to 12 midnight on Friday and Saturdays
(excluding religious/bank holidays).
It is this which is to be considered against North Norfolk Local Development
Framework Core Strategy Policy EN4 and EN13
Policy EN4 requires that a proposal should demonstrate that it should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
Policy EN13 requires that a proposal should demonstrate that it should not result in an
increase in pollution hazards including noise and light pollution.
The granting of temporary permission was to enable Environmental Health and other
relevant agencies an opportunity to monitor any noise, light pollution or disturbance
issues which may have arisen as a result of the extended opening hours. To date,
neither Environmental Health nor Norfolk Constabulary have received any complaints
regarding disturbance, noise, light pollution, antisocial behaviour and/or any increase
in crime as a result of the extended opening hours. The business is located within
Sheringham's town centre conservation area and primary shopping area where a
similar business (Sheringham Fish Bar and Kebab Delight) is open until 1:00am on
Friday and Saturday nights. Furthermore, the business is not located within a
designated residential area.
Given the lack of evidence to the contrary the proposal is considered to be in
compliance with Policy EN4 and EN13 of the adopted Core Strategy and is
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
(9)
STALHAM - PF/13/1117 - Variation of Conditions 25 & 27 of planning permission
reference: 12/1427 to enable variations to sustainability and energy
requirements, by insertion of the wording "Unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority...." at the beginning of each condition; Land off
Yarmouth Road for Hopkins Homes Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 17 December 2013
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Mixed Use Allocation
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/12/1427 PF - Mixed use development comprising 150 dwellings, B1 (a - c)
employment buildings (3150sqm), public open space, landscaping and associated
highways and drainage infrastructure
Approved 20/03/2013
Development Committee
43
21 November 2013
PF/13/0731 PF - Removal of Conditions 25 & 27 (sustainable construction and
renewable energy requirements) of planning permission ref:12/1427 (150 dwellings,
employment buildings and public open space)
Withdrawn by Applicant 21/08/2013
THE APPLICATION
To vary the wording of conditions 25 & 27 of planning permission ref: 12/1427 in order
to seek flexibility in their respective requirements by inserting the wording "Unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority" at the beginning of each
condition.
In their existing form the conditions read as follows:
25) No development shall commence until details have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the proposed
dwellings will achieve a minimum Code Level 3 rating in accordance with the
requirements of the "Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide" or the equivalent
standard in any replacement guidance. The agreed details shall thereafter be
implemented within the construction of the development unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. A Final Code Certificate for each dwelling
certifying that Code Level 3 or above has been achieved for that dwelling shall be
issued and submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of completion of
the last dwelling.
27) At least 20% of the energy required by the development shall be secured from
decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources, as outlined in the Energy
Assessment – Revision A submitted with the application. Prior to the commencement
of construction, full details of how this is to be achieved, including details of physical
works on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in the construction unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The reason given for both conditions is as follows:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable development in
accordance with Policy EN6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Stevens having regard to the following planning issue:
The application risks a dangerous precedent.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects. Supports the District Council decision to apply the conditions as in the
original permission and the standards implied by them.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
44
21 November 2013
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
EN 6 - Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Potential relaxation of adopted Core Strategy requirements in respect of sustainable
construction and renewable energy.
APPRAISAL
The background to this application is that the applicants (Hopkins Homes) have
separately applied to the Council under the recently introduced Housing Incentive
Scheme (approved by Full Council in July this year). Under that scheme they have
applied to amend the terms of their current planning permission (ref: 12/1427) to allow
a reduction in the amount of affordable housing to be provided (from 45% to 21%) and
a relaxation of the renewable energy and code level requirements, in exchange for a
commitment to complete 20 dwellings within 18 months. This would be secured by
means of a revised S.106 Obligation, whereby the 18 month build period would begin
from the date of completion of the Obligation. Because the renewable energy and
code level requirements are conditions of the planning permission to develop the site,
there is also the need to apply under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning
Act to vary the these conditions, hence this application.
In the event of the revised S.106 Obligation being completed and this planning
application being approved, Hopkins Homes would subsequently need to write to the
Council to request the development is undertaken without the renewable energy and
code level requirements (which the amended wording of the conditions would allow
the Council to agree to). Any such agreement by the Council would be that the
development could proceed on that basis provided that the initial part of the
development is complied with in accordance with the S.106 Obligation (i.e.20
dwellings completed in 18 months) . It would be made clear that in the event of the
terms of the Obligation not being met, the remaining part of the development shall be
constructed in accordance with the requirements of the two conditions.
The implication of approving this application is that the Council is prepared to concede
the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN6 in the case of this major residential
development. However such a concession has been accepted in principle by the
Council through the introduction of the Housing Incentive Scheme and any agreement
to relax the requirements of these conditions would only be in accordance with a
S.106 Obligation pursuant to the Scheme. Accordingly approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
conditions:
1
Approve, subject to the imposition of the following
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no
development shall commence until details have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the
proposed dwellings will achieve a minimum Code Level 3 rating in accordance
with the requirements of the "Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide"
or the equivalent standard in any replacement guidance. The agreed details
shall thereafter be implemented within the construction of the development
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A Final
Code Certificate for each dwelling certifying that Code Level 3 or above has
been achieved for that dwelling shall be issued and submitted to the Local
Planning Authority within 3 months of completion of the last dwelling.
Development Committee
45
21 November 2013
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable development in
accordance with Policy EN6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority at least
20% of the energy required by the development shall be secured from
decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources, as outlined in the
Energy Assessment – Revision A submitted with the application. Prior to the
commencement of construction, full details of how this is to be achieved,
including details of physical works on site, shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be
implemented in the construction unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable development in
accordance with Policy EN6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(10) WEST BECKHAM - PF/13/0989 - Conversion of garage to crab processing
facility; Fairfields, Sheringham Road for Mr K Bishop
Minor Development
- Target Date: 25 October 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/13/0078 ENQ - Alteration of Garage to Crab Processing Room
14/06/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to convert a garage to a crab processing facility.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold, having regard to the following issue:
Impact on neighbouring properties.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects. As they have insufficient information. No indication of the scale of the
operation or the number of employees. Concerns regarding smell in a residential area.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received to date.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: no objection subject to the following conditions:
Prior to the first use of the premises hereby permitted, full details of any ventilation,
air conditioning, refrigeration or mechanical extraction systems to be installed as
part of the approved development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall specify measures to
control noise and odour from the equipment. The use of the premises hereby
Development Committee
46
21 November 2013
permitted shall not be commenced until such time as the equipment has been
installed in full accordance with the approved details (unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority). The equipment shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved details thereafter.
Prior to the first use of the premises herby permitted details of the proposed
means of waste disposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Waste disposal shall thereafter be undertaken in
accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
County Council (Highways):
I would have no concerns with the applicant utilising this for their own use and I
consider that this would be unlikely to generate any additional vehicle movements
over the unmade shared access which has restricted visibility to the north due to the
neighbours frontage hedging. However I would have serious concerns should the
applicant require additional staff to operate as this would intensify the use of the
substandard access arrangements which would be considered to be detrimental to
highway safety.
Subject to a suitable condition for personal use to ensure that intensification of use of
the access through further employment does not take place, I would not resist this
development.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council‟s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
3. Highway issues
Development Committee
47
21 November 2013
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a designated Countryside Area (Policy SS2), where the re-use of
buildings for economic uses are considered to be acceptable in principle, providing
they are appropriate in scale and nature to the location, it can be demonstrated that
the building is soundly built and suitable for the proposed use without substantial rebuilding or extension, and subject to the proposal being in accordance with policies
seeking to protect biodiversity, amenity and character of the area.
It would appear that the garage is of sound construction and capable of being
converted without substantial rebuild or extension. No external changes have been
proposed as part of this application.
In terms of potential impact on neighbouring dwellings, the Committee will note that
the Council's Environmental Health team have been consulted on the application.
They have no objections subject to the imposition of conditions.
It is considered that the requested Environmental Health conditions would help to limit
the potential for noise and odour nuisance. In the absence of objections raised by
Environmental Health, it is not considered that the application could be refused on
these grounds.
Officers have considered the possibility of a temporary approval, however, it is
understood from the Economic & Tourism Development Manager that this is would not
be feasible as the applicant is applying for a grant for the proposed development
which requires the applicant to produce evidence that the necessary planning
permission for the change of use has been obtained. It is understood that a temporary
permission would not be sufficient to back this case for grant support because the
scheme only funds projects that can demonstrate a period of sustainable trading
beyond initial capitalisation. This period would notionally be between 3 and 7 years in
duration. It is also recognised that conditions to limit hours of use would not be
appropriate, due to the nature of the business.
Should any future issues arise in the form of noise or odour complaints, however, then
the Council's Environmental Protection Team would have the ability to deal with them
with under the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
In the absence of Highway objections and subject to a condition limiting the
development to personal use to ensure that intensification of use of the access
through further employment does not take place, it is considered that the proposed
use of the building would be in accordance with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including the
below:
2
This permission shall enure for the benefit of Mr Keith Bishop only and should
this named person cease to occupy the premises, the approved use shall be
discontinued.
Reason:
The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over the use of the
former garage, in the interests of the residential amenities of the area and
highway safety in accordance with Policies EN4 and CT5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
48
21 November 2013
3
Prior to the first use of the premises hereby permitted full details of any
proposed ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration or mechanical extractor
systems to be installed as part of the approved development, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
submitted details shall specify measures to control noise and odour from the
equipment. The equipment shall then be installed prior to the first use of the
premises as a crab processing facility and maintained thereafter in full
accordance with the approved details (unless otherwise approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority).
Reason:
To control the noise, dust or odour emitted from the site in the interests of
residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the
explanatory text.
4
Prior to the first use of the crab processing facility hereby permitted details of
the proposed means of waste disposal shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Waste disposal shall thereafter be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To protect nearby residents from smell and airborne pollution in accordance
with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
The below informative notes would also be added:
11.
1.
The applicant is reminded that this permission is a personal permission only, and
does not permit the employment of staff which may require additional planning
permission.
2.
The applicant is asked to note that any complaints subsequently received by
Environmental Health in relation to noise/odour etc will be investigated through the
Statutory Nuisance legislation process.
3.
The Local Planning Authority considers that it has worked positively and proactively
with the applicant to secure a policy compliant proposal that has been determined in
the wider public interest at the earliest reasonable opportunity.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
Development Committee
49
21 November 2013
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/1220 - Change of use of land to caravan park for 134
static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area; land south of North
Walsham Road for Happisburgh Estates
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
WEST RAYNHAM – PF/13/1166 – Installation of 49.9MW solar farm with plant
housing and perimeter fence for Good Energy West Raynham Airfield Solar
Park (030) Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
WEYBOURNE – PF/13/1067 – Erection of single-storey dwelling and attached
double garage to 25 Pine Walk; 25 Pine Walk for Mr T McCarthy
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Young to allow the Committee to see the site in context in order
to expedite the processing of the application .
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
12.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
July to September 2013, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 2) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the second quarter of 2013/14.
Eight major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 103 minor
applications and 201 other applications, a total of 312 applications, a decrease of 47
compared with the previous quarter.
Members will recall from the discussion at the January Development Committee
meeting the strenuous efforts being made to determine planning applications more
quickly in the light of the possibility of „special measures‟ sanctions being introduced
by the Government under its open „Planning Performance and Planning Guarantee‟
proposals, which were the subject of consultation at the end of 2012.
The most recent quarter saw 7 of the 8 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, ie 87.50%. The cumulative figure for 2013/14 is 68.75%
comfortably above the 30% figures mooted for special measures in the consultation
paper.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance decreased by some 1.67% to 33.01%
over the previous quarter, as against the Council‟s target of 72%.
Development Committee
50
21 November 2013
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance decreased by 0.62% to
52.24%, again below the Council‟s target of 80%.
Although performance remained below the Council‟s targets over the quarter, and the
total number of applications determined dropped by 47. Members will appreciate that
this quarter includes the main holiday period.
Table 1B indicates the workload for the Service during the quarter and shows that
375 applications were submitted, 18 less than the previous quarter, and some 63
more than the number determined. During this quarter the Service has continued to
struggle to keep pace with incoming work for Planning Applications.
Pre-application enquiries also decreased during the quarter, as did Discharge of
Condition applications. „Do I Need Planning Permission” and Duty Officer Enquiries
went up.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went down to 91.66%, and
remains above the Council‟s target.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 4
decisions were made, 3 dismissed and 1 allowed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 643 were submitted and handled during
the quarter, an increase of 93 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the second quarter of the year has seen 87.50% of major applications
determined within the statutory time scale. The other levels of performance remain
broadly the same, although fewer applications were determined during the quarter
than the previous quarter.
In order to address the workload/performance issues in the short term, we have
successfully recruited 2 new temporary members of staff who started in mid-August
and the first week in September. Whilst it will clearly take a little time for those
inexperienced members of staff to get up to speed however the service is now better
placed to move forward on improving performance in particular on the “minor” and
“other” applications. This has already been reflected in improved performance in
these areas during October.
(13) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/13/0923 - Construction of rear balcony with external
staircase; Beechwood, Goose Lane for Mrs E Parry
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0862 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Street
Farm Barn, The Street for Mr G Clarke
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/1031 - Erection of first floor rear extension and raising
of conservatory roof; The Orchard, Sheringwood for Mr C Wooley
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
51
21 November 2013
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0705 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; The Old
Rectory, 6 Wiveton Road for Mr I Smedley
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/13/0706 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
dwelling; The Old Rectory, 6 Wiveton Road for Mr I Smedley
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - LA/13/1066 - Removal of two external doors and window on front
elevation and installation of door; 93 High Street for Mr and Mrs D Burlison
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1089 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission ref:
13/0411 to permit change of brick type; Land adjacent Sedges, Back Lane for
Mrs S Fardell
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/12/0793 - Non material amendment request to permit revised
external appearance of extension and revised fenestration; Westrop,
Saxlingham Road for Mr N Shelton
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BRINTON - PF/13/1073 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The School
House, Stody Road for Mr & Mrs Bishop
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/13/1107 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 32 Mill Road
for Mr C Matthews
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/13/1050 - Erection of livestock building; White House Farm,
Limes Road for Jocelyn B Gardiner
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/13/0619 - Non material amendment request to
permit revised design and materials to rear conservatory; North Light, Hilltop
for Mr & Mrs Gillmore
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
COLBY - NMA1/13/0029 - Non material amendment request for revised roof
arrangement and design of conservatory; The Crown Inn, Colby Road,
Banningham for The Crown Inn
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PO/13/1057 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of two
semi-detached dwellings; 111 Station Road for Mr C Johnson
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0999 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0344 to permit extension of garage including raising the height;
Lime Tree Lodge, 1A Orchard Close for Mr J Hammond
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
52
21 November 2013
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1036 - Erection of 2m high boundary fence; 4A Driftlands for
Mr D Rokoszny
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/12/1316 - Non material amendment request to permit
change to first floor doors to window to rear elevation, installation of windows
to rear gable and side elevation and use of aluminium framed windows and
doors in place of timber; 2 Willow Grove for Mr & Mrs J Murfitt
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1095 - Erection of building for B1 (business)/B2 (general
industrial)/B8 (storage) use; Land rear of 11 George Edwards Road for James
Hay Pension Trustees
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/13/1148 - Installation of replacement handrail and access gate
to boiler house steps; Barons Hall Flats, Hall Close for Victory Housing Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
FULMODESTON - PF/13/1075 - Erection of first floor side extension and twostorey rear extension; The Cottage, Croxton Road, Croxton for Dr B Coghill
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/13/0846 - Installation of buried electrical cable system
(revised route); Land at Clipstone Farm for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - PF/13/0479 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey extensions,
alterations to barn, erection of cart shed and erection of walls and gates; Bale
Hall, Field Dalling Road, Bale for Mr N Newbury
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - LA/13/0480 - Internal alterations, demolition of lean-to extension
and outbuildings, erection of two-storey/single-storey extensions and
alterations including replacement windows, alterations to windows, doors and
dormer windows and alterations and extension to barn and erection of walls
and gates; Bale Hall, Field Dalling Road, Bale for Mr N Newbury
(Listed Building Alterations)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/13/1146 - Conversion of ground floor of outbuilding to
residential annexe and retention of first floor games room/store; Selbrigg Farm,
Kelling Road for Mr F Feilden
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/12/1365 - Conversion of barns to two residential dwellings;
Brightmere Farm, Stalham Road for Mr H Mills
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/1088 - Erection of single-storey front and rear
extensions; Sunflowers, 45 Pineheath Road for Mr & Mrs G Dawes
(Householder application)
Development Committee
53
21 November 2013
HOLKHAM - PF/13/1085 - Conversion and extension of A1 (retail shop) to
provide hotel accommodation; The Ancient House, Main Road for The Holkham
Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLKHAM - LA/13/1086 - Internal alterations to facilitate conversion to hotel
accommodation; The Ancient House, Main Road for The Holkham Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/13/1140 - Construction of side facing dormer window to facilitate
conversion of loft to habitable accommodation; 12 Town Close for Mr & Mrs D
Gardner
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/13/1008 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Church Farm
Barns, adjacent Church Farm, Town Road for Mr & Mrs D Ames
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/13/1000 - Conversion of roof-space into two letting rooms with
en-suite; Pheasant Hotel, Weybourne Road for Pheasant Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/13/1026 - Creation of 20 hard standings (former rally field Area A)
for the siting of 20 woodland lodges with associated access and infrastructure.
Demolition of chicken sheds (Area B), change of use of land and creation of
hard standings for the siting of 17 static caravans with associated access and
infrastructure.; Kelling Heath Holiday Park, Sandy Hill Lane for Timewell
Properties T/A Kelling Heath Holiday Park
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - NMA1/12/1133 - Non material request to permit re-location
and larger sized modular classroom; Little Snoring Pre-school, Stevens Road
for Little Snoring Pre-School
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/13/0090 - Conversion of dwelling to two selfcontained flats; 14 Melton Street for Melbobby Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/12/1448 - Non material amendment request to permit
revised roof to side extension; 12 Lime Tree Road for Mr & Mrs Thurston
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1161 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension; 13 Millfield Road for Mr & Ms Beauchamp & Cox
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1040 - Erection of detached garage; 41 Happisburgh
Road for Mr and Mrs Dank
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/1047 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Holmwood, Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Bentley
(Householder application)
Development Committee
54
21 November 2013
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/0864 - Conversion of redundant dwellings to residential
dwelling and formation of vehicular access; 23/24 Church Street for
Christchurch Property Company Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/0972 - Installation of CCTV system; Manor Farm,
Crossdale Street for Oskomera Solar Power Solutions
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/0964 - Formation of vehicular access and driveway to
serve airfield, 1-3 Winspurs Cottages and residential barn conversion units;
Winspurs Farm, North Walsham Road for Mr C Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - NMA1/12/0816 - Non material amendment request to permit
variations to solar photovoltaic generating facility; Manor Farm, Crossdale
Street for Hazel Capital LLP
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/13/0976 - Erection of agricultural building; Five Acres,
Marsh Road for Mr H Munday
(Full Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/13/1152 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2
Woodbine Close for Mr P Cooper
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PO/13/0712 - Demolition of motor vehicle service station and
erection of eight dwellings; Roughton Motor Co, Chapel Road for Tooley
Investments
(Outline Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/13/1081 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Cart Lodge
Barn, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs P Robinson
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - LA/13/1082 - Alterations to facilitate erection of rear extension;
Cart Lodge Barn, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs P Robinson
(Listed Building Alterations)
ROUGHTON - NMA1/13/0496 - Non material amendment request to permit relocation of reception area to approved integral double garage, erection of
detached double garage, and revised fenestration; Six Acres Caravan Site,
Norwich Road for Six Acres Caravan Park
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RUNTON - PF/13/0952 - Variation of Condition 2, 4 & 5 of planning permission
reference: 12/1196 to permit omission of cladding, bricking-up of window
openings, installation of drip mouldings, erection of covered way over French
doors and installation of flue rear roof slope.; 2 Garden Cottages, Sandy Lane,
West Runton for Mrs S Brocklehurst
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
55
21 November 2013
RUNTON - PF/13/1135 - Extension of opening period to permit use of camping,
touring, static holiday homes and ancillary facilities from 28 February to the
following 14 January; Wood Hill Caravan Park, Cromer Road, East Runton for
Timewell Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/13/0994 - Retention of replacement garage/workshop; Victoria
Cottage, Purdy Street for Mr M Turville-Petre
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/13/1127 - Erection of cart shed/garage with storage area
above; Idle Days Barn, 4 Bard Hill Barns, Purdy Street for Mr K West
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PU/13/0993 - Notification of intention to change the use from B1
(office) to C3 (residential dwelling); Malvern House, 26 Church Street for Glen
Holmes Builders Ltd
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1072 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 1
Garden Road for Mrs R Pointon
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0815 - Erection of 2 two and a half storey dwellings; Land
at Abbey Road for Mr A D Clark
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1038 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 18
Augusta Street for Mr N Pegge
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1041 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and
first floor rear extension; 5A Montague Road for Mr T Claydon
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1046 - Erection of single-storey rear conservatory; 16 The
Driftway for Mr Richards
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/13/0662 - Non material amendment request to retain
revised location of rear conservatory; 16 South Street for Mr B Farrow
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/13/0475 - Non material amendment request to permit
change of pantiles to slate tiles to roof of proposed rear single-storey
extension; Greystoke, 42 St Josephs Road for Mr P Leonidas
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SLOLEY - PF/13/0870 - Erection of cart lodge; Aintree Cottage, Low Street for Mr
S Day
(Householder application)
Development Committee
56
21 November 2013
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/1137 - Erection of replacement garage; Monifieth, Crown
Loke for Mr A Morris
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/1090 - Erection of side extension to provide garden store
with parking area above; 6 Chapel Road for Mrs C Wooldridge
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/1131 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension; Welland House, Lower Street for Mr & Mrs J Dowland
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - LA/13/1012 - Installation of conservation roof light to side elevation
roof slope; 13 Bridge Street for Ms F Sparrow
(Listed Building Alterations)
STIFFKEY - PF/13/1043 - Installation of roof light; 13 Bridge Street for Ms F
Sparrow
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/13/0845 - Installation of buried electrical cable system
(revision to part of the previously approved route); Land at Station Farm,
Fakenham Road for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1106 - Change of use from a mixed use of (residential)
and A1 (retail) to C3 residential; Post Office, 31 High Street for Mrs M Strickland
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0788 - Change of use of ground floor from A1
(retail) to A5 (hot food take-away); 8 Freeman Street for Mr I Hodgkinson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0709 - Conversion of ground floor to a mixed
use of A1 (retail) and B1 (office)and erection of ground floor and first floor
extensions to provide residential flat and additional retail floor area and
installation of first-floor side window; 8 and 10 Freeman Street for Mr
Hodgkinson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/1123 - Internal alterations to ground floor and
installation of doors to bin store and side fire escape; Globe Inn, The Buttlands
for Mr S Bournes
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - LA/13/0907 - Removal of conservatory and erection of garden room;
Church Barn, Happisburgh Road, Ridlington for Mr A Perryman
(Listed Building Alterations)
WIVETON - PF/13/1004 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide
habitable accommodation, erection of front porch and porch/verandah,
construction of chimney stack and installation of 2 side facing rooflights; Well
House, The Street for Mr S Burgess
(Householder application)
Development Committee
57
21 November 2013
(14) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - PF/13/0980 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to create selfcontained annexe; Pine View, Gloucester Place for Mr K Graves
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/13/1092 - Conversion of loft to residential flat including
construction of front and rear dormer windows; 32 Cabbell Road for Mr A Priest
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
(15)
NEW APPEALS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0687 - Erection of 0.9m high picket fence; 59 Priory
Close for Mr P Farquharson
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane for Mr T Field
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0171 - Removal of wall to provide vehicular access and
erection of flood defence walls; South Granary, 9 The Quay for Mr Meddle
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
(16)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road,
for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for McCarthy
and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
(17) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/0135 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extension; Greenside, The Green for Mr P Clark
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0171 - Removal of wall to provide vehicular access and
erection of flood defence walls; South Granary, 9 The Quay for Mr Meddle
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1219 - Erection of two-storey replacement
dwelling and detached studio/annexe; Arcady, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M Warren
Development Committee
58
21 November 2013
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31 Norwich
Road for The Royal British Legion
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
SITE VISIT:- 18 October 2013
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
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
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0961 - Conversion of agricultural storage building to
residential dwelling; The Old Pavilion, Old Playing Field, Waxham Road for Mr P
Brown
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
SITE VISIT:- 23 September 2013
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1419 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0874 to permit installation of opening lights in glazed screen; Barn
3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1330 - Retention of extension to terrace, installation of
steps and raise height of restaurant extension roof; The White Lady, Front
Street for Mr D Gilligan
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
(18) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a twostorey dwelling; the application had been recommended for approval by Officers.
The Inspector determined that the main issue was the effect of the proposed
development on the character and appearance of the area. He noted that the
proposed dwelling would occupy a narrower plot than neighbouring properties and
would appear cramped and out of place. The proposal would therefore conflict with
policy EN4 of the Council‟s Core Strategy.
The Inspector also noted local concerns about the likely effects of the proposed
dwelling on the living conditions of neighbours (privacy and loss of light) but concluded
that unacceptable harm would not result.
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal for the reasons stated above.
Development Committee
59
21 November 2013
(19) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Matthew Champion v North Norfolk District Council and others (Crisp Maltings,
Great Ryburgh)
Court of Appeal refs 2013/1410 and 2013/1418
The Council‟s decision to grant planning permission (reference PF/09/0966) for grain
silos, a lorry park and associated development at Crisp Maltings‟ site in Great Ryburgh
was quashed by the High Court (R. (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council [2013]
EWHC 1065). The judgment was given by James Dingemans QC sitting as a Deputy
Judge of the High Court on 7 May 2013.
Leave to appeal the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal has been
granted and the appeal is listed for hearing on 26 or 27 November (the date will be
confirmed shortly before the hearing).
North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (1) and David Mack (2)
Planning application PF/11/0983 for the proposed erection of a wind turbine, maximum
hub height 60m and maximum tip height 86.5m and associated infrastructure was
refused by the District Council on 30 August 2012. That decision was the subject of an
appeal to the Secretary of State and the Inspector, Mr Alan Novitzky, allowed the
appeal and granted permission for the proposed turbine. The appeal decision letter
was issued on 8 April 2013 (reference APP/Y2620/A/12/2184043).
The Council has initiated a legal challenge against the Inspector‟s decision under
section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This matter is listed for
hearing in the High Court on 22 January 2014.
Development Committee
60
21 November 2013