OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21 OCTOBER 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
To advise the Committee of the recommended approach to the adoption of the
Site Specific Proposals and Re-use of Rural Buildings as Dwellings Development
Plans and to agree the process for determining planning applications which are ‘on
hand’ in the period before and after formal plan adoption.
Purpose
This report outlines the likely timetable for adoption of the North Norfolk Site Specific
Proposals and Re-use of Rural Buildings Development Plans and the approach to
the determination of planning applications to ensure a fair and smooth transition to
the new policies.
Background
The public hearing sessions in relation to both Development Plan documents finished
in August 2010. The examination phase of Plan preparation remains open until the
Inspector delivers his binding report and it remains possible for the Inspector to
require that the Local Authority undertakes additional consultation in respect of
particular issues or re-opens the hearing sessions to allow further submissions to be
heard.
The Inspector has indicated that his binding reports will be sent to the Council
towards the end of November and Officers consider that it is now unlikely that
additional consultation will be required. The Council will initially receive a draft reports
for ‘fact checking’. The Regulations require that this fact check must be completed
within two weeks, during which time the Inspector’s reports are not publicly available.
Once any factual changes have been made the Inspector will send final binding
reports following which the Authority must adopt the new Development Plan
Documents as soon as it is practicable to do so.
Contingent upon receipt of the Inspector’s binding reports at the end of November,
and a decision that the Plans are ‘sound’ without the need to make significant
changes, it is currently anticipated that final documentation will be produced to allow
for formal adoption of both Plans by the Council at the end of February 2011.
Likely adoption timetable.
Date
Action
End of
First draft reports received from Government Office for factual
November
checks.
Early December
Respond to draft reports if necessary requesting changes to
final documentation.(factual errors only)
Late December
Receipt of final binding reports from Government Office.
February
Both documents formally adopted by Council.
Council Meeting.
Development Control Committee
1
21 October 2010
Determination of Planning Applications
The adoption of the new Plans, particularly in relation to the residential re-use of rural
buildings as dwellings, will result in a different policy approach. In the main the new
policy provides a more permissive approach towards rural building conversions to
dwellings than has historically been the case, in that it will allow these to occur in a
broader range of locations. There will however be some limited circumstances where
permission may have been forthcoming under existing policy (saved Policy 29) but
would not comply with the proposed policy. For example, such a scenario would
occur in relation to the conversion of a building which would presently be compliant
with the requirements of saved Policy 29 of the Core Strategy because it lies
adjacent to a village development boundary but the same proposal would not comply
with the new Policy HO9 because the settlement in question does not retain a
development boundary under the Core Strategy.
It is desirable to agree a procedure stating how the Council intends to process
planning applications which are ‘on hand’ (undetermined) over the transitional period
between now and formal adoption of the new policies (and potentially for a short
period thereafter). This is because at the time of Plan adoption some applications
may have been with the Council to consider for some months and these applications
will be at various stages in the determination process. Such applications may be
awaiting a flood risk assessment, wildlife survey or other information necessary to
reach a decision or in some cases, the Council may already have resolved to grant
planning permission, subject to receipt of satisfactory additional information or the
completion of a legal agreement but a formal decision notice is yet to be issued. In
such cases the question arises – Would it be reasonable to determine the application
under the new policy and refuse permission when there was previously an
expectation, and a policy presumption, that the application would be granted
permission?
Once the revised policies have been adopted by Council they will comprise part of
the approved Development Plan, along with the Core Strategy. At that stage the
Planning Acts (Section 38(6) Planning and Compensation Act) require that decisions
should be reached in accordance with them, unless ‘material considerations’ suggest
otherwise. Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they
must be related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the
development and use of land in the public interest. There is no specific advice
relating to whether the timing of an application would normally be regarded as a
‘material consideration’. As a general rule it is considered that an applicant should
not be able to rely on an argument that had an application been made at an earlier
date when different policies were applicable the outcome on an application may have
been different. It is therefore considered that there should be a strong presumption
that decisions will be reached in accordance with the new policies once they are
adopted.
Nevertheless Officers consider that there may be exceptional circumstances where
the planning history of a site or the progress an application may have made through
the planning system could justify a departure from this general approach. This is only
likely to be applicable to a handful of proposals, but it is nevertheless important to
establish a clear position to ensure that a common approach is adopted.
In relation to rural building conversions to dwellings proposals which would not
comply with the new policy it is recommended that applications which are submitted
and registered prior to receipt of the Inspector’s report (second version following fact
check) should continue to be determined against the provisions of the existing Core
Strategy, notwithstanding that a final determination of the application could occur
some considerable time later and following adoption of the revised policies.
Development Control Committee
2
21 October 2010
Recommendation:
That rural building conversions to dwellings proposals which do not comply with
proposed Policy H09 but comply with existing Policy 29, and which are submitted and
registered prior to receipt of the Inspector’s report (second version following fact
check), will be determined against the provisions of Policy 29, notwithstanding that a
final determination of the application may occur following adoption of the revised
policies.
(Source: (Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager, Ext 6325))
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
BLAKENEY – Tree Preservation Order, Westrop, Saxlingham Road
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
Following suggestions by a member of the public that landscape trees (2 groups
totalling 21 Scots Pines) were under threat of being felled at Westrop, Saxlingham
Road, Blakeney the trees were assessed. This confirmed that they had high amenity
value and contributed to the landscape of the area. The Local Development
Framework Landscape Character Assessment recognises that plantations and
woodlands are a key character of this part of the District and should be retained.
Pine trees of various species characterise the Cromer ridge. Policy EN2 of the North
Norfolk Core Strategy states that Landscape and Settlement Character should be
protected and enhanced. Accordingly a Tree Preservation Order was served on 17
June 2010.
Representations
Six letters supporting the TPO were received outlining the importance of the trees to
the Local landscape.
Two letters of objection were received from one resident (Appendix 1 ).
Blakeney Parish Council does not support the TPO (Appendix 1).
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individuals human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Appraisal
The resident at Westrop has objected to the TPO on the following grounds:
The trees do not stand out and provide a natural feature.
Development Control Committee
3
21 October 2010
Many are old and need replacing.
The trees are Pines and are not native to Norfolk.
The other trees along the southern boundary of the town should be protected not
these.
The order has been sought by one resident in the area.
They do not provide a wildlife corridor.
Pines are inappropriate for this area.
In response it is considered that the trees are an important natural feature and
therefore positive for wildlife and this is consistent with the five letters of support
received.
The TPO protects amenity and any trees that fail will be replaced to protect amenity.
The TPO does not prevent appropriate works to the trees.
The other trees along the boundary are not under threat so therefore it is
inappropriate to serve a TPO to protect them.
The TPO process does not consider if the trees are native or not. Scots Pines are a
natural feature in Norfolk and thrive in the sandy soils.
Main Issues for Consideration
Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the two groups of Scots Pine trees covered by the Order make
a significant contribution to the setting and character of the site and the surrounding
area.
Officers consider that the removal of the Scots Pine trees would be detrimental to the
amenity of the area.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed
Source: (Simon Case Landscape Officer Ext 6142 )
Development Control Committee
4
21 October 2010
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
BLAKENEY Tree Preservation Order 10 818, Pinewood, Saxlingham Road
Whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Background
The Landscape Section was consulted regarding a pre planning application enquiry
to build dwellings at Pinewood, Saxlingham Road, Blakeney. That development
would result in the loss of a small wooded area and therefore advised that the
development was inappropriate and if the wooded area was under threat that a Tree
Preservation Order would be served to protect amenity.
Some months later contractors contacted the Landscape Section to check
constraints on the property and raise concern at possible loss of significant trees. An
assessment of the wooded area confirmed that it had high amenity value and
contributed to the landscape of the area. The Local Development Framework
Landscape Character Assessment recognises that plantations and woodlands are a
key character of this part of the District and should be retained. Pine woodlands of
various species characterise the Cromer ridge. Policy EN2 of the North Norfolk Core
Strategy states that Landscape and Settlement Character should be protected and
enhanced. Accordingly a TPO was served on 22nd June 2010.
Representations
Two letters supporting the Order have been received outlining the importance of the
trees to the local landscape.
Four letters of objection were received, three of these from one resident (Appendix
2).
Blakeney Parish Council does not support the TPO (Appendix 2).
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individuals human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Appraisal
The objections to the TPO are on the following grounds:
The trees do not stand out and provide a natural feature.
Many are old and need replacing and will prevent gardening.
The trees are Pines and are not native to Norfolk.
The order has been sought by one resident in the area.
Pines are inappropriate for this area.
Development Control Committee
5
21 October 2010
In response it is considered that the trees are an important natural feature and
therefore positive for wildlife and this is consistent with the letters of support received.
The TPO protects amenity and any trees that fail will be replaced to protect amenity.
The TPO does not prevent appropriate works to the trees including thinning.
The TPO process does not consider if the trees are native or not. Scots Pines are a
natural feature in Norfolk and thrive in the sandy soils.
Main Issues for Consideration
Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the woodland covered by the Order make a significant
contribution to the setting and character of the site and the surrounding area and that
the removal of the trees would be detrimental to the amenity of the area.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed
(Source: (Simon Case Landscape Officer Ext 6142 )
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
4.
NORTH WALSHAM - Enq/10/0187- The material change of use of former
Anglian Water Sewage Works
A report appraising Committee of the material change of use of the former Anglian
Water Sewage Works, to H.G.V. operating centre in association with waste transport
and the storage and distribution of portable toilets also the stationing of portable
buildings for offices in association with the business.
Relevant Planning History
19751251 Boiler and compressor house with associated sludge tanks and gas holder
for Anglian Water Authority. Approved, 11 Nov 1975
19820685 Prefabricated building to be used as mess room/changing room for
Anglian Water Authority. Approved 11 June 1982
19821509 erection of brick and tile mess room/ changing room/office/toilets for
Anglian Water Authority, Approved 12 November 1982
20061772 Highway Improvement Works including widening of access. Approved 16
Jan 2007
20081129 Conversion of Former Waste-water treatment plant to liquid waste transfer
station, (County ref. 20071011) Refused 20 October 2008. Appeal dismissed 7 Oct
2009
20081726 Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use for liquid Waste Operations
(County ref 2008/1018) not determined. Appeal withdrawn.
Development Control Committee
6
21 October 2010
Background
The site was formerly an Anglian Water Authority waste treatment site which was
fully operational until the mid 1990s. Following the cessation of these operations the
site was used until late 2001 to accommodate temporary offices, mess facilities and
as a storage area for engineers/contractors carrying out improvement works to the
Anglian Water site located on the other (north) side of Marshgate. The site was then
bought by HFS Property Ltd in June 2006. Following the granting of an operating
licence for 6 HGVs and planning permission for the widening of the access (ref.
20061772) HFS Liquid Waste Ltd moved onto site in November 2007. When HFS
Property Ltd bought the site there were already two portable buildings stationed on
the land and two more portable buildings plus a staff facility unit were brought onto
site in April 2007. Enviroco acquired HFS Liquid Waste Ltd on 1 May 2009 but the
site continues to belong to HFS Property Ltd.
Current Use
There are two businesses operating from the site, EnvirocoHFS and Broadland Toilet
Hire. The site is used for administration purposes and the offices are located in two
double storey portable buildings. The nature of the business is to collect liquid waste
from local households and businesses within the North Norfolk area. In conjunction
with this business 6 HGVs, 3 tanker trailers, 3 smaller jetting tankers and tractor units
operate from the site and are parked on site when not in use. No waste is stored in
static tanks or transferred in to static tanks on site. Two large static tanks were
transferred onto site in 2008 and continue to be stored on site but they are not in use.
Furthermore the Broadland Toilet Hire business stores portable toilets on the site.
When they are hired out the portable toilets are emptied on the building site or the
private property that they are stationed on and the waste is disposed of at an
approved site.
There are currently 13 full time staff and 1 part time administrator employed by
EnvirocoHFS Ltd and 3 full time staff and 1 part time staff employed by Broadland
Toilet Hire at the Marshgate site.
Consultation
Norfolk County Council, as Highway Authority considers the local highway network to
be totally unsuitable for any B1, B2, and B8 use. The problem with this site is keeping
traffic levels to an absolute minimum given the large size of the site and the amount
of land currently not in use.
Once any land use is established, stopping
intensification of use and thus volumes of traffic would be very difficult. Even nonHGV trucks will be obstructive of the highway as the road to the site is only single
carriageway and does not benefit from appropriately sited passing places.
Policies
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework Waste Site Allocations
Development Plan Document (Preferred Options)
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
CT5 The Transport Impact of New Development
Appraisal
The site lies in open countryside and was part of the Anglian Water waste treatment
plant, the remainder which is still in use on the opposite side of the road. The site is
separated from neighbouring agricultural land by mature trees and hedging. The site
is approximately 300m east of North Walsham ‘s development boundary within an
area of Countryside as designated in the Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
7
21 October 2010
Under the Norfolk Waste Plan 2000 the site is designated as a safeguarded waste
management facility and such a use would accord with Policy SS2. However, the use
of the site as a waste management facility falls within the responsibility of the County
Council and an application ref, 20081129 for the conversion of former waste water
treatment to liquid transfer station was refused and the subsequent appeal
dismissed. The designation of the site as a waste management facility is being
reviewed under the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework Waste Site
Allocations Development Plan Document (Preferred Options) 2009.
The current primary use of the site is a vehicle operating depot which is “sui generis”
in planning terms. The storage and distribution of portable toilets is a B8 use. The
office use in the portable buildings is ancillary to these uses and planning permission
is therefore required for the main uses. These businesses do not require a rural
location and do not accord with development allowed in the Countryside policy area
and as such are considered to be contrary to Policy SS2.
The site access, which was widened under planning permission 20061772, is onto
Marshgate, which is a narrow country lane which has a single carriageway with few
passing places and no pedestrian footway. Local residents have indicated that it is
frequented by dog walkers, horse riders, cyclists, schoolchildren and pedestrians
along at least part of its length. In dismissing the appeal against refusal of planning
permission for conversion of former waste-water treatment to liquid waste transfer
station the Inspector stated: “…Marshgate and some of the other lanes, such as
Anchor Road and Manor Road, are so unsuitable for HGVs that any increased usage
by these vehicles would unacceptably exacerbate the risk of danger to highway
users, particularly pedestrians. This is the case whether or not the application is
considered to represent a major waste development”. As such the development is
considered to be contrary to Policy CT5: The Transport Impact of New Development.
The B8 use consisting of the storage and distribution of portable toilets does not
currently involve the use of HGVs but the surrounding highway infrastructure is so
poor that it is considered that this use too would also be contrary to Policy CT5
insofar as the site is incapable of providing safe access to the highway network and
the traffic generated would be detrimental to highway safety.
When considering formal enforcement action, the Council has to be mindful of its
economic development role, especially in the current economic climate, and the
effect enforcement action would have on local businesses which employ a total of 16
full time and 2 part time staff.
The owner of the site has stated that a site within a designated employment area in
North Walsham to which the business may relocate and expand has been identified.
EnvirocoHFS Ltd who employ 13 people on the site have also stated their intention to
move away from the Marshgate site. They have been actively searching for
alternative sites and aim to have successfully relocated the business by the end of
2011. They have stated that it is extremely difficult to give an exact date as a large
degree of the decision making is outside their control.
It is proposed that the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) contact the
owner to give advice as to the suitability of the proposed site and what planning
permissions may be required. The owner of the site has also been advised by
officers to contact the Economic and Tourism Development Manager, who will be
Development Control Committee
8
21 October 2010
able to offer advice and assistance about other possible sites in the North Walsham
area to which the businesses may relocate.
Conclusion
The unauthorised development is contrary to Policy CT5 as the location of the site
served by very narrow lanes means it is incapable of being accessed safely along the
highway network and the traffic generated by the businesses is detrimental to
Highway safety. Furthermore the businesses do not require a rural location and do
not accord with development allowed in the Countryside policy area and as such the
development contrary to Policy SS2. For these reasons it is considered the
businesses cannot continue to operate from this site.
PPG 18: Enforcing Planning Control advises that where formal enforcement action is
likely to compel a business to relocate their activities the LPA should aim to agree on
a timetable for relocation which will minimise disruption to the business and, if
possible, avoid permanent loss of employment as a result of re location.
It is therefore recommended that an enforcement notice be served requiring the
mixed use of the site as an HGV operating centre and the B8 use of the storage and
distribution of portable toilets to cease, and require the removal of the large waste
storage tanks within 12 calendar months of the effective date of the Notice.
One of the double-storey blocks of portable buildings used for offices and staff
facilities is beyond the time limit allowed for enforcement action to be taken. The
portable buildings placed on the land in April 2007 are still within the 4 year time
scale and therefore could be the subject of a separate Enforcement Notice.
The use of the portable buildings for office staff and administration would cease with
the primary use. Therefore it is recommended that the portable buildings should be
removed from site rather than be left on site to deteriorate through disuse and
potentially being an eyesore.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the development to which this report relates has raised 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, the commencement of enforcement proceedings as
recommended is considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with
planning law.
Recommendation:1) That authority is given to the Head of Planning and Building Control to serve
an Enforcement Notice under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990, as amended, requiring the mixed use of the site as an HGV operating
centre and the B8 use for the storage and distribution of portable toilets to
cease and the large waste tanks stored on the site be removed within 12
months of the effective date of the Notice.
2) That authority is given to the Head of Planning and Building Control to serve
an Enforcement Notice under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning
Development Control Committee
9
21 October 2010
Act 1990, as amended, requiring the one two storey block of portable buildings
to be removed from site within 12 months of the effective date of the Notice.
Reason for the Notice:The unauthorised development is contrary to adopted Core Strategy Policy
CT5: The Transport Impact of New Development as the site is incapable of
providing safe access to the highway network due to the access being on to a
narrow country lane which is a single carriageway, with few passing places
and no pedestrian footpath. The surrounding highway network is so unsuitable
that any increased usage by vehicles would unacceptably exacerbate the risk
of danger to highway users, particularly pedestrians.
Furthermore the development is contrary to adopted Core Strategy Policy SS2:
Development in the Countryside, since the HGV operating centre and the
storage and distribution of portable toilets do not require a rural location and
do not fall within development permitted in the Countryside policy area.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
5.
SHERINGHAM : Land to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill Road
This report concerns the alterations to ground level on land to the rear of 20 Hooks
Hill Road Sheringham
Background
This enforcement case relates to a site upon which two detached single storey
dwellings have been constructed under planning permission 20051110. The
dwellings have been completed but are not occupied. A complaint has been received
in respect of loss of vegetation, damage to a fence and changes to ground levels.
Topographically the site is located on a downward slope from southeast to northwest
from Hooks Hill Road to Holt Road, Sheringham. There is also an incline running
across the site from northeast to southwest. The site is surrounded on all boundaries
by existing dwellings.
The matter was reported to the meeting on the 8 July 2010 when the Committee
resolved to visit the site. Following that site visit the Committee resolved on 29 July
2010 that it was minded to serve an Enforcement Notice to require the previous
ground levels to be restored along the boundary unless successful negotiations took
place for the continuation of the retaining wall along both plots, the wall to be bricked
faced with appropriate red bricks and a 1.8m fence erected along the entire length of
both plots within 3 months of the date of this decision.
Representations
Subsequent to the Committee resolution on 29 July 2010 a letter has been received
from solicitors acting on behalf of neighbouring residents whose property adjoins the
northwest boundary and is attached as Appendix 3.
Following meetings with the developer and his agent a letter and plan has also been
received from the agent acting on behalf of the developer and is attached at
Appendix 3.
Development Control Committee
10
21 October 2010
Enforcement History
The original complaint to planning enforcement was as follows:
A substantial part of a double hedge along the northwest boundary of the
development site and 9 B Holt Road has been removed and caused serious damage
to a fence. Furthermore the developer had trespassed onto the neighbours land.
The solicitors acting on behalf the complainant stated they required the construction
of a retaining wall of 1.8 metres at least one metre back from the wooden fence line.
Furthermore they required shrubs to be planted within their client’s hedge line and
the fence to be replaced.
The alleged damage to the fence, the removal of shrubs and trees and the trespass
onto, and ownership of land are all civil matters. In response to the enforcement
complaint the developer was contacted and erroneously advised that planning
application 20051110 for the erection of two detached dwellings required a minimum
215mm thick brick retaining wall capped with engineering bricks at 1.8m in height to
be constructed along the northwest boundary. In fact, on detailed examination, the
retaining wall marked on the approved plans related to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill
Road, Sheringham and not to the rear of the development.
On 4 November 2009 the complainants were advised that there was no breach of
planning control relating to the development granted permission under reference
20051110 for the erection of two detached single storey dwellings. Furthermore there
was no condition requiring the construction of a wall along the northwest boundary.
Policies
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008)
Policy EN4: Design, which requires development not to have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers and to respect the
character and landscape of the surrounding area.
Appraisal
As previously stated there is no breach of planning control in relation to planning
permission reference 20051110. The damage to the fence, the removal of the shrubs
and trees, the issue over land ownership and trespass do not represent a breach of
planning control. No boundary treatments apart from the wall to be constructed to
the rear of 20 Hooks Hill Sheringham were specified on the planning permission.
Planning permission is not required for the construction of a wall or fence as it is
permitted development under the Town and Country (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 Part 2 Class A.
However, it is clear that there has been re modelling of the ground levels on this site
due to excavation and redistribution of the soil. It is estimated that the ground level
along the northwest boundary has been raised by between 0.4 and 0.9m. As such
this comprises operational development requiring permission. The approved plans do
not show any proposals to change levels on the site and a retrospective planning
application was invited to retain the soil levels as changed.. The developer has
declined to submit an application and Committee has indicated it is minded to take
enforcement action. Officers have endeavoured to negotiate to secure the remedial
works required by Committee without success.
PPG 18, Enforcing Planning Control, advises where an owner or occupier refuses to
submit a planning application which would enable the Local Planning Authority to
grant conditional planning permission the authority would be justified in issuing an
Development Control Committee
11
21 October 2010
enforcement notice if, in its view, the unauthorised development has resulted in an
injury to amenity which can only be satisfactorily alleviated by imposing conditions on
a grant of planning permission for the development.
Policy EN4 requires development proposals to respect the character and landscape
of the surrounding area and not to have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
The dwelling adjacent to the side of the south west boundary of the development is
approx 2- 3 metres away from the boundary, and there are windows in the elevation
facing the boundary. The property’s residents have not complained but the
remodelling of the land has raised the potential of overlooking of that property.
Whilst the dwelling to the north west, 9B Holt Road, Sheringham is approx 28 metres
from the boundary the gardens back onto each other and the combination of the
removal of vegetation and the remodelling of the ground levels has increased the
potential of overlooking of the garden to the detriment of the residential amenity.
Members will appreciate this relationship having visited this property.
It is considered that an enforcement notice requiring ground levels along the
boundary to be restored is likely to fail on appeal due to imprecision and may be
declared a nullity as the former ground levels cannot be precisely ascertained. It is
therefore recommended that an enforcement notice is served imposing conditions to
ameliorate the injury to the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area.
The notice should require the existing fence erected by the developer along the
northwest boundary of plot 1 to be replaced by a 1.8 metre fence and the block work
wall to be rendered.
Along the north west boundary of plot 2, where less vegetation has been removed
and lopped trees on the development side are now re-growing, the erection of a
fence is not considered necessary. Here it is suggested that the notice should require
the planting of a hedge along the boundary.
With regard to the property to the south west the erection of a fence of 1.8 metres in
height would mean the residents of that neighbouring property looking from their
side of the boundary at a fence nearly 3 metres in height sited approx. 2-3 metres
from their windows. It is considered that this would be a stark and overpowering
feature and therefore the enforcement notice should require the planting of a
landscaping scheme which would mitigate the potential for overlooking of the
neighbouring property.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the development to which this report relates has raised 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 the individual’s Human Rights, and the
general interest of the public, the commencement of enforcement proceedings as
recommended is considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with the
planning law.
Development Control Committee
12
21 October 2010
Recommendation
That authority is given to the Head of Planning and Building Control to serve
an Enforcement Notice under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning
Act as amended requiring:
1) within one month of the effective date of the notice the block work wall
to be rendered
2) within 2 months of the effective date the one metre fence along the
northwest boundary of plot 1 shall be replaced with a 1.8 metre fence
3) A landscaping scheme which includes a hedge along the north west
boundary of Plot 2 to be planted within the first available planting
season following the effective date of the Notice
4) The hedge along the northwest boundary of plot 2 shall be allowed to
grow to a height of 1.8 metres and shall thereafter be retained at the
minimum height of 1.8 metres from ground level to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5) No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the landscaping
scheme shall be uprooted, felled or in any way destroyed. Should the
hedgerow, tree or shrub die or in the opinion of the Local Planning
Authority become seriously damaged or defective within ten years of
the effective date of the Notice then another tree, shrub, or hedge shall
be planted in its place in accordance with details which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons
The remodelling of the land represents development for which planning
permission is required. Policy EN4: Design requires development not to have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers
and respect the character and landscape of the surrounding area.
The imposition of the above conditions will alleviate the injury to residential
amenity and the additional landscaping will reflect the character and landscape
of the immediate area.
6.
HUNWORTH - 20090415 EF - Application for Certificate of Lawfulness of
Existing Use as separate unit of holiday accommodation; 1 Green Farm Barn,
The Green
Date of Application: 29 April 2009
Case Officer: Roger Howe
THE APPLICATION
This application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness of the asserted existing use of the
property as a separate unit of holiday accommodation as a result of use for more
than ten years before the date of the application (ie since before 29 April 1999).
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Previously reported to the Committee on 26 August 2010 when consideration was
deferred.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:
This provision allows an applicant to ascertain whether an existing use is lawful.
If the LPA (Local Planning Authority) are provided with information:
Development Control Committee
13
21 October 2010
“satisfying them of the lawfulness at the time of the application of the use ……
they shall issue a certificate ……. And in any other case they shall refuse the
application.”
Past and existing development is either lawful or it is not and these procedures
allow landowners to obtain a ruling to that effect.
2. Circular 10/97 - Annex 8: Lawfulness and the Lawful Development Certificate
advises as follows:8.12: The onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the applicant.
8.15: The relevant test of the evidence is the balance of probability. The LPA
should not refuse a certificate because the applicant has failed to discharge the
stricter, criminal burden of proof, namely beyond all reasonable doubt. The
applicant’s own evidence does not need to be corroborated by independent
evidence in order to be accepted. Neither the identity of the applicant nor the
planning merits of the use are relevant to the consideration of the purely legal
issues which are involved in determining an application.
8.34: Any views on the planning merits of the case …… are irrelevant.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19870841 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barn to two luxury
dwellings
Approved, 4 June 1987
PLA/19872037 - (Full Planning Permission) - Barn conversion into two dwellings with
annexe
Refused, 10 March 1988: Appeal Dismissed, 5 December 1988
PLA/19900260 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of disused barn into a
dwelling (revised scheme)
Approved, 10 April 1990
PLA/19931412 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of existing barn to private
dwelling
Approved, 30 December 1993
PLA/20041168 - (Full Planning Permission) - Retention of flue pipes, gable end
window and raised ridge line to main roof and revised fenestration
Approved, 28 July 2010
PLA/20071823 - (Full Planning Permission) - Continued use of part of dwelling as
one unit of holiday accommodation
Refused, 3 April 2009
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION
According to the application form, 1 Green Farm Barns “comprises an attached
dwelling converted in the early 1990s from a barn to
(a) private living accommodation for the applicant,
(b) a single unit of lettable holiday accommodation.
This application applies to the holiday unit which is, on examination, accessed
through the courtyard of the main dwelling with no internal connecting door. The
application is supported by a Statutory Declaration made by the applicant (copy
attached, Appendix 4), copies of the applicant’s accounts and copies of year
planners showing holiday lets of the unit for the years 1995 to 2007 inclusive.
A number of copy letters relating to holiday bookings and payments received by the
applicant for holiday lettings have also been submitted in support of the application.
Development Control Committee
14
21 October 2010
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED CONTRARY TO THE APPLICATION
A number of local residents have challenged the case being put forward by the
applicant (that the property has been used continuously for holiday lets for at least
ten years prior to the application) on a number of grounds. Whilst some of the
objections are of little relevance to the application and cannot be taken into account,
the following assertions are considered to be relevant to the decision on the
application:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enforcement Officer had been informed that the holiday lettings business was
not commenced until 2004.
Business Rates not paid until 2005
Property used for residential lets rather than holiday lets.
Property was advertised as available on a Shorthold Tenancy basis by Brown
& Co.
Property has not been available for holiday lets throughout the year.
Letting records submitted by the applicant incomplete/unreliable.
PARISH COUNCIL
A letter received from Mr J Dymond, Chairman of Stody Parish Council on 17 August
2009, stated that “the property has been used for bed and breakfast since 1995/96
continually with, until recently, no complaints.”
This letter was written on Parish Council headed paper although Mr Dymond has
subsequently confirmed that the letter was written in his personal capacity.
A letter was also received from Mrs Charlotte Crawley, a Parish Councillor (and on
behalf of another Councillor, Mrs Liz Waites) objecting to the Lawful Development
application.
APPRAISAL
This application was reported to the Committee on 26 August when consideration
was deferred at the request of Officers to enable an issue raised by objectors shortly
before that meeting to be considered. That issue related to information to the effect
that the annexe at Green Farm Barns (to which this application relates) had been
advertised for short-hold lets by Brown & Co. during the autumn of 2007. Although
officers were aware of this matter, it was considered that this further objection
warranted investigation prior to the Council being in a position to determine the
application.
Planning permission was granted in 1993 for the conversion of a barn to create a
single dwelling at 1 Green Farm Barn, Hunworth. The consented dwelling has been
sub-divided to create the applicant’s dwelling and the self-contained holiday unit to
which this application relates. However, any physical works to create the holiday unit
are now immune from enforcement action and the application relates solely to the
use of the property as a separate unit of holiday accommodation. There is no doubt
that the applicant has let the property for holiday purposes throughout the last ten
years. Her statutory declaration, year planners and copy correspondence provide
clear evidence of holiday lettings over that time. Allowing family and friends to use
the property for holiday purposes at other times at no charge is considered to be a
holiday use of the property. However, if the property has been used for non-holiday
residential lettings within the ten years preceding the date of the application, such
use will have broken the continuity of the holiday use of the property.
Two specific matters have been raised by an objector to the application. Firstly it has
been stated that the property was let for approximately seven weeks in 1998 for non-
Development Control Committee
15
21 October 2010
holiday purposes. This is outside the ten year period relevant to this Lawful
Development application and therefore should not be taken into account. Secondly,
attention has been drawn to a list of properties available for letting for residential
(rather than holiday lets) purposes by Brown & Co in 2007. This appeared to show
the annexe at 1 Green Farm Barn, Hunworth as available for letting at a guide price
of £685 per calendar month in 2007.
The applicant was asked if she wished to make any comments upon this matter and
replied as follows in a letter dated 22 July 2010:
“During the late summer of 2007, the Estate Agent, Brown & Co, visited me to
suggest that I allow them to market, as a proposed short hold tenancy, the part of my
property that was then being used as a holiday let, part of their argument being that
such a form of tenancy would make it easier for me to manage the property.
I said that I would consider what they had to say but was then leaving for an
extended holiday and that I would communicate with them when I returned.
Upon my return from holiday I found that Brown & Co had sent a letter to me quoting
a rental value and offering their marketing services. I considered their offer but
telephoned them saying that I intended to continue using my property as a holiday let
and that I did not, therefore, need their services.
Brown & Co were unhappy at my decision and claimed that they had incurred costs
to date which they demanded reimbursement of from me but I pointed out that they
had no instructions from me to do anything and they agreed not to attempt to make
any charge on me.
Browns did not specify how their costs had been incurred but it would appear that
they were marketing costs which they had no authority from me to undertake and I
had no knowledge of them doing so until after the event.”
A letter was received from Brown & Co dated 2 September 2010 commenting on the
contents of this letter. Although the letter from Brown & Co contradicts certain
statements made by the applicant, the Committee’s attention is drawn to the
following statement in their letter.
“We are given to understand that, in the end, Mrs Hoskison did not
secure a residential tenancy, and Brown & Co have no interest in the
merits, be they for or against, with respect to the proposed Certificate
of Lawfulness.”
This application has been and remains locally controversial and a number of matters
raised by objectors cannot be taken into account in the determination of this Lawful
Development application.
SUMMARY
Notwithstanding the local opposition to the use of the property for holiday letting
purposes, it is considered that on balance the applicant has demonstrated that the
property has been used or available for use as a separate unit of holiday
accommodation for at least ten years prior to the date of the application. The
reasons for this conclusion are that, in summary:1)
The applicant’s evidence is in the form of a Statutory Declaration and the
application is supported by holiday letting records in the form of year planners,
Development Control Committee
16
21 October 2010
copies of accounts and correspondence relating to holiday lettings of the
property over a number of years.
2)
An asserted non-holiday letting of the property took place more than ten years
prior to the date of the application and cannot therefore be taken into account.
3)
The documented listing of the property as available for letting by Brown & Co
does not appear to have resulted in any non-holiday lettings. The applicant was
asked to specifically comment on this matter and her written response is set out
above.
On the relevant civil law balance of probabilities test, it is considered that the
applicant has demonstrated that the property has been used as a separate unit of
holiday accommodation for ten years prior to the date of the application.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Certificate of Lawfulness is granted.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager ext 6016)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
7.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0784 - Erection of 2no. two-storey dwellings
and four apartments; Partners, Northfield Lane for Novus Construction
(Norfolk) Ltd
To re-consider the application in light of an assessment of possible reasons for
refusal.
Background
The Committee will recall considering this application at the meeting on 23
September 2010 when it was resolved to defer determination of the application in
order for the issues raised by the Committee as possible reasons for refusal, to be
given further consideration by Officers.
A copy of the report to that meeting is attached as Appendix 5.
The reasons cited by Committee as possible reasons of refusal related to design,
density, impact on the Conservation Area and access. The following comments are
offered on each of these grounds as follows:1. Design
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised no objection to the
proposed development, but has expressed reservations over the type of roof tile
proposed. English Heritage did not consider the timber boarding to be characteristic
of this part of Wells, and has commented on its use being incongruous and an
unnecessary addition to the simple pallet of materials used on traditional buildings in
the vicinity.
Councillor Savory, in his comments reported orally to Committee in his absence at
the last meeting, also commented on materials and that 'consideration should be
given to using an element of flint and an acceptable roof tile added'.
Development Control Committee
17
21 October 2010
It is therefore considered that the scheme could be criticised as it stands in relation to
some of the materials proposed on the development.
Overbearing impact, loss of privacy and design not being innovative or locally
distinctive were amongst the design issues raised in representations, but Officers do
not consider that these could be substantiated as reasons for refusal.
2. Density
In relation to density the proposed development of six dwellings would result in 35
dwellings per hectare, which is below the 40 dwellings required by Policy HO7.
However, Policy HO7 states that whilst optimising the density of the site this should
be in a manner that protects or enhances the character of the area. The density in
the immediate surrounding area of the site is mixed and ranges from 11 dwellings per
hectare to 42 dwellings per hectare. However, the site stands on its own and is not
readily associated with neighbouring development. It is therefore considered that a
refusal on the grounds of density would be difficult to justify.
3. Impact on Conservation Area
The Council has prepared a draft Character Appraisal and Management Proposals
document on the Wells Conservation Area. This is not yet adopted. However, whilst
this document refers to the 'erosion of gardens' by new development this comment is
generally directed to older historic houses and their settings. The document also
refers to the 'great diversity of building types, dates and architectural styles
throughout the residential areas' in Wells. Whilst the site does have an 'important tree
frontage' it is not considered as 'positive townscape'. There is reference to the use of
'inappropriate modern materials' in the Conservation Area, which touches on the
points raised under 'Design'. However, apart from the possible concerns regarding
materials it is considered that it would be difficult to argue a reason for refusal based
on the grounds impact on the Conservation Area, given the mixed developments
surrounding the site and that it is not a prominent site in a prime location.
4. Access
No objection has been raised by the Highway Authority in relation to the access. It is
therefore considered that without the support of the Highway Authority on this point
that there are insufficient grounds for refusal on this matter.
Update
Representations received since previous report
A letter and details have been received from the owners of three properties
surrounding the site indicating the location of the drain from the site across their
properties. They question the capability of the drain to adequately serve additional
properties and state that the applicant has no right to enter their property to dig up
the existing drain and carry out any works to it.
Key Policy Issues
The key issues are compliance with adopted Core Strategy Policies SS1, SS3, HO1,
HO7, EN1, EN2, EN4, EN6, EN8, CT5 and CT6 regarding the acceptability of the
development, the design of the dwellings, density, dwelling mix and type, impact
upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conservation Area and trees subject
to Tree Preservation Order, highway issues and privacy and amenity issues.
Appraisal
Whilst the neighbours’ concerns above regarding drainage rights are noted, this is
considered to be a civil matter between the parties.
Development Control Committee
18
21 October 2010
Notwithstanding the comments above on the possible grounds for refusal, as
expressed by Committee, it is considered that the proposed development is
acceptable as submitted and complies with adopted Development Plan policies for
the reasons explained in the original report.
Recommendation:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
8.
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0447 - Erection of Storage Barn; Highfield House, 5 Wiveton
Road for Mr Langley
Target Date: 24 June 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19931072 PF - Conversion and extension of outbuildings to garages, garden
workshop and store
Approved 30/12/1993
PLA/20070509 PF - Erection of walls and gates
Approved 13/08/2007
PLA/19920368 PF - Conversion and extension of existing outbuilding to holiday
accommodation
Refused 07/08/1992
PLA/20021082 PF - Erection of extension to house swimming pool and garages
with studio above
Approved 29/08/2002
PLA/19841891 HR - Change of use from private dwelling to guest house
Approved 25/01/1985
PLA/20080350 PF - Erection of greenhouse
Approved 17/04/2008
PLA/20021860 PF - Extension and alterations to garage to provide residential
annexe
Approved 22/01/2003
PLA/20090757 PF - Erection of two-storey extension
Approved 18/09/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a storage barn on paddock/agricultural land adjacent to the
residential curtilage of the dwelling. It is proposed to be used for storage in
association with the applicant's property and paddock, including use as an animal
Development Control Committee
19
21 October 2010
shelter, feed store, stabling, secure store of agricultural plant to maintain the
grassland, jumps for horse riding and winter boat store.
The building would measure approximately 12.5m x 15.5m, 3.7m to the eaves and
4.9m to the ridge. There are two access doors proposed on the eastern elevation,
facing into the paddock. There would be a gravel finished hardstanding outside the
access doors.
The building as submitted would be constructed with a blockwork plinth, timber
cladding walls and light green metal sheet roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee in order for
negotiations to be carried out in respect of siting and design.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. This proposed development is outside the village boundary
2. It is a very large industrial unit, totally out of keeping in this 'open countryside'
3. An area of 'Outstanding Natural Beauty'
4. This is a second home rather than a permanent home
5. One objection from a parishioner also received.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising the following
points (summarised):
1. Do not see that the purpose of the building are good enough reasons to extend
development on the periphery of the village.
2. The applicants have plenty of secure areas where these items can be contained
within the built boundaries of their property.
3. Beginning of the spread of development into the rural landscape.
4. Not aware of the field being previously used for equestrian activities.
5. Concern that the building could be used to house a helicopter. The field is
occasionally used to land a helicopter.
A letter has been received from the agent confirming that the applicant agrees to the
following:
1. Changing the colour of the cladding to the walls and roof of the building to dark
brown,
2. To maintain the height of the hedge on the highway boundary to 3.5m above
ground level
3. To keep the verge clear in order to maintain visibility at the gate
4. Although the applicant uses a small helicopter from time to time the use of the barn
is for storage as stated in the application.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways)
The proposal is for the erection of a substantial residential storage building for use by
the family for animal feed and equipment and storage of boat(s). This would be likely
to engender an increase in vehicular movements of vehicles towing boats. Although
these movements are likely to be minimal, I would consider that the unmade access
requires improvement to be acceptable and that the available visibility be conditioned
to be maintained to ensure highway safety.
I can confirm that there is no highway objection to this proposal. Should your
Authority be minded to grant consent conditions regarding upgrading the access and
Development Control Committee
20
21 October 2010
maintaining a parallel visibility splay will be required.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)
The proposed storage barn is located in the north-eastern corner of the paddock field
to the south of Highfield House. This is located on the edge of Blakeney to the south
of the main village and church. The house, adjacent land and the main village are
relatively well screened through extensive woodland cover. From the paddock the
land slopes gradually down to the east and south-east to the River Glaven, patchy
views are afforded of the field from Wiveton village and the Blakeney Road.
The paddock field itself is bounded by hedgerows and hedgerow trees, and a small
copse of pine to the south-west corner. These will help screen the proposed building,
particularly from the main Wiveton/Blakeney Road, where only partial glimpses will be
gained through the existing access gate.
The landscape in the surrounding area is punctuated by small copses and rural
buildings, therefore it is unlikely that the addition of the proposed barn will have a
significant detrimental effect on the countryside. However, I believe the building will
be visible from some parts of the surrounding area. If a dark stain was applied to the
timber cladding and a dark brown (e.g. Van Dyke Brown) tin roof was used, this
would help reduce the visual impact of the building allowing it to blend into the
woodland to the north. I would therefore recommend that a condition is attached to
any planning permission given requiring the prior approval of timber stain colour and
roof colour by the LPA.
In order to retain the screening effect of the hedge for the proposed building, I would
suggest that a condition is attached to the permission requiring the retention of the
hedgerow to the western boundary to a minimum height of 3.5m from ground level.
The development site is within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area; therefore the
existing trees on the site are protected from removal. I would suggest that an
informal note is attached to the decision letter indicating that prior notification is
required before any tree removal is carried out on the site.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Development Control Committee
21
21 October 2010
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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Impact on Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
3. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The Committee will recall considering this application at the July meeting when it was
resolved to defer determination of the application in order for negotiations to be
carried out in respect of the siting and design/materials of the proposed building.
Following lengthy discussions on site including the Planning Officer and Landscape
Officer, it is considered that the proposed siting of the building is the most appropriate
within the immediate and wider landscape. The reason for this is that the land in this
location is at a low point on the site. To the north east the land rises, which would
mean that re-siting the building as discussed at Committee would place it on a higher
level and make it more prominent in the landscape. It is suggested that the siting of
the building be adjusted slightly by moving it further away from the roadside boundary
to create space for an area of planting, to include evergreen species, to the southwest and north-west of the proposed building. This would help to reduce the visual
impact of the building from the road and the introduction of some evergreen species
would mean that in the winter there would be coverage and screening of the building.
At the time of writing this report an amended plan showing this change was awaited.
With regard to design, various options have been explored with the agent. The
footprint of the building given is required in order to accommodate the applicant's
boat, as is the height of the doors at a minimum of 3.6m. The applicant has been very
amenable to changing the design and materials to that of a more traditional North
Norfolk building. This has included suggesting the use of red brick, flint and clay
pantiles. However, in order to use traditional clay pantiles the pitch of the roof is
required to be at a specific angle. Given the footprint of the building this would mean
creating either a double or even triple gable to the roof. This would increase the
height of the building proposed by approximately 2m. Therefore, instead of the ridge
of the roof being approximately 4.9m it would be approximately 6.8m. It is considered
that this would be a significant increase in height which would counteract
Committee's concerns over the size of the building by making it prominent and visible
in the landscape. This would be particularly so when viewed in the wider landscape
from the northern edge of Wiveton, on the Wiveton Road. The existing views at this
point across to Highfield House are fields, hedgerows and trees. A glimpse of the roof
of Highfield House would be seen between the trees. However, it is considered that if
the building were to be constructed in more traditional materials because of the
increase in height required to use clay pantiles the building would be clearly visible
from this viewpoint to the significant detriment of the character of the area and the
special qualities and setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Development Control Committee
22
21 October 2010
Officers therefore consider that whilst the applicant has been open to discussion on
siting and design and willing to use traditional materials subject to slightly adjusting
the siting to allow for additional planting, including evergreens, the proposed siting
and design, including the wall and roof cladding in a dark brown colour, would be the
most recessive and appropriate out of various options discussed. This would have the
least impact upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and this part of the
Conservation Area.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where the erection of such a
storage building in association with the agricultural use of the land would be
acceptable, and in compliance with Policy SS2. In this instance it is proposed to use
the building for storage of vehicles and equipment in association with the use of the
land as a paddock as well as a store for a boat/boats during the winter. The latter
use would not strictly conform with policy, but on balance, taken together this
composite use is considered acceptable in principle in this coastal village.
The site is also located within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Committee will note from the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. Subject to the amended siting
referred to above, the external materials being dark brown in colour, the hedge on the
western boundary being maintained at a minimum height of 3.5m from ground level
and the proposed additional planting it is not considered that the proposal would have
a significant detrimental effect on the rural character of the area and would comply
with policy EN1 relating to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition
subject to an appropriate colour finish and landscaping the proposal would preserve
the appearance and character of the Conservation Area (Policy EN8).
The nearest neighbour is to the west of the site, approximately 21m from the
boundary. The Wiveton Road is in between the properties and there is planting to
both boundaries. The site is therefore well screened by existing trees and planting. In
view of this it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.
The Committee will note that no objections have been raised by the Highway
Authority, subject to conditions.
It is therefore considered, subject to the external colour finish to the proposed building
being dark brown, the hedge on the western boundary retained at a minimum of 3.5m
in height, the imposition of the Highway Authority's requested conditions and the
receipt of a satisfactory amended plan in relation to siting and landscaping (as
discussed above) that the proposal would be acceptable and accord with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory
amended plan in relation to siting and landscaping, imposition of appropriate
conditions, to include agreement on material details, landscaping, highways,
restriction on the uses of the building to those proposed, and the use of the
land to remain as agricultural/paddock and not part of the domestic curtilage.
Development Control Committee
23
21 October 2010
9.
BRISTON - PF/10/0566 - Siting of mobile home for agricultural worker; Land at
Brambles Farm, Thurning Road for Mr M Holden
Minor Development
Target Date: 12 July 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20081358 PF - Use of land for storage, parking and siting of portable building
in connection with the portable toilet hire business
Approved 07/04/2009
PF/10/0227 PF - Siting of mobile home for agricultural worker
Refused 26/04/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the siting of a mobile home for an agricultural worker at Brambles Farm which
is a small holding of approximately 11.8 hectares, located on the northern side of
Thurning Road which is to the south-west of Briston village centre.
The caravan would measure approximately 8m x 3m and would be located at the
front (southern end) of the site adjacent to the highway and would utilise the existing
vehicular access for the small holding.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wyatt having regard to the following planning issue:
Need for security on the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments awaited
REPRESENTATION
The applicant has submitted a supporting statement detailing the perceived need for
the agricultural worker's dwelling and how it complies with national and local policies.
This is attached as Appendix 6.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to a condition requiring a sewage
disposal scheme and advisory note regarding potential land contamination.
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.
Development Control Committee
24
21 October 2010
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The applicant has raised crime and security as a reason for permitting the proposed
agricultural worker's dwelling. This will be assessed in the appraisal section of the
report below.
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 5: Agricultural, forestry and essential worker dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the requirements for provision of new agricultural, forestry and essential
worker dwellings in the Countryside policy area).
Policy EN 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 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. Functional and financial need for the agricultural worker's dwelling.
2. Site security.
APPRAISAL
A recent application (10/0227) for the same proposal was refused in April 2010. The
current application was submitted with additional information in respect of the
agricultural enterprise in support of the application.
The site is located on the northern side of Corpusty Road and comprises a former pig
farm, now divided into two and under separate ownerships. There are a number of
buildings formerly on the site in association with the pig farm including a farm office
and permission was recently granted for a further agricultural building on the site (to
house pigs and machinery) although this has not been implemented to date.
The small holding comprises largely of the breeding of rare-breed pigs. A recent
permission however also permitted the storage of portable toilets for a portable toilet
hire business for use of part of the site (to the north-west of the proposed mobile
home).
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Policy HO5 and
Government guidance PPS 7 are applicable.
In terms of Policy HO5, where an application is made for a dwelling in association
with agriculture or forestry there is a need to demonstrate that it is essential for one
or more full time worker to be available at most times for the enterprise to function
properly and also that the functional need could not be met by another existing
dwelling in the vicinity of the site. PPS 7 paragraph 12 of Annex A suggests that in
the case of temporary agricultural dwellings to support a new farming activity this
should normally be for a temporary period of three years and provided by a caravan
or wooden structure, in order to allow the business to become established. However
this includes a number of criteria including: 1) there is a firm intention and ability to
development the enterprise, 2) functional need, that a full time worker needs to be
available at most times to allow the enterprise to function properly, 3) clear evidence
Development Control Committee
25
21 October 2010
that the enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis, and 4) the functional
need could not be provided by an existing dwelling in the vicinity.
In this case the applicant's agent has submitted a supporting statement detailing that
the functional need is based on the day and night presence required for animal
rearing, breeding and security for the animals (especially the horses and tack and
traps etc), farm machinery and equipment including the storage of vehicles used for
the portable toilet hire business. The applicant has also indicated orally in March
2010, at the time of the first application, that there were 64 pigs currently in the
breeding units and that this would expand. However, by how much and in what time
scale the expansion would take place has not been demonstrated.
In order to receive an expert opinion on the functional and financial need for the
proposed agricultural worker's dwelling on the site the Council appointed an
independent agricultural consultant. A copy of this report is attached as Appendix 6.
This confirms that the applicant has failed to comply with the functional and financial
tests of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
Officers consider that the application provides insufficient functional justification as to
why the applicant (or his worker and dependent family) need to live permanently on
the site, even on a temporary basis, for the enterprise to function properly. The
statements submitted with the application largely rely on protection of livestock,
equipment and machinery from theft by intruders. Paragraph 6 of Annex A of PPS7
suggests that site security may contribute on animal welfare grounds to the need for
a new agricultural dwelling, but it will not by itself be sufficient to justify one. No other
functional justification has been satisfactorily demonstrated, and as such the
application fails to comply with the functional test.
In addition, the application fails to demonstrate that the enterprise has a firm financial
basis, or that the business cannot be run from accommodation in the vicinity of the
site (in this instance the functional need can be met by the applicant in his current
accommodation, which is approximately 150m from the application site).
On that basis it is considered that there is insufficient justification to allow occupation
of a mobile home in the countryside at the present time and the current application is
at best premature. The proposal therefore fails to comply with PPS7 and Policy H05
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate
compliance with the financial and functional tests in PPS7 and that the
proposal fails to comply with Core Strategy Policy HO5.
10.
BRISTON - PF/10/0813 - Erection of one-and-a-half-storey dwelling and garage;
Land at 38 Church Street, Briston, NR24 2LE for Mr B Thompson and Ms M
Colley
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 September 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
Development Control Committee
26
21 October 2010
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070984 PO - Erection of two single-storey dwellings
Refused 23/07/2007
PF/10/0550 PF - Erection of one and a half storey detached dwelling and garage
Approved 08/07/2010
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of a one and a half storey dwelling on land to the rear of 38
Church Street which is on the western side of Church Street at the junction of Church
Street and Mill Road.
Vehicular access to the site is to be gained from the approved access between nos
36 and 38 for the approved dwelling 2010/0550 on an adjacent site. The access is
yet to be formed for that dwelling (the existing attached garage for 36 Church Street
will need to be demolished to make way for the new access for the approved plot).
There is an existing access onto Gloucester Place to the rear which is not proposed
to be utilised.
The dwelling would consist of an L-shaped building with first floor accommodation
being served by three dormers in the roof and would have a detached single garage
and parking and turning area to the front.
Site boundary treatments would be a combination of hedges and fences of varying
heights but at a minimum of 1.8m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wyatt having regard to the following planning issues:
Impact on amenity of adjacent dwellings and highway impact.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object as this is tandem development contrary to EN4 and the proposal will turn a T
junction into a cross-roads on a busy road which is also a bus route.
REPRESENTATIONS
6 letters of objection on the following grounds:
1. Access for emergency and delivery vehicles etc is severely restricted and these
vehicles would not be able to turn in the drive.
2. Access on to Church Street is at a busy junction and further intensification would
cause danger.
3. Concern that any over spill parking to the site would be on Church Road.
4. Overlooking to properties on Hewitts Close by reason of its size, depth, width and
height
5. The backland development is contrary to the Governments aim of stopping garden
grabbing and would be detrimental to neighbouring amenity.
6. Overbearing impact to dwelling to the south (Hewitts Close)
7. Concern that Gloucester Place will be used to access the proposed dwelling.
8. Newts have been seen in one of the neighbouring gardens and so the
development would affect these protected species.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - raises no objections
to the above application.
Development Control Committee
27
21 October 2010
The proposed development is located on land to the rear of no.38 Church Street.
The area is clipped grass and surrounded by wooden fencing and evergreen
hedging.
Records have been checked to see if any protected species have been recorded in
the immediate vicinity which may be impacted by the development. Of main concern
is the potential of the development to impact on great crested newt.
There were no records of great crested newt in Briston and the land on which the
development site is located was deemed unsuitable terrestrial habitat for newts
(which prefer thick scrub and rough grassland with dense tussocks for food and
shelter). The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager does not therefore
consider that the development will have a detrimental impact on protected species
and does not object to the application.
County Council Highways
The site has been subject of informal advice in April 2009 which gave a favourable
response based upon improvements and the proposed access arrangements being
finalised, these have been addressed and therefore, I have no objection to this
proposal for a single dwelling on this site as the access arrangements have been
agreed in a previous application (2009/0550). Conditions regarding the closing up of
the access off Gloucester Place would be required.
Building Control Manager
The proposed access is not suitable for the use of fire service vehicles. I understand
the agent is considering sprinkler systems for this and the adjacent dwelling at no.36.
This may be an acceptable solution subject to agreement with the fire service.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
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).
Development Control Committee
28
21 October 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Highway safety
3. Neighbours' amenities
4. Design
5. Impact on protected species
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential area of Briston where the principle of
erecting a dwelling is acceptable subject to satisfactory compliance with Core
Strategy policies.
The density of the scheme is similar to that of the recently approved one and a half
storey dwelling to the rear of 36 Church Street and is considered appropriate for the
character of the surrounding area.
With regard to highway safety, the Highway Authority has advised that subject to
conditions the proposed development would have no adverse impact. The closing up
of an existing rear vehicular access onto Gloucester Place is recommended. Subject
to these conditions the proposal would comply with Policy CT5 of the Core Strategy.
In terms of parking requirements, two parking spaces are required for a three
bedroom dwelling. Sufficient parking and on site turning are achieved within the
proposed development, in accordance with Policy CT6 of the Core Strategy.
In terms of the siting of the dwelling to the rear of 38, whilst the situation is not ideal
with the access drive running alongside No.36, the recent approval for the dwelling to
the rear of no.36 will already utilise this access, and County Highways have not
objected to the access arrangements. Furthermore, whilst movements to and from
the proposed additional dwelling being served by the access would introduce a
further source of additional occasional noise to no.36, it is not considered that this
would be so loud or persistent as to harm the reasonable enjoyment by the
occupiers, particularly as the driveway is conditioned to require hard surfacing. As
such there is no objection to the proposed access arrangements for the scheme.
With regard to other amenity issues, windows on the first floor would be limited to
two dormers on the east and one dormer on the west serving bedrooms which, given
the distance to the dwellings to the east and oblique views which would be available
towards the dwellings to the south, are not considered to result in any adverse
overlooking of the private garden areas of the dwellings to the east fronting Church
Street or those to the south on Hewitts Close. In addition, given the limited height,
bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling, it is not considered that the relationship
between this dwelling and those to the south on Hewitts Close would have any
significantly adverse overbearing impact.
In design terms, elevationally, the proposal is well proportioned with an appropriate
gable width with projecting elements at the front and rear adding interest to these
elevations. In addition, the height, bulk and scale are appropriate for the context and
materials are traditional and are considered to be in keeping with the character of
the area.
In terms of landscaping/screening, a new 1.8m close boarded fence would delineate
the boundary between no.38 and the proposed dwelling and to the new dwelling to
the rear of No.36. In addition there would be screening to No.38 by the existing trees
on the site. The 1.9m close boarded fence on the boundary to the south would be
Development Control Committee
29
21 October 2010
retained as well as the existing 3m high hedging to the west and part of the northern
boundaries. Subject to the completion of these landscaping details prior to the first
occupation of the dwelling, no adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining
dwellings is considered to result, and, given the residential setting of the proposal,
the mix of hard and soft landscaping is considered acceptable.
In terms of sustainable construction, whilst no information has been submitted with
the application in this respect, subject to conditions requiring compliance with Code
for Sustainable Homes level 2 or above, the proposal would comply with Policy EN6
of the Core Strategy.
Whilst the Building Control Manager has advised that the access is not suitable for
fire service access, the agent has indicated that a sprinkler system would be
installed. Subject to Norfolk Fire Service confirming no objection to this method
(Norfolk Fire Service agreed a sprinkler system for the recently approved 36 Church
Street), there would be no objection to the access in this respect.
With reference to concerns raised by a neighbour regarding protected species on the
site (newts), the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has checked the
biological records data to see if any protected species have been recorded in the
immediate vicinity which may be impacted by the development. There were no
records of great crested newt in Briston and the land on which the development site
is located was deemed unsuitable terrestrial habitat for newts (which prefer thick
scrub and rough grassland with dense tussocks for food and shelter). The
Committee is therefore advised that the development would not have a detrimental
impact on protected species.
The proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to further consultation with the Fire
Officer in respect of a sprinkler system and to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
11.
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0898 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings; Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
Minor Development
Target Date: 08 October 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Tree Preservation Order
Contaminated Land
Wensum Valley Project Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20091037 PO - Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling and Single-Storey Dwelling
Approved 30/11/2009
Development Control Committee
30
21 October 2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of two detached one and a half storey dwellings, with only means of
access to be considered at this stage.
The existing dwelling would be retained as would the vehicular access into the site
from Heath Lane.
The proposed plots are to the east and west of the existing dwelling. High boundary
walls on the east, north and west boundaries are shown to be retained, and a Lime
and a Horse Chestnut tree are also to be retained.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object. It is excessive over-development of garden land and will exacerbate an
already problematical highway situation and will have an adverse effect on the
unadopted and frail surface of the lane.
Further comments of the Town Council have been received as follows:
Fakenham Town Council received the original Planning Application Ref PO/09/1037
dated 23 October 2009 for the erection of a two-storey dwelling and a single-storey
dwelling (Applicants: Executors of J Hall Deceased). No objections were raised, as
the proposed application was reasonable as there was space available for two
dwellings and the trees in the surrounding land on the property were protected. If an
application had been received initially for 4 dwellings, the Council would have
objected, as this would have been over-development of the site.
The second application is a step too far and is excessive over-development of garden
land. Despite falling within the guidelines of Policy HO7, a development of the
proposed density within this area totally destroys the character of this part of Town
and is adding to the on-going erosion of the diversity of the housing stock, which is so
important to the character of Fakenham.
The Council wishes to emphasise the following points: there appears to be
inadequate parking space within the grounds of the proposed development, which will
lead to inconvenience to the neighbouring properties from vehicles parking in Heath
Lane itself, bearing in mind there may be more changes to the existing area; one of
the properties has already been converted in a Nursing Home.
The Council also wishes to state that while there are two entrances to Heath Lane
(one from Norwich Road and one from Barbers Lane) the Barbers Lane end is rarely
used, as it is an overgrown Lane and will not be used by construction traffic. 99% of
the residents exit at the Norwich Road junction. It has come to the attention of this
Council that North Norfolk District Council’s policy is for a maximum of 8 dwellings
permitted off a private road. If so, this guideline has already been broken by consent
to build two new dwellings at Copper Beech Lodge, Heath Lane.
Current Government thinking has turned against development on garden land and is
against high density and in favour of more diversity and a better quality of life. Finally,
Fakenham Town Council requests that a site meeting be held before any decision is
made.
Development Control Committee
31
21 October 2010
REPRESENTATIONS
Twenty one letters of objection have been received from local residents, some of
which are from the same objectors, raising the following points:
1. Overdevelopment
2. Highway safety
3. Increase in traffic
4. Adverse impact upon unadopted lane
5. Loss of privacy
6. Site is contaminated
7. Impact upon trees
8. Subsidence on site
9. Condition of surface on lane is poor
10. Inappropriate access to site
11. Contrary to Policies EN2, EN4, EN13, CT5, CT6
12. Detrimental effect on residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings
13. Lack of car parking
14. Vehicles will park on Heath Lane, blocking access to other properties and
obstructing vehicles passing on Heath Lane
15. This development would not have been the wishes of the late Mr Hall who was
the previous owner
A letter has been received from the Countryside Access Officer at Norfolk County
Council following concerns from a local resident about the impact of the proposed
development on the public rights of way in the vicinity. Heath Lane at this point is
registered on the Definitive Map as a restricted byway (Fakenham RB3). This means
that the public are able to use the route on foot, on horse, cycle or with a horse and
cart. There is no public right of way to drive on the route. The County Council is
responsible for maintenance of this route for its public use. We do not have any
responsibility to maintain the route for any private rights that may exist i.e. for cars. If
damage is caused by vehicular use such that it affects the public right, it is likely that
we would approach the private rights users to make good the surface. This public
right exists across the full width of the route and this width should not be obstructed.
Many restricted byways co exist with routes that are used by people exercising
private rights. Those using the route in a private capacity should exercise due care
and attention and pay due regard to the public users of the route.
An email has been received from the agent confirming that the applicant has taken
advice from a local engineer who has stated that there is no concern with subsidence
at Lavengro.
A letter has been received from an MP on behalf of a local constituent asking for the
Committee to give careful consideration to the concerns raised.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - Heath Lane is a wide surfaced private road with
footpath provision, accessed from north Norwich Road and Warren Avenue. Visibility
at the junction with the Norwich Road (C551) from Heath Lane is acceptable in both
directions.
There are currently approximately 38 dwellings which are accessed via Heath Lane,
which is well above the maximum number of 8 dwellings, now permitted to be served
from a private road.
Development Control Committee
32
21 October 2010
Given this existing situation it would be considered that the proposed increase in
dwelling numbers accessed via Heath Lane would not adversely impact highway
safety given the level of visibility available I am unable to raise a sustainable
highways objection.
If permission were granted a condition regarding details of parking provision and
turning areas in accordance with adopted standards for the new dwellings and
existing would be required.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Officer (Landscape) - No objection. Although
the application does not directly assess the layout for the proposed development,
consideration has to be given as to whether the development site can accommodate
the erection of two new detached one and a half storey dwellings without
compromising the protected trees on the site. Given that the area in the north east of
the site is now devoid of trees, this appears to be an appropriate location for one of
the dwellings. The remaining area for a dwelling would be in the north west corner of
the plot which contains two of the protected trees. Although there is no Arboricultural
Implications Assessment (AIA) to highlight the issues arising as a result of the trees
on the site, expected issues include root protection areas, shading implications of the
Horse Chestnut tree, future growth and maintenance of the trees and protection of
the trees during construction. The Council aims to manage the future growth and
maintenance of trees and address shading issues through having an exclusion zone
around the canopy of the protected trees, i.e. no new dwelling should be sited within
10m of a protected tree's canopy edge (or 5m, if it is a gable end). Construction
should also be outside of the root protection areas of trees. With these simple
guidelines in mind, and without the benefit of a full Arboricultural Implications
Assessment (AIA) and accurate Tree Survey, there appears to be sufficient space to
locate a dwelling to the west of the existing property. However, any future application
for reserved matters should be accompanied by a full AIA, Tree Survey and
Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), illustrating the full impact to the protected
trees on the site and adjacent to the site, tree protection requirements and
construction methodology. This should be made a condition of any planning
permission given.
In terms of the access to the proposed dwellings this goes between protected trees,
therefore there could potentially be issues surrounding additional compaction to the
soil environment in this vicinity through increased traffic and damage to the canopies
of the trees through direct vehicle impact. The later is a concern particularly during
construction. The plan indicates that the existing access will be retained. This may or
may not include surfacing. If the existing surface is to be removed and replaced then
this will have to take into consideration the impact to the trees and root environment.
In order to protect the trees a condition should be attached to any planning
permission requiring an Arboricultural Method Statement to be submitted to and
approved for the removal and resurfacing of the existing driveway. Any direct physical
impact to the trees likely to be caused during construction should be dealt with in the
AIA and AMS required for the reserved matters application.
Environmental Health - There appears to be some previous association with sand
and gravel extraction from 1889 within the proposed development site. On this basis
there is potential for unknown filled ground to be present so a condition requiring a
site investigation into possible contaminants is required.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - In order for the application to comply with Policy EN6 a
condition is required on any approval that the dwellings shall achieve a Code Level 2
rating or above in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable
Development Control Committee
33
21 October 2010
Homes.
Building Control Manager - Any matters concerning suspect ground conditions in this
area will be dealt with under any future Building Regulation submission. This could
involve the removal of the suspect material to achieve a suitable bearing stratum on
which to set the building or by adopting an engineered foundation design such as
piles. However, it is unlikely that the ground conditions which may be encountered will
be severe to prevent development taking place.
A ground investigation report would establish the presence of any suspect ground
conditions and allow the production of a suitable foundation design for the site prior to
the commencement of any project approved for this site.
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 SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway safety
3. Contaminated land
4. Subsidence
5. Impact on protected trees
Development Control Committee
34
21 October 2010
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the last meeting in order for the Committee to carry
out a site visit.
The site is located within the development boundary for Fakenham where Core
Strategy Policies SS1 and SS8 permit residential development providing it complies
with other Development Plan policies.
Only the principle of the development of the site for the erection of two one and half
storey dwellings and means of access are for consideration at this stage.
Fakenham is designated as a Principal Settlement, within which Policy HO7 requires
that there should be not less than 40 dwellings per hectare. In view of the site area
this would result in 8.9 dwellings on the site. This would result in a development
which would not be in keeping with the character of the area. There is a mix of
density in the immediate area with a lower level to the east and higher level to the
west. In accordance with the requirement of Policy HO7 it is not considered that the
addition of two more dwellings on this site would be out of keeping with the character
of the area. It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy HO7 of the Core
Strategy.
The existing access off Heath Lane would continue to provide the vehicular access
into the site. Heath Lane itself is an unadopted road, the upkeep of which is the
responsibility of residents. One of the objections raised by local residents is that the
development would have an adverse impact on the condition of the unadopted road.
However, this is a civil matter not a planning matter. The Committee will note that the
Highway Authority is not raising an objection to the application, subject to a condition
requiring that parking and turning provision is in accordance with adopted standards.
A further area of concern raised by local residents is that the site is contaminated
having once been used as a municipal waste dump for the disposal of commercial,
residential and hazardous waste. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has
requested the imposition of a condition requiring an investigation into the possible
presence of contamination affecting the site prior to the commencement of any
development.
Concerns have also been raised regarding subsidence on the site. However, the
Building Control Manager has confirmed that any matters concerning suspect ground
conditions in this area will be dealt with under any future Building Regulation
submission. The agent has also confirmed that the applicant has sought advice from
a local engineer on this matter who has advised that there is no subsidence at the
site. It is therefore considered that this matter has been satisfactorily addressed and
were anything to be discovered on site that it would be dealt with under Building
Regulations.
Two trees are subject to Tree Preservation Orders on the western boundary of the
site, which are to be retained. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is
not raising an objection, subject to the imposition of conditions including the
submission of an Arboricultural Implications Assessment, Tree Survey and
Arboricultural Method Statement with the Reserved Matters application. This
information would include details of the full impact to the protected trees on the site
and adjacent to the site, tree protection requirements and construction methodology.
A condition is also required for an Arboricultural Method Statement to be submitted
and approved for the removal and resurfacing of the existing driveway.
Development Control Committee
35
21 October 2010
Whilst scale, layout and appearance of the dwellings are not for determination, it is
considered that two one and a half storey dwellings could be designed in such a way
that they would comply with the Amenity Criteria in the North Norfolk Design Guide,
and would be acceptable in this location.
It is considered that the site is capable of accommodating two one and a half storey
dwellings without causing significant detriment to the character of the area. The
Highway Authority has confirmed that the access is suitable for such a development,
and there appears to be sufficient space to locate two dwellings on the site without
detriment to trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
It is therefore considered that the development would be in accordance with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
12.
ITTERINGHAM - PF/10/1131 - Variation of condition 3 of planning reference:
03/0368 to permit retail use of the studio for three days a week; Fair Meadow
House, Wolterton Road for Ms Green
Minor Development
Target Date: 24 November 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19921204 PF - Extension, alterations and conversion of existing garage
Approved 16/10/1992
PLA/20021776 PF - Erection of detached garage/hobbies room
Withdrawn 26/02/2003
PLA/20030368 PF - Erection of detached garage/garden store/hobbies room
Approved 28/04/2003
PF/10/0847 PF - Variation of condition 3 of planning reference: 03/0368 to permit
retail use of the studio
Withdrawn by Applicant 27/09/2010
THE APPLICATION
Planning permission 03/0368 was for the erection of a garage/store/hobbies room.
This application is for the variation of condition 3 of that permission to permit retail
use of the building for three days a week.
The applicant intends to use the space as an artist's studio and for this to be open to
the public on three days a week (Thursday & Friday 10-4 and Saturday 10-3).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry Warnes having regard to the following planning
issues:
Principle of retail in the countryside and potential highway issues.
Development Control Committee
36
21 October 2010
PARISH COUNCIL
Awaiting comments
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - The unclassified Wolterton Road is generally narrow in
character but from the shop/gallery to the frontage of the site and its junction with
The Street, it is wider with a historic level of on-street parking in association with the
village shop.
Although the proposal does not provide any parking provision, it is felt that given its
low key nature and synergy with the existing uses of the adjacent shop/gallery, that
an objection on highways grounds would not be sustainable. I am therefore able to
confirm that the Highway Authority does not wish to raise any objection.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to imposition limiting opening hours to
those indicated by the applicant.
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):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
SS 5 - Economy (strategic approach to economic issues)
EC 2 - The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for converting
buildings for non-residential purposes)
EC 5 - Location of retail and commercial leisure development
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport)
CT 6 - Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances)
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of retail use in countryside
2. Impact on neighbours' amenities
3. Impact on highway safety and parking arrangements
APPRAISAL
This application is a resubmission of application (10/0847) which raised a
considerable number of objections. The application was withdrawn by the applicant
in order to address some of the concerns raised by the objectors in terms of the
proposed access arrangements. The resulting amended scheme now to be
determined provides for all pedestrian access to the building would be routed to the
Development Control Committee
37
21 October 2010
west of Fair Meadow House. The shared driveway to the east of the post office
would not be used for pedestrian or vehicular access. There is no proposed on site
parking. The applicant has advised that any parking specifically for the studio would
be directed to the community centre.
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where proposals for new retail
development are not normally permitted unless they comply with other relevant
Development Plan Policies or there are other material considerations that would
outweigh Development Plan policy.
Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy generally seeks to ensure
that new retail development is located in the Principal and Secondary Settlements
across the District, primarily to maintain the shopping hierarchy and to help maintain
the vitality and viability of these centres. Holt is the closest Principal settlement.
Policy EC2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy is permissive of the re-use of
a building for economic uses in the countryside subject to the use being appropriate
in scale and nature to its location, being soundly built and suitable for the proposed
use without substantial re-building or extension and being in accordance with other
policies seeking to protect biodiversity, amenity and character of the area. In this
particular case, the building is soundly built and suitable for the proposed use without
any substantial alteration or extension and the proposed retail use is appropriate in
scale and nature for its location as it would be limited in days and opening times and
given the nature of the proposed studio use it would not be expected to engender
significant footfall.
Under these circumstances, whilst the general principle of encouraging retail
proposals to locate in town centres is supported, it is considered that, because of the
specialist nature and the scale of the proposal, it would not have a harmful impact on
the vitality and viability of any town centre subject to conditions limiting the use of the
building to an artist's studio only and restricting a general A1 retail use. As such it is
considered that this limited level of retail proposed is acceptable in this countryside
location.
In terms of amenity, the previously withdrawn application resulted in a number of
objection letters with concern with the use of the shared driveway to the east of the
gallery and the impact this would have on the dwelling to the west (Broomhill
Cottage). The current application involves routing all visitors to the site via the
existing pedestrian access serving Fair Meadow House to the west of the row of
commercial units consisting the shop/gallery and cafe. As such there would be no
adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of Broomhill Cottage or Fair
Meadow House. Further clarification is being sought from the applicant as to how this
would be controlled.
In terms of the use of the building, given that there is only one opening in the building
facing east towards Broomhill Cottage and the proposed low key use of the building,
it is not considered that any significantly adverse loss of privacy would result for the
occupiers of the dwelling to the east. In terms of noise, it is not considered that there
would be any detrimental impact on the amenities of the adjacent residential
dwellings.
In terms of impact on the highway, County Highways have advised that given the
likely low key nature of the proposed studio/gallery use and its synergy with the
existing uses of the adjacent shop/gallery, the proposal is unlikely to engender any
significant volume of traffic or parking. In addition there is a historic level of on-street
Development Control Committee
38
21 October 2010
parking in association with the village shop. As such it is not considered that the
proposed opening up of the studio to the public for retail purposes for three days a
week would be significantly detrimental to highway safety. Notwithstanding the lack
of on-site parking provision, the proposal is therefore considered to accord with
policies CT5 and CT6 of the Core Strategy.
In summary, whilst the general principle of encouraging retail proposals to locate in
town centres is supported, it is considered that, because of the specialist nature and
the scale of the proposal, it would not have a harmful impact on the vitality and
viability of any town centre. In addition given the low key nature of the proposed
artist's studio, no adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent
dwellings or on highway safety are considered to result.
It is therefore considered that the development would be in accordance with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to satisfactory clarification of the means of
controlling pedestrian access to the premises, no objection from outstanding
consultees and no new grounds of objection being received following expiry of
the press notice and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
13.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/10/0084 - Conversion of all buildings
on the site to form 8 number two and three bedroom dwellings (excluding the
malt kilns which are to be secured as a permanent bat roost) including
associated hard and soft landscaping; Letheringsett Maltings, Holt Road for
Gainsborough Construction
Minor Development
Target Date: 18 May 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II
Archaeological Site
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Flood Zone 2
Flood Zone 3
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20000827 PF Conversion of former Maltings, Brewery, Cottage and Tun House to
form six holiday units –Application undetermined.
20010813 PF Conversion of former Maltings, Brewery and Tun House to residential
units
Refused 5/10/ 2001 - Appeal Dismissed 19/4/2002
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of the former Letheringsett Maltings to eight residential units.
Development Control Committee
39
21 October 2010
The scheme would involve subdividing the main Maltings building into five dwellings,
four of which would be two bedroom with the fifth having three bedrooms. The two
storey attached office at the northern end of the site would be converted to a further
two bedroom unit. In addition it is proposed that the Tun House to the west of the
main building would be converted to a two storey two bedroom unit and the stables
immediately to the south into a single storey three bedroom unit. As part of the
scheme The Malt Kilns adjacent to the A148 would be repaired and retained in their
current form and would continue to be used as a bat roost.
Within the site there would be parking for 16 vehicles together with cycle provision
and a communal amenity area.
Access would be via the existing shared driveway with the Kings Head Public House
to the west of the site.
Amended plans have been received showing the site fully enclosed by a flood-proof
boundary wall, together with minor elevational changes.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of concerns raised by
the Environment Agency in respect of potential flooding.
PARISH COUNCIL
Support the scheme and consider that the development will prevent further
deterioration of an important site in the heart of the village.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of comment from the owners of Letheringsett Hall raising concerns
regarding the inadequacy of parking and amenity space and poor visibility at the
junction with the A148; also that there is no evidence that attempts have been made
to implement the previous holiday let use or market the site for an alterative use.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health – No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
Original Comments - Raises major concerns for the following reasons, summarised:Notwithstanding the retention of parts of the main building as a “bat roost”, which is to
commendable, from a conservation perspective I have some major concerns. The
inherent character of the interior space will be seriously denuded and the western
elevation of the main building would undergo a major change through the introduction
of ‘dropped’ doorways. The eastern elevation would see the introduction of roof lights.
It is difficult to detect from the submitted drawings the quality of the joinery or the
materials proposed for the new windows and doors and this is will need to be a
consideration when assessing the merits of a larger opening in the vicinity of the
existing main entrance doors. At this date no details have been submitted in respect
of the treatment of external ‘yard’ areas.
Against all this has to be considered the fact that the Maltings have lain empty and
vacant for many years, that they are on the Buildings at Risk Register for Norfolk and
that it seems that there is apparently no other viable use other than residential or
‘holiday let’, which is probably a more realistic option (although it is arguable whether
or not marketing has been genuine in the context of the new PPS.).
Development Control Committee
40
21 October 2010
To conclude I have some very serious concerns about the impact of the proposed
partitioning of the interior space, primarily in respect of the main Maltings building, but
also in respect of the Tun House. The stable block is of less significance. I consider a
further, more innovative attempt should be made to find a design solution that retains
more of the internal character of the building.
Comments in respect of amended plans – summarised: On the whole the changes in
the amended plans answer my concerns in respect of the western or internal yard
elevations. ’Domestication’ of these simple industrial elevations has now been
reduced. Whilst the Tun House would internally be radically altered with the insertion
of floors, the changes in fenestration are I believe once again a worthwhile sacrifice to
bring about the re-use of the building. However the proposed sub-division of the main
building as currently proposed remains an important matter for consideration and
deliberation. It would significantly change the internal character of the building. The
existing low ceiling heights on the ground floor and the long, sweeping horizontal
spaces, which for the most part run the length of the Maltings building, give rise to a
particularly strong sense of lateral space and volume. However I note that the
architect has endeavoured to retain vertical floor to roof space in each of the
proposed residential units. It has not been possible to retain the horizontal character
of the internal spaces.
The new PPS5: Planning & the Historic Environment, supports the finding of new
viable uses for ‘heritage assets’ such as the Letheringsett Maltings .The key test
though, is for any conversion or alterations not to seriously detract from the essential
character of the historic building or cause ‘serious harm’.
The Maltings have lain empty and vacant for many years and they are on the
Buildings at Risk Register for Norfolk. It seems that there is no apparent viable use
other than residential or ‘holiday let’.
In conclusion whilst having some very serious concerns about the impact of the
proposed partitioning of the interior space (primarily in respect of the main Maltings
building) and the inherent inconsistency with some of the advice in PPS5 regarding
harm I am of the view that it is in the interests of both the long-term security and
retention of the building and the wider Conservation Area to find a viable use. I can
see that the architect has tried hard to find a design solution which retains the
external character at the least. Paragraph 9.2 of the PPS5 which relates to the
concept of substantial harm is the key consideration. Weighing up any interior harm
against the benefit of finding a future use for this landmark building which will
safeguard the building for future generations to enjoy is the defining issue.
On balance I have to come to the conclusion that whilst there is harm to the internal
character of the building it is not sufficient to be termed substantial. Moreover on this
occasion the wider community benefits associated with the successful conversion of
this building probably takes precedence.
Environment Agency
Original comments – Objects on the following grounds, summarised: On the basis
that the site lies within Flood Zones 3a and 2 and as required by PPS 25 the
Sequential and Exceptions Test should be applied by the Local Planning Authority.
They also raise concerns that the submitted Floor Risk Assessment FRA fails to
demonstrate that the development is “safe” because the proposed development
would be at risk of flooding by a depth of 0.6m depth and would not have a safe
means of access or exit in the event of a design 1 in 100 year flood event including
climate change.
Development Control Committee
41
21 October 2010
Comments in respect of amended plans – Maintain previous objection, summarised:
The submitted FRA fails to consider the risk of flooding arising from the development
through the erection of flood defences. The proposals contain details for a flood
defence wall to run around the perimeter of the site. Such defences in preventing the
land from flooding will reduce the volume of flood storage available in the area. To
mitigate this compensatory storage is required to be provided for the volume of flood
storage that would be removed. Although the FRA states that compensatory storage
will not be provided as the reduction in flood storage volume will not have
any adverse effects we require compensatory storage to be provided for all
developments in fluvial flood plain, to account for any cumulative impacts that may
occur. In addition we would require details of how it would be ensured that every
property in the development would be installed with flood boards in the event of a
flood, so that they are in place should the defences breach. A management plan
should be included, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and their
Emergency Planner.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Natural England - No objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – No objection subject
to the provision of conditions to safeguard and protect the Protected Species found
on the site.
Community Safety Manager - Comments awaited.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - 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.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Development Control Committee
42
21 October 2010
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy 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).
Policy 29: The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside (specifies
criteria for converting buildings. Prevents residential conversion unless adjacent to a
settlement boundary).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact of the conversion on the fabric and appearance of listed building and wider
Conservation Area.
3. Flood risk issues.
4. Car parking and access.
5. Amenity issues.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Core Strategy where Policy SS2, Countryside, states that in such areas development
will be limited to that which requires a rural location and is for one of an number of
criterion, including, the conservation of Listed Buildings and the re-use and
adaptation of buildings for appropriate purposes.
However of particular relevance to the principle of development in this case is Saved
North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 29, The Re-use and Adaptation of Buildings in the
Countryside. This states in the countryside development proposals for the conversion
of a building to an alternative use will only be permitted where in the case of a
conversion to residential use (excluding holiday accommodation), the building is
adjacent to the boundary of a Growth Town, Small Town, Large Village or Selected
Small Village; that the building is soundly built and suitable for the proposed use
without complete or substantial rebuilding and/or extension (including garages and
other outbuildings); the re-use of buildings requiring complete or substantial
rebuilding and/or extension (including garages and other outbuildings) will be treated
as 'new build' and considered against other policies contained elsewhere in the Core
Strategy. In the case of buildings which have a significant architectural, historical or
landscape value, the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the
appearance, character, setting or fabric of the building.
Although as defined by the Core Strategy the site is within the Countryside policy
area the village of Letheringsett retains its development boundary as a Selected
Small Village for the purposes of saved Local Plan Policy 29. Whilst the site does not
immediately adjoining the boundary, being separated by the River Glaven, it is
nevertheless considered to be adjacent and as such the principle of converting the
buildings to a permanent residential use is considered to be acceptable, subject to
complying with other Core strategy policies including EN4 and EN8 and EN10. This
view is supported by a previous appeal decision in 2002, when, although the
Inspector dismissed the appeal, paragraph 14 states that “as the site is only
separated from the village development boundary by the river and road bridge with no
intervening site, I considered it to be adjacent for the purposes of Policy 29”.
Development Control Committee
43
21 October 2010
As far as the physical alterations to the group are concerned these need to be
considered against Polices EN4, Design, and EN8, Protecting and Enhancing the
Historic Environment, which require that all development be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. Development proposals, including alterations and
extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated
assets, in this case the Listed Building and wider Letheringsett Conservation Area,
and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that would
have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be
permitted. The re-use 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. New uses which result in harm to their
fabric, character, appearance or setting will not be permitted.
Compared with previously submitted schemes for the site the current amended
proposals do not involve the demolition of any of the existing structures and
throughout make efficient use of existing window and door opening positions for
natural light. However in order to provide adequate levels of natural light into the main
Maltings building the intention would be to introduce a continuous rooflight
immediately below the ridgeline on the eastern roof slope, which is the least visible. In
addition the main building would be subdivided vertically to create five dwellings,
which is somewhat regrettable and would destroy the current horizontal feel of the
interior. However the internal layout of each unit has been carefully designed to
reinforce the sense of openness, with each dwelling having an open void through the
first floor allowing appreciation of the roof structure. Externally, although it would be
necessary to install new timber windows these would incorporate horizontal louvers to
replicate the existing windows. In respect of the Tun House it is proposed to
introduce a full height central hallway to enable the quality of the original volume to be
appreciated.
Whilst it is accepted that the interior of the main Maltings building would be
substantially compromised with the single volume being lost, this has to be offset
against the both the physical and visual improvements to the external appearance of
the building and the group as a whole. At the present time although perversely
attractive in their run down state, it is evident that in the intervening period since the
previous planning applications in 2001 the buildings have continued to deteriorate
and are currently on the Buildings at Risk Register.
The buildings have not been offered for sale since the late 1990s, when the property
market was fairly buoyant and prior to the present owner purchasing them. Whilst the
Local Planning Authority could insist on a further marketing exercise, given their
continuing deterioration and the current depressed property market it is doubtful if an
alternative use which was less invasive could be found in the near future. As such
without a viable scheme to secure their further use, which at the same time retains
their overall character and appearance, this important group will continue to
deteriorate and detract from the setting of what is an attractive part of the
Letheringsett Conservation Area. Therefore whilst the scheme as proposed is a
compromise it is nevertheless seen as an opportunity to secure the future of the
buildings for generations to come whilst at the same time enhancing the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area. This view has been is supported by the
Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, who concludes that, whilst
being mindful of the new PPS5, on balance whilst there is harm to the internal
character of the building it is not sufficient to be termed substantial. Moreover on this
Development Control Committee
44
21 October 2010
occasion the wider community benefits associated with the successful conversion of
this building probably takes precedence.
Turning to the issue of flood risk, as far as the requirement for the Local Planning
Authority to undertake a Sequential and Exceptions test is concerned, since the
proposed development would involve a “material change of use”, as stipulated in
Paragraph D15 of the PPS 25 “any change of use should not be subject to the
Sequential and Exceptions test”.
The site itself lies partially in Flood Zone 3, the High Probability Flood Zone with an
annual probability of 1% (1 in 100 years) and is also partly in Zone 2 the Medium
Probability Flood Zone with an annual probability of flooding of 0.1% (1 in 1000
years). As a result of the Environment Agency's previous concerns regarding
potential flooding of the site, further works have be undertaken on the original FRA
prepared in 2008. As the existing built form provides flood proofing construction
around the majority of the site it is proposed to complete the perimeter by
constructing boundary walls to infill the gateway between the Tun House and the
Stables and replace a section of fence with a new boundary wall between the end of
the Maltings building to the existing wall to the car park. In this manner there would
be no apertures in the perimeter flood defences other than at the point of access onto
the shared gravel driveway to the Kings Head. At this point the access is outside or
very close to the edge of the flood zone and with such a flood defences in place it
would be possible to escape from any of the properties without having to negotiate
floodwaters. The Environment Agency has confirmed that the head of water at this
point is only likely to be between 200mm and 300mm and that a breach in the
defensive wall is unlikely. However the Agency has raised concerns that in providing
a defensive barrier around the site, thus preventing flood water entering the site, the
displaced water, without some form of compensatory storage facility, could result in
fluvial flooding elsewhere. In addition whilst it concedes that it is unlikely that the
defensive wall would be breached it has requested details of flood boards to the
properties together with a management plan.
Whilst the concerns of the Environment Agency are recognised, the revised Design
and Access Statement indicates that due to the topography of the area only two
properties in the vicinity of the site would be affected by potential flooding, namely
Fireman’s Cottage and the Kings Head Public House, which have floor levels
significantly below those of the development site and would flood prior to the site
itself. The agent has however indicated that if necessary the garden of the cottage to
the rear of the Maltings, which is in the applicant's ownership, could be excavated to
the water table to provide compensatory storage or alternatively the sluice gate to the
River Glaven could be raised to the level of the development site, so that in times of
flooding flood water would overtop the sluice passing through the culvert under the
Maltings into the leat within the site, which could be excavated to accommodate a
comparable volume of water.
However it is considered that a balanced judgment has to be made in respect of the
potential for flooding against securing the future of an important grade II listed
building which is currently at risk. Given the fact that there are no records of flooding
in the vicinity of the site, the predictions are based on at worst a 1:100 year
probability, coupled with the fact that any flood water at this point is likely to be only
between 200mm and 300mm deep, and that in such an event properties in the vicinity
of the site would in probably already be flooded it is not considered that the displaced
amount of extra flood would significantly affect the area. Furthermore with the
proposed flood defences in place any flooding would not increase the risk to
Development Control Committee
45
21 October 2010
occupiers of the Maltings complex. As such in this particular case it is considered that
securing the future of the listed building outweighs the threat of flooding.
As far as parking provision within the site is concerned the development would allow
for 16 parking spaces and cycle storage provision which comply with the parking
standards contained in the Core Strategy. Furthermore, the Highway Authority has
confirmed that given the previous use of the site it would not wish to raise an
objection. However it has indicated that it would like to pursue the possibility of
providing an extension of the footpath to the entrance of the site.
In terms of the availability of amenity space given the site constraints it is intended
that the there would be no defined amenity space for individual properties, but, in
character with the current layout of the site, there would be a communal area within
the centre of the site for the whole development. Whilst such an arrangement would
result in an under-provision of space when considered against the criterion contained
in the North Norfolk Design Guide in this particular case given the characteristics of
the site, this would seem to be an equitable solution, as the subdivision into individual
plots would be both visually intrusive and historically inappropriate. However in order
to ensure that the setting of the group is preserved precise details of hard and soft
landscaping would be required.
In summary, whilst this site has been the subject of a number of planning and listed
building applications in the past, to date the site remains derelict with the buildings
which are historically important in their own right and also which contribute to the
wider Conservation Area continuing to deteriorate. As such given the fact that their
conversion to permanent residential use would in principle comply with Development
Plan policy and no intervening uses have been forthcoming since early 2000, it is
considered that such a use is acceptable.
In respect of the physical alterations to the building, whilst externally the scheme of
conversion would retain their character and appearance, it is accepted that internally
the loss of the single open volume would severely compromise the integrity of the
building. However again this has to be offset again finding a viable future for the
group.
In respect of potential flooding, given that any effects are likely to be localised and
would not place residents at any increased it is considered that the need to secure
the future of the buildings in this instance outweighs the concerns of the Environment
Agency. It is therefore considered that on balance that the scheme as proposed is
acceptable in that it would preserve the building for future generations and benefit the
wider community in terms its visual impact and as such would accords with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to further reference to the Environment Agency in
view of its objection, and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
46
21 October 2010
14.
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/0738 - Erection of general purpose agricultural
building; Land off Melton Road for G W Harrold & Partners
Major Development
Target Date: 03 November 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Employment Area
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090988 PF - Erection of general purpose agricultural building
Withdrawn 08/01/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a general purpose agricultural building for the storage and drying
of grain and storage of farm implements.
The main building, as originally submitted would be orientated east- west would,
measure approximately 60m x 30m, 8m to the eaves and 12m to the ridge, and
would be divided into two equal areas with two roller shutter doors to the western
gable end serving one half of the building. In addition to the western gable end, sited
between the roller shutter doors, would be a small lean two building measuring 6m x
6m which would house the electric power supply and fans. A further two roller shutter
doors would be located to the southern elevation serving the remainder of the
building. Attached to the north of the main building would be a lean to implement
store measuring 30m x 9m with 6m eaves which would have five roller shutter doors
to the north elevation.
The main building would have self coloured concrete grain walling to 3.6m above
ground level with the remaining walls being finished in olive green vertical emphasis
steel cladding, whilst the roof of the whole building would be of natural grey fibre
cement sheeting. The roller shutter and personnel doors would also be of an olive
green finish.
Access to the site would be via the entrance to the Industrial Estate off Hindolveston
Road, through part of a site currently used as a builder’s yard. Within the site itself,
which has an area of just over 0.6 hectares, there would be a 4m wide concrete
roadway serving a hard standing to the west and south of the main building. To the
north a hardcore area would serve a further concrete hard standing adjacent to the
implement store.
An amended plan has been received which would reduce the pitch of the main roof to
12.5 degrees dropping the overall height of the building to 11 metres at the ridge
(from 12 metres).
A further amended plan has been received which indicates the building being set into
the ground by approximately 1.8 metres at the western end with a new 2 metres high
earth bund to the east of building and a 6 metre wide by 80 metre long tree planning
belt to the south.
Development Control Committee
47
21 October 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL - Comments on the original proposal:
Object to the application on the grounds that the size of the building would be a
dominant feature in the landscape when approaching the village from the west, and
would not fit in with the existing buildings that are close by. They are also concerned
by possible noise pollution, although understand that this can be mitigated if
insulation is installed around the fans.
Comments awaited on the amended plan.
REPRESENTATIONS
Fourteen letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the
following concerns (summarised): One letter indicates that their objection is
supported by three further residents of Astley Terrace.
1. Would increase the potential for noise, dust and dirt affecting properties in the
area.
2. The Acoustic Report methodology of making comparisons of different sites where
the equipment has been installed is flawed as the location and weather
conditions can affect the results.
3. The low drone from the grain dryer fans would affect the peace and tranquillity of
Melton Park and the Conservation Area.
4. Would result in more heavy vehicles and increased traffic congestion through the
village.
5. If the grain store is not used to capacity it could be put to contract use which
could result in grain coming from holdings outside the applicants control
increasing traffic movements.
6. The building it to big for the intended site and will look out of place and ugly and
would dominate the skyline, being visually intrusive and in dissonance with the
adjoining Conservation Area.
7. The building would be out of scale with those on the industrial estate.
8. The building should be located within the industrial estate.
9. Industrial farming methods should not be catered for at the expense of local
residents and wildlife.
10. It would potentially spoil and or obstruct views of the water tower which
contributes to the railway history of the area.
One letter making the following comments (summarised):
Whilst not objecting to the building I would like to bring to the attention of the Local
Planning Authority that this village has suffered from the constant roar of industrial
fans from this area in the past, causing interruption to sleep to those living near the
estate. Can residents of Melton Constable be assured that the noise created from the
fans will be at a level so as not to cause a nuisance and that they will not operate
through the night?
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways)
The location of the building appears to lead to a reduction in vehicular movements
through the villages of Hindolveston, Briston and Melton Constable by removing the
need to transport grain to Foulsham and Corpusty, which in turn leads to the benefit,
that the grain, when transported onwards to merchants, is closer to the classified
road network. Whilst in respect of the access the proposed realignment of the
boundary fence and hedgerow would result in a significant increase in available
visibility to the south. The Highway Authority would therefore raise no objection to the
Development Control Committee
48
21 October 2010
proposal however would require conditions in respect of the provision of the visibility
splay and the need for wheel cleaning during the duration of the construction period.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to adequate pollution prevention
measures being in place to protect controlled waters.
Building Control - The presence or otherwise of landfill gas has no relevance to this
proposal.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager - (Landscape)
Original Comments: This amended application addresses previous concerns relating
to the orientation of the grain store building and its dominance in the landscape due
to its scale and footprint. The revised east – west alignment of the building is more
akin to the prevailing development line and layout of the established buildings on the
industrial estate. In this revised position the screening from the existing belt of mature
pines and the proposed new tree belt would become more effective.
The existing mature beech hedge and the belt of existing pines would significantly
screen the building along the western site boundary. A 55m length tree belt is
proposed along this boundary to further screen the building and to reinforce this
hedge boundary. As a result given the revised siting it is considered that the visual
impact of the building from the west together with amount of tree planting would
result in the impact being fairly localised. In this regard the proposal is now
acceptable from a landscape impact, although any further reduction in the height of
the building that could be achieved would be welcomed as would a change in the
proposed natural cement roof covering to a more recessive colour.
Awaiting comments in respect of amended plans
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager - (Conservation)
The site lies immediately south of Melton Constable Conservation Area, adjacent to
the former railway sheds and iconic water tower, the few remnants of the railway era
which shaped the development of the village. The significance of the built heritage of
the village relating to the railway era is a key factor in the Conservation Area
designation. Apart from the railway sheds, the industrial estate holds little relevance
to the railway era, dominated as it is by modern industrial and commercial units. The
water tower is the most prominent building, especially from the western approach to
the village, and was recommended in the 2008 Conservation Area Appraisal for
consideration of formal listing. A belt of Scots pines along Melton Road is protected
by a TPO. Whilst the grain store would not visually enhance the setting of the
Conservation Area it is consider its impact to be neutral due to the predefined
industrial/agricultural character of the locality and its relatively low built heritage
significance.
In conclusion, while the form and scale of the proposed grain store is at odds with the
existing buildings in the vicinity, on balance the visual impact of the development on
the wider landscape would be relatively localised. For this reason there can be no
overriding objection.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the equipment being installed in full
accordance with the recommendations made in the acoustic report which
accompanied the application, which included noise control measures.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Development Control Committee
49
21 October 2010
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Visual impact of the building on the landscape.
3. Transport implications of development.
4. Potential noise and disturbance to local residents.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at a previous meeting in order to allow Officers time to
negotiate improvements to the scheme, including a lowering of the ground level by
1m in order to reduce the height of the building and for an earth bund to be formed
to the south and east of the building, together with additional planting.
The main part of the site and the proposed building are located within the
Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk Core Strategy, whilst the
access road through the Industrial Estate is within an area designated for
employment and also forms part of the Melton Constable Conservation Area. In the
Countryside, Policy SS2 would allow development for agricultural purposes whilst
Policy EN2 requires that through their location, scale, design and materials
development proposals protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area as defined in the North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment. Similarly EN4 requires that development is
suitably designed for the context within which it is set and that the scale and massing
of buildings relates sympathetically to the surrounding area. In addition the policy
states that proposal should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenities of nearby occupiers, a concern which is expanded on in Policy
EN13 which requires that all development minimises and where possible reduces all
Development Control Committee
50
21 October 2010
emissions, including light and noise, and also ensures no deterioration in water
quality.
In terms of the principle of development, since the grain store would be used by the
applicants in association with their existing agricultural holding, which is
predominantly to the south of Melton Constable, extending as far as the village of
Hindolveston, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with Policy
SS2 of the Core Strategy.
As far as the design and location of the grain store is concerned, the amended plans
show the building being set into the ground at the western end by 1.8m which would
effectively result in its finished height above the existing ground level being 9.4
metres, some 2.4 metres below the height of the adjacent water tower. However
owing to the slight slope of the land at the eastern end the building would only be set
into the ground by approximately 600mm. In addition to setting the building into the
ground it is proposed to create an earth bund to the eastern side of the building
which would be some 2 metres in height. Running east-west to the south of the grain
store would be an additional planting belt 6 metres wide by 80 metres long which
would be planted with Scot Pine, Beech and Oak trees.
Whilst is accepted that the proposed building would undoubtedly be a large structure,
it is considered that the amendments proposed would significantly reduce its impact
in the landscape. Furthermore the scale of the building needs to be considered in the
context of its surroundings and also existing landscape features, which it is
considered would result in the building having a relatively localised visual impact.
When approaching the site from the south along Hindolveston Road, due to the
dense conifer woodland and roadside hedges, views of the site would be restricted
as would views from the north due to overgrown hedging and Scot pines trees, which
are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. The only other vantage point, other
than across roofs of the industrial estate buildings to the north east, would be from
the west when approaching Melton Constable along the B1354 Fakenham Road.
From here it is possible that part of the western gable end of the building would be
seen from a position some 370m from the site. However even from here it is
considered that the building would be partially masked by a large group of trees
immediately adjoining the site to the south and would be well below the height of the
former Midland and Great North Railway water tower, which is some 11.5m in height.
In addition to the amended plan showing a planting belt to the south of the building
the scheme as originally submitted also indicates the planting along to the east side
of the Hindolveston Road being reinforced with a 55m x 9m planting belt containing
55 trees planted in three rows. To the south of the field access there would be a
further triangular planting belt containing 53 trees. It is therefore considered that the
impact of the building on the landscape would be localised. The further comments of
the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) are awaited in
respect of the proposed amendments.
In terms of the building's impact on the adjoining Conservation Area, this area of
Melton Constable was designated due to its social and railway history and includes a
number of the original engine sheds within the industrial estate which themselves are
now in commercial use. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that whilst the building would not visually enhance the setting of the
Conservation Area its impact would be neutral due to the predefined
industrial/agricultural character of the locality and its relatively low built heritage
significance.
Development Control Committee
51
21 October 2010
Turning to the access arrangements, as part of the development it is proposed that
the existing close boarded fence which fronts the Hindolveston Road, to the south of
the entrance be set back by approximately 1metre so at to provide the necessary
visibility required by the Highway Authority. In addition a detailed assessment of
transport movements associated with the existing farm arrangements and those
which would result from the provision of the grain store have been submitted as part
of the application. This shows that the majority of the area farmed is to the south of
the village of Melton Constable and that at the present time there is a need to
transport grain between Park Farm to the west, Holly Farm to the east, near
Corpusty, and Foulsham airfield to the south, depending on the need for drying and
storage of grain. As a result at the present time it is often necessary for farm traffic in
the form of tractors/trailers and HGV vehicles to travel through Melton Constable.
The report states that the proposed building would result in a centralisation of the
grain drying and storage facility which would not only reduce travelling time but would
also reduce the need to transport much of the grain through the village. The Highway
Authority has indicated that it has no objection to the proposal.
As part of the application a full acoustic report has been submitted. Due to the fact
that at certain times of the year the grain drying fans would need to be run 24 hours a
day, this includes night time background noise levels. In addition the building has
been designed so that the insulated fan house building, containing two centrifugal
drying fans, would be positioned at the western end of the main building, thereby
directing any sound away from the village of Melton Constable. The conclusion of the
report is that in respect of the closest residences 315 m to the north east the external
plant noise level would be well below the World Health Organisation guidelines for
night time noise. This has been confirmed by the Council’s Environmental Protection
team who conclude that, subject to the equipment being installed in full accordance
with the recommendations made in the acoustic report, which included noise control
measures, they have no objections to the proposal. However the proposed
introduction of a bund to the east of the building together with setting the grain store
into the ground would it is considered further mitigate against any potential noise
issues.
In respect of external lighting this would consist of 150 watt floodlights fitted above
the roller shutter doors and would only be used when the grain store was in use after
dark.
It is therefore considered that the development as proposed would not have a
significantly detrimental impact on the landscape or the setting of the adjoining
Conservation Area, and would result in a reduction in farm traffic through the village
of Melton Constable. In terms of the potential noise impact resulting from the drying
of grain this would be within acceptable limits. The proposal would therefore accord
with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to no new grounds of objection from the Parish
Council or the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) and
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
52
21 October 2010
15.
NORTH WALSHAM - HZ/09/0996 - Hazardous Substances Consent for Storage
of Gasoline and Naphthas; Station Yard, Norwich Road for British Pipeline
Agency Limited
Minor Development
Target Date: 10 November 2009
Case Officer: Mr P Took
Hazardous Substance
CONSTRAINTS
Principal Route
Contaminated Land
THE APPLICATION
Seeks Hazardous Substances Consent for the storage of natural gas condensate
(gasoline and napthas) at Station Yard, North Walsham. The condensate is piped
from the Bacton Gas Terminal and stored at the British Pipeline Agency (BPA) site
before being transported away from the site by rail. A maximum of 2,820 tonnes can
be stored in the tanks on site, plus further storage in the Rail Tank Wagons used to
transport the condensate.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Miss Ford having regard to health and safety issues.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objections but would request that the County Officers carefully review the safety
issues on site with regard to hazardous waste.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objections from agents acting for the adjacent land owner that has been
allocated for residential, employment, open space and additional rail station
purposes, raising concerns at the potential safety risk that may be posed. It also
refers to the advice from the Health and Safety Executive, and points out that a
school is within the HSE area. Considers case against is even greater when their
clients' proposals are considered alongside other nearby development. They suggest
there would also be a wider area of risk from a vapour cloud explosion.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health Manager - No objections
Emergency Planning Officer - He is, together with the County Council Emergency
Planning Team, aware of the site and change in legislation that has resulted in this
application and has no concerns over the proposal.
Norfolk Fire Service - Awaiting comments
Environment Agency - No objections.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - Initial comments - advises against the granting
of consent on grounds of safety.
Further holding objection subsequently received (see Appendix 7).
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.
Development Control Committee
53
21 October 2010
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Health and safety.
APPRAISAL
Members will be aware of the operational details of the site following the Committee
site inspection.
The application has been submitted as a result of relatively recent changes in the
relevant Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Amendment) (England) Regulations
2009, such that the BPA storage facility now requires Hazardous Substances
Consent. The storage capacity and management of the site remains unchanged. The
legislative changes have been brought about by the Buncefield Terminal fire in 2005
and therefore the submission of the application has been triggered by the postBuncefield tightening of the legislation, not by any change in working practices.
The HSE have 'Advised Against' the granting of the Hazardous Substances Consent
application on grounds of safety but Officers are aware that the HSE has been in
discussion with the applicants to consider various mitigation works. Due to the nature
of the storage capacity and its location the objection remains (see Appendix 7).
Nevertheless the applicants intend to model design mitigation measures to meet the
HSE criteria and are awaiting further data from the HSE from which they could model
the tanks. Until this data has been independently verified this "holding" objection will
remain. The applicants have also provided details of a proposed 4-step improvement
plan through to 2012.
It appears that the HSE has considered the worst case scenario, including the failure
of both the storage vessels and the rail tankers and the subsequent spread and
ignition of released liquid to form a pool fire. The assessment has taken into account
the existing land uses in the vicinity, including residential properties to the north-east
and on Grange Court, and North Walsham Hospital.
Although the health and safety issue is the prime consideration and the expertise to
assess the risks arising from the storage of the condensate is clearly that of the HSE,
the applicants have referred to the strategic importance of the storage tanks to the
operation of the Bacton Gas terminal and the national gas energy supply, which
needs to be weighed against the HSE objection.
The HSE has also pointed out that the applicants have undertaken a number of
improvements to the safety measures within the site over recent years, and have
indicated that consideration could be given to additional containment to limit the liquid
spread of the condensate, including additional bunding and drainage sumps.
Development Control Committee
54
21 October 2010
On the basis that it is expected that the works proposed by the applicants will in due
course satisfy the requirements of the HSE and that there is a firm and clear
commitment for the applicants to carry out those works, it is recommended that
delegated authority be given to grant consent, subject to conditions requiring the
programme of works to be implemented in accordance with the proposed timetable
and subject to receipt of confirmation from the HSE that such works, if implemented,
would enable it to withdraw its objection.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to appropriate conditions and to
receipt of confirmation from the HSE as outlined above.
16.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0817 - Erection of 40-Bed Care Home; Manor House,
Skeyton Road for The Manor House (North Walsham Wood) Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 17 November 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
County Wildlife Site
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19750795 PF - Change of use from garages to old peoples self contained
units
Approved 05/08/1975
PLA/19760115 PF - Change of use from hotel for the elderly to private residential
school
Approved 07/04/1976
PLA/19760555 PM - Conversion of stables & garages into self-contained units
Approved 21/06/1976
PLA/19861704 PF - Change of use from class xi to class xiv of the town & country
planning (use classes) order 1972
Approved 28/11/1986
PLA/19881465 PF - Nursing home addition
Approved 18/10/1988
PLA/19921822 PF - Extension to existing residential home to provide ten new
bedrooms with associated bathroom facilities
Approved 25/02/1993
PLA/19940975 PF - Extension to provide eight additional beds
Approved 13/10/1994
PLA/19941052 PF - Nursing home addition
Approved 16/12/1994
PLA/19981033 PF - Alterations, erection of extension and detached double garage
Approved 15/09/1998
PLA/19990046 PF - Erection of detached nursing home unit
Approved 10/09/1999
PLA/20020519 PF - Erection of two-storey extension and single-storey store
Approved 23/05/2002
Development Control Committee
55
21 October 2010
PLA/20042077 PF - Erection of two-storey extension
Approved 07/01/2005
PLA/20060157 PO - Erection of 40-bed care home
Approved 20/04/2007
PLA/20071491 PM - Erection of forty-bed care home
Approved 18/12/2007
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a 40 bed, single-storey, specialised residential care unit (EMI unit)
within the grounds of an existing Care Home, but located some 50 metres away from
the main care home. The unit would have a square footprint built around an internal
quadrangle providing 40 bedrooms, with 12 bedrooms facing inwards to the secure
garden within the quadrangle and 28 bedrooms facing outwards. Each bedroom
would have ensuite toilets with wash basins. The unit appears self-contained with its
own laundry and kitchen, nurse station, treatment room, two dining areas, three
lounges, three bathrooms and two shower rooms.
The existing driveway would serve as access to the unit, with 17 additional parking
spaces would be provided.
The following documents have been submitted as part of the planning application.
Design and Access Statement
Energy Statement and Renewable Technology Review
Ecological Survey
Arboricultural Implication Assessment & Method Statement.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Ms Gay having regard to the following planning issues:
Highway and health concerns.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects - The road infrastructure is inadequate for the increased traffic this proposal
would create. Suggest a traffic plan is undertaken to include the number of existing
users of the highway and condition of the road before considering the matter further.
The area must be fenced to stop residents wandering onto nearby farmland.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter has been received from an adjoining landowner raising the following
observations.
Questions whether a minor road with poor connections to the nearest town is the
right location.
Suggest the site should be fenced to prevent patients wandering off.
Problems with foul drainage
Fire risk with only one access/egress when surrounded by woodland.
The agent in his Design and Access Statement sets out the need an EMI Care unit in
North Norfolk explaining how the demographics of Norfolk are increasing the demand
for these type of beds. It also explains how this unit would enable the care home to
offer residents a 'home for life' in comfortable surroundings.
A copy of the Design and Access Statement is available to view in the Members'
Room.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways - Given that the site has an established use for residential care, and that
Development Control Committee
56
21 October 2010
the visibility at the junction of the private access track and public highway accords
with the requirements of the Department of Transports 'Manual for Streets', the
Highways Authority does not object to the proposal. The Highways Authority
requests conditions on the width of the private access road, visibility splays, no gates
without prior agreement and the provision of parking areas.
Norfolk County Council Community Services
Norfolk County Council has identified a need in North Walsham for nursing care for
dementia patients, some of whom will require physical as well as specialist mental
health nursing. Supports the provision of a care home with nursing to meet the
specialist needs of people with significant dementia. However, since the previous
approval thinking on care for dementia patients has moved on and the County
Council does not support this design.
It is more calming for people with severe dementia to live in small groups, rather than
living as one large group of 40. The proposed plans do not allow for such groupings,
which would require more communal areas.
Ideally people should have as much personal space as possible, 12.2m2, including
en-suite, is insufficient for people with dementia. The rooms and en-suite should also
be wheelchair accessible. Considers that the room size is inadequate to meet the
expectations of future generations.
The provision of a secure garden is welcome and suggests a larger secure garden
could help meet the needs of people who have a need to wander,
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
the trees lost from the development being replaced elsewhere within the site, no dig
construction within the vicinity of the trees and tree protection during construction.
Environmental Health - no object subject to conditioning the bin storage and
extraction.
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):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
EC 3 - Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents extensions of
inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of the area)
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport)
CT 6 - Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances)
Development Control Committee
57
21 October 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Highway safety
Design
APPRAISAL
The Manor House is located in within wooded grounds some 2km from North
Walsham, it lies within the Countryside policy area where there is generally a
presumption against such new development unless it is for the expansion of an
existing business (Policy EC3). It lies within an area classified as a County Wildlife
site though otherwise has no other special ecological protection. Manor House has
been in use for the care of the elderly for some considerable time and the main
building has previously been extended for this purpose. This new building is
proposed as an EMI Care facility specialising in those patients with dementia and
Alzheimers whose very particular needs cannot be provided for in nursing homes.
This application is essentially a renewal of a reserved matters planning permission
granted in 2007 which subsequently expired in 2009 (2007/1941).
The new unit is proposed on a meadow and recently planted orchard, close to the
main building. Although a fairly substantial building, in this discrete location
surrounded by mature trees and woodland it is shielded from public view and would
not intrude upon the wider landscape. Some trees would need to be removed to
make way for the new building, mostly these are young fruit trees though a few more
mature native specimens will also be lost. An arboricultural implications and method
statement sets out the measures to protect other trees close to the building during
the construction. The agent is currently considering whether additional fencing and
hedging can be provided around the site.
As regards the design, the scale of the proposal would be minimised by the square
footprint of the proposed building. The residual bulk of the building would be broken
up and visual interest would be added to the outside of the new building through the
addition of gables and the introduction of contrasting texture and colour materials of
brick, Eternit boarding and render on the external walls. The design is not dissimilar
in appearance to an extension built behind the original building. Every bedroom
would have a garden aspect facing either outwards to the woodland gardens or
inwards to the secure inner garden.
While the concerns of the Norfolk County Council Community Services about the size
of the rooms are noted, the District Council has no guidelines or criteria for minimum
room sizes. Whilst it may ultimately have some implications for design it is
considered that the issue of room sizes fall within the remit of the Quality Care
Commission and this is not an issue with which the District Council should become
involved.
Care homes for the elderly are not generally regarded as generating high levels of
visitors, though obviously there would be an increase in staff numbers. So as
regards the impact on the local highway network, the Highway Authority has raised
no objection to the proposal and has not considered a travel plan is necessary to
assess this development. While the road to North Walsham is narrow in places any
increased traffic arising from this expansion is not regarded as placing undue strain
on the highway network.
As to the parking arrangements, the agent has stated there are 16 existing spaces
and 17 more are proposed increasing the total number to 33. However, a more
detailed analysis has been requested from the agent and Members will be updated at
Development Control Committee
58
21 October 2010
the meeting. If there is a shortfall in the proposed provision it is considered that any
increase in the number of spaces could easily be met within the existing site.
Policy EC 3 is generally supportive of extensions to businesses within the
Countryside providing that the scale of the proposed development is proportionate to
that of the existing business and there is no harm to the character of the area. This
is a well-established business which may also be considered an important
community facility, bearing in mind the County Council considers there is a need for
this scale and type of provision within the North Walsham area. Policy CT 3 has
within the Countryside policy area a presumption in favour of new community
facilities where they meet the needs of the local community.
In conclusion, bearing in mind the history of the previous approval, that there is
support for this type of facility from the County Council Community Services within
the North Walsham area, the Highway Authority has no highway safety concerns and
the proposal would have not be detrimental to the local landscape, the application is
recommended for approval.
It is considered that the development accords with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the clarification of parking provision
and fencing/hedging arrangements and the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
17.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0291 - Erection of one and a half-storey extension to
provide two additional flats; 7 Holt Road for Messrs P and T Jenkins
Minor Development
Target Date: 12 May 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19940740 EF - Certificate of lawful use of part of property as self-contained flat
Approved 24/06/1994
PLA/20090964 PF
Erection of One and a Half Storey Extension to Provide Two Additional Flats
Withdrawn 16/11/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a one and a half storey extension to the western side of the
property to provide two additional flats.
Amended plans received, reducing the number of proposed parking spaces from 8 to
4 (deleting the parking spaces adjacent to the highway and closest to existing trees)
and widening the existing access road.
Development Control Committee
59
21 October 2010
The property is currently divided into 5 flats with no dedicated on-site parking. There
is one garage which is to be demolished to make way for one of the new parking
spaces.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Nelson having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Parking
2. Impact on the street scene
TOWN COUNCIL
Members remain consistent with their previous objections. It was expressed the
parking arrangements are less than satisfactory than the previous application
submitted. Members also expressed there could be possible danger to pedestrians
using the footpath. It was also agreed the proposed application is detrimental to the
street scene.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received on the following grounds:
1. The demolition of the garage to be replaced with a parking space will result in loss
of privacy to the ground floor bedroom window adjacent on 5b Holt Road.
2. On-site parking proposed at an elevated level to the adjacent highway could have
safety implications.
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - subject to conditions the application complies with Policy
EN6 of the Core Strategy.
County Council Highways - The amended scheme proposes four parking spaces.
Given the existing parking arrangement at the site and the proximity to the town
centre, the reduced parking scheme would raise no highway objection given that the
parking arrangement would meet the requirements for the flats proposed under this
application.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Subsequent to the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's previous
comments on the above application, a Tree Preservation Order was served
(TPO/10/0808) to protect the three large Poplar trees to the front of the site.
Concern was raised by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager due to the
negative impact the proposed car parking bays would have on the trees root system
and health. As a result of serving the TPO modifications were made to the parking
areas and they were removed away from the trees which should therefore result in no
negative impact on the protected trees.
The required widening of the drive for highway improvements could potentially impact
on the tree closest to the drive (T1 of the TPO). An Arboricultural Impact Assessment
(AIA) and Method Statement stated that the driveway could be widened without
causing irreparable damage to T1, through careful construction and the use of a nodig driveway. However, the AIA also indicated that the trees were subject to
infestation by a moth larva which has rendered T1 in a poor physiological condition.
The arboriculturist has recommended removal of T1 (and the laburnum adjacent to it)
on health and safety grounds and replacement with a Holm oak. As a result a
separate tree work application to remove the tree (TW/10/0216) was received by
NNDC to remove the tree and approved on the basis that a replacement tree was
Development Control Committee
60
21 October 2010
planted (a Holm oak). It is not clear when or if the removal of T1 will take place (even
though permission has been granted). Therefore conditions are required to ensure
protection of the tree during construction in accordance with the Arboricultural
Implications Assessment in the event that the protected tree remains on site. Subject
to conditions or removal and replacement of the tree in line with the tree works
application, the proposal is acceptable.
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):
SS 3 - Housing (strategic approach to housing issues)
EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the
North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction)
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport)
CT 6 - Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Parking
2. Design
3. Neighbouring amenity
4. Impact on trees
APPRAISAL
The application has been amended with the aim of overcoming concerns with
parking, access and impact on the trees on the site.
The site lies within the development boundary of Sheringham where the principle of
the creation of new dwellings is acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
other Core Strategy Policies.
In terms of on-site parking provision, the current application has been amended to
delete four of the 8 originally proposed spaces to the front of the site due to concerns
on the impact on the tree roots of the trees to the frontage of the site. There is
currently one garage on the site but no other parking facility. The increase to four
spaces would meet the Council's requirements and on that basis the Highway
Authority is raising no objection. The deletion of four parking spaces to the front of
the site has also overcome the Town Council's and neighbours' concern in respect of
safety implications of parking at an elevated level close to the footpath.
The layout of the four parking spaces on the site includes the need to demolish the
garage which sits between the application site and No.5b to the east. Concern has
been raised by the owner of the adjacent dwelling that the parking space in this
Development Control Committee
61
21 October 2010
location would result in a loss of privacy to a downstairs bedroom window adjacent.
Whilst it is accepted that the removal of the garage would leave this elevation more
open to the application site, given that the demolition of the garage and open parking
in this location does not require the benefit of planning permission, it is not
considered that a refusal on the basis of loss of privacy in this respect could be
substantiated.
In terms of other amenity issues, whilst some overlooking would be introduced from
the proposed first floor bedroom and lounge windows, this would only be towards the
front garden of the dwelling to the west and as such no significantly adverse loss of
privacy is considered to result. In addition given the limited height and scale of the
extension to form the two new dwellings, it is not considered that these would have
any significantly adverse overbearing relationship with the adjacent property.
In terms of the proposed design and its impact on the street scene, the proposed
extension to this building would be subordinate in height, bulk and scale in
comparison with the original building and as such would have no adverse impact on
the character or appearance of the original building. In terms of impact on the street
scene, given the angle to which the building and extension would be sited with the
road and that the boundary is partly screened, it is not considered that the front
elevation would be read as one; as such it is not considered that the proposal would
have any adverse visual impact on the street scene or wider area.
The access driveway would be widened in part to ensure that the access is suitable
for the addition of the two new dwelling units. County Highways have advised that
subject to conditions the proposed access arrangements are acceptable and raise no
objection to the scheme overall.
Subject to conditions, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
advised that the scheme is considered acceptable, having no adverse impact on the
protected trees on the site.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
18.
SUFFIELD - PF/10/0618 - Restoration and upgrading of building, erection of
replacement workshop and engineering unit and removal of temporary
containers; Blacksmith Shop, The Street for North Norfolk Accident Repair
Centre
Minor Development
Target Date: 22 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
Height Restriction (MOD)
Countryside
Development Control Committee
62
21 October 2010
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19850280
HR - Improvements to existing blacksmiths agricultural and
automotive engineers shop
Approved 24/05/1985
PLA/19840142 HR - Blacksmiths agricultural & automotive engineer's shop
Approved 17/05/1984
PLA/20090465 PF - Renovation of the old forge and erection of replacement spray
booth and workshop, together with additional access and car parking
Withdrawn 22/07/2009
THE APPLICATION
The application relates to the replacement and upgrading of existing commercial
premises. New buildings comprise:
- A building to provide workshop/paint booth/hoist, to be constructed from dark green
vertical profile metal sheeting with mono pitch roofs either sedum or green fibreglass.
Height approx. 4.0m increasing to approx. 5.4m over the hoist.
- An engineering building approx. 4.2m in height above site level - to be constructed
from material to match the former blacksmiths buildings which is to be restored, red
facing brick and pantile roof.
- Erection of a 1.8m security boundary wall on the site frontage with The Street and
the adjacent through road.
- Hard standing for parking, 5 spaces being indicated.
The proposal includes the removal of three storage containers from the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Willcox having regard to the following planning issues:Employment opportunities in the rural area.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application - Consider the new plans are more sympathetic to the
location than those previously submitted and notes the efforts have been made to
reduce the impact of the new buildings. Additionally, Suffield PC welcomes removal
of the steel containers and retention of hedges as boundaries, notably to the North
West which borders a Conservation Area. However, the Council has deep
reservations about the road safety implications of aspects of the plans as they entail
moving the present site boundaries out to what appears to be the maximum extent.
The Council believes that it would result in compounding the danger of the already
hazardous road junctions. Road users find it difficult to see whether the road is clear
as they approach the junctions at the apexes of the triangle, particularly those at the
west and north. To avoid exacerbating the dangers Suffield PC believes that the
footprint of the site should not be allowed to extend right into the corners.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of support received from the occupiers of three properties on The Street one letter indicates that there have been no problems in regards to the workshops at
the Triangle, its vehicles or items in its driveway, or with the metal storage containers
and considers that the proposal will have a positive impact on the amenity of the
area.
Development Control Committee
63
21 October 2010
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Team - The application complies with Policy EN6. Planning condition
should be imposed requiring the imposition of the proposed sustainability measures.
Environmental Health - Noise:
I do have some concerns regarding noise associated with the potential use of the
workshop and the potential effect that this could have on residential neighbours.
Furthermore, we have had a previous complaint of alleged noise nuisance, however,
this complaint was not pursued by the complainant and the matter was closed as no
evidence to proceed.
I would suggest applying the following conditions:
•
•
Before any new plant and/or machinery is used in the workshop hereby
permitted full details of any machinery and/or plant to be installed/used in the
workshop shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The submitted details shall include measures to control noise.
Prior to the first use of the replacement workshop hereby permitted full details
of the installation of any extractor or ventilation equipment shall be submitted
to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The submitted details shall
include measures to control noise and odour. The equipment shall be
installed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The application site is
on a triangular piece of land situated at a minor road junction within the small rural
village of Suffield. The village itself lies on the edge of, and is historically associated
with, the Gunton Park estate, an historic wooded parkland estate covered by
Conservation Area status. The Conservation Area boundary terminates at the
northern boundary of the application site. The main visual components of the
location are locally distinctive brick housing, some modern housing, significant
deciduous woodland, domestic gardens/allotments and hedgerows (some under
management, some not). The application site is partly bordered by mature hedging
(to the south and west), makeshift gates and fencing posts. Visible buildings within
the site include the brick built former forge building, three metal containers (painted
white, green and blue respectively) and a corrugated grey metal sheeting building.
The existing hedging helps screen the site and most of the buildings within, to a
certain degree. The brick forge integrates with the rest of the built form within the
village. However, the metal containers on the eastern boundary have a significant
visual impact due to their colour and material type. The grey metal sheeting building,
although incongruous with most of the built structures within the village, is not
particularly visually intrusive as it is screened by the hedging. The screening effect of
the hedging will be reduced in the winter months. The existing gates to the
application site are not in keeping with local styles and detract from the attractive
rural setting and the Conservation Area.
The development proposals involve removing the three metal storage containers and
replacing the grey metal sheeting building with a larger building (in terms of footprint),
built of dark green vertical profile metal sheeting with either a Sedum flat roof or a
green fibreglass roof. The proposed building extends to the limit of the northern
boundary of the site, adjacent to the main North Walsham Road, with a section of the
building being 5.3m in height, but with the majority matching the height of the existing
brick forge (approximately 4m in height). A new brick building is proposed to the
north of the old forge, again matching the height of the former forge building and
materials. The proposed metal sheeting ‘workshop’ building is to be screened from
the North Walsham Road by new hedge planting, whereas the new brick
Development Control Committee
64
21 October 2010
‘engineering’ building is to back directly onto The Street with a new security brick wall
extending to the south and around to the south-western aspect of the site. The new
wall will require the removal of an existing established hedge.
The key Core Strategy policies which are pertinent to the design and visual aspects
of the development are EN4: Design, EN2: Protection and Enhancement of
Landscape and Settlement Character, and EN8: Protecting and Enhancing the
Historic Environment. These policies are supported by two additional Supplementary
Planning Documents: the North Norfolk Design Guide and the North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The North Norfolk LCA indicates that the
application site is located on the boundary of the Gunton and Hanworth Wooded with
Parkland Character Area and the Banningham to Suffield Small Valley Character
Area. Of particular significance within the LCA is the sensitivity of the application site
in terms of landscape character, as it is noted in the document that the setting of the
parks makes the surrounding areas of greater sensitivity than would otherwise be the
case, therefore careful consideration should be given to ensure that the development
does not introduce features which are not compatible with the character type or
erode existing features of importance within the character type. In addition, the
Design Guide stipulates that key objectives for new non-residential development are
to ensure that they are compatible with their surroundings and that they are
integrated successfully into existing settlements and the countryside with out harming
any heritage or landscape interests. The development proposes a number of new
buildings on the application site and should therefore be mindful of the above policy
requirements.
The proposed development can be assessed in terms of impact on the character of
the area and also the visual impact.
The removal of the hedging on the southern boundary and replacement with a brick
security wall is likely to have a significant adverse impact as it removes a key feature
within the area which also aids screening of the buildings within the site. When the
site is approached from the south the main views surrounding the site are trees,
hedging and grassed verges punctuated by built structures, such as the roof of the
property ‘Ponds Head’ (which is located to the north of the site) which is prominent
amongst the back drop of the trees in Gunton Park. As the site draws closer, the
‘Ponds Head’ property retreats from view behind hedging, leaving views of the former
forge building, the telephone kiosk, gates and the service poles. The boundary
hedging to the site can be seen as a continuation of the hedging along the Colby
road. The proposed wall will introduce a new built structure into the immediate
environment which is not as visually recessive as the previous hedge feature. The
wall will draw the eye to the site and as such have a greater impact on the visual
receptors within the nearby properties.
One of the most prominent views of the site is from the north as it is approached
along the North Walsham Road. The proposed ‘engineering’ building will introduce a
new brick built feature into the immediate environment, however this will be seen in
context with the existing forge building reducing the impact as the materials and
scale of the building are similar. The landscaping proposals include planting a hedge
to this northern boundary which will aid screening of the new building and further
softening the impact of the built structure.
The proposed ‘workshop’ structure is larger in footprint than the existing building and
extends onto the northern boundary of the site, albeit leaving a metre of space for
hedging. The building runs parallel to the road for 21m with an extension of a further
12m. This is a significant increase in the mass of building on the roadside, and very
Development Control Committee
65
21 October 2010
close to the carriageway. Currently buildings in the village are positioned well back
from the carriageway. The implications of allowing the proposed development would
be to change the character of the village with the introduction of a new detrimental
feature. The proposed hedging is likely to have little effect in screening the building
and it is highly probable that there is insufficient space for the hedging to establish.
The proposed materials and colour would be an improvement on the existing building
and the green colouring would be recessive, but the materials are still not
characteristic of the location. The proposed enlargement of the buildings appears to
be over development on this particular site, not in keeping with the form and
character of the village. Coupled with the sensitivity of the location and landscape
character, and the visual impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area, the
proposals fail to comply with policies EN2, EN4 and EN8 of the Core Strategy.
Some elements of the proposals may be acceptable in the wider sense, however the
combined scale of size of the development is unsuitable in this location, therefore
Conservation, Design and Landscape recommend the application is refused.
County Highway Authority - The application site is located within the village of
Suffield to the south of the village centre. The site lies on the C288 – White Post
Road adjacent to its junction with the C298 – The Street. The site has vehicular
access to the C298 - Suffield Road. Both the C298 – Suffield Road and the C298 –
The Street are classified as Link Roads (4A2) within the Norfolk Route Hierarchy.
Previous Planning History - Planning application Ref: 01/09/0465/F, relating to the
application site, was submitted by the applicant in May 2009. This application also
sought the construction of a purpose built workshop together with paint booth and
engineering facilities. The applicant elected to withdraw this application prior to
determination by your Authority.
Assessment: Access Position & Provision of Car Parking and Servicing Facilities The existing premises occupy a usable area of some 189m2, together with 64m2
storage capacity, within three temporary storage containers. The application proposal
indicates that the usable floor area will be increased to 345m2. The submitted details
also state that whilst the established business employs 1 full time and 2 part time
employees, the development proposal will now employ 5 full time employees.
Whilst the established vehicle repair operations at this site create a limited number of
vehicular movements to and from the site, approval of this proposal will inevitably
engender a substantial increase in traffic accessing and egressing the site. The
commuting movements associated with the increased staff numbers will also add to
the number of traffic movements. The development proposal therefore seeks to
substantially expand the repair operations at this site.
The existing access, annotated as entry to the site, is located on the C298 - Suffield
Road, just 10m from its junction with C298 - The Street. Use of this access
necessitates vehicles turning across the opposing traffic flows on the radius of the
junction. In addition, the current situation appears to encourage access across the
highway verge from the C298 - The Street. The access to the development is
unsuitable to cater for the increase in vehicular movements which will be engendered
by the proposed development.
The submitted details indicate the gross floor area as 345 m2 and the use of the
buildings are to be B1 Light Industrial. The adopted parking standards for this
classification requires provision of 1 car parking space per 30 square metres together
Development Control Committee
66
21 October 2010
with cycle parking of 1 space per 50 square metres. In addition, a dedicated
servicing/loading area suitable to serve the development must be provided. This
equates to a requirement of 11.5 parking places to be accommodated within the site.
Whilst there are 13 spaces referred to in the Design and Access Statement, the
submitted plans indicate provision of 5 spaces, plus some additional overspill
parking. In addition, the indicated servicing and manoeuvring area is restricted in
size. The proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and
manoeuvring facilities to cater for the development proposed.
The village does not have amenities within close proximity and only limited public
services available and it is felt that this and the concerns detailed above are
significant to warrant a highways objection to this proposal.
In conclusion I consider that this proposal would be likely to result in hazard and
danger to road users and I would therefore recommend that planning permission be
refused in the interests of highway safety for the following reasons:- inadequate
parking facilities, unsatisfactory right turn movement, unsatisfactory intensification of
vehicular use.
In addition the Highway Authority has indicated that it believes that the proposed
development encroaches onto the adopted highway.
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 EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (prevents
extensions of inappropriate scale and that would be detrimental to the character of
the area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Control Committee
67
21 October 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle and scale of use in the countryside
Visual impact
Traffic generation and parking provision
Impact on residential amenity
APPRAISAL
The site comprises a triangular piece of land (0.1ha) abutting adopted highways on
all three sides. The site is centrally located within the village of Suffield which lies
within an area designated as Countryside in the adopted Core Strategy. The site lies
immediately adjacent to the boundary of the Gunton Park Conservation Area and
close to the boundary of parts of the parkland designated as a County Wildlife Site
and a Historic Park and Garden. To the east and south-east on The Street there are
a number of residential properties.
The site was historically the location of the village blacksmith and the original brick
forge building dating back approx. 200 years remains on the site. Other modern
buildings have been added including timber framed metal clad structures, and more
recently three unauthorised metal storage containers. The buildings are generally
single storey in scale, with a max height of approx. 4.2m.
The land and buildings have an Established Use Certificate (EUC) and planning
permission, subject to conditions, for use as a Blacksmith and Agricultural and
Automotive Engineering Shop. The EUC limits use of the land and buildings to that
broadly described on the certificate. Information accompanying the planning
application suggests that the site has been used for vehicle repairs since the mid
1980s and that activities have included general engineering, repair and repainting car
body work and the manufacture of glass fibre body panels. The applicant and current
owner of the site seeks to replace and upgrade existing building on the site and
continue operating an accident repair centre, a use it is suggested complies with the
Established Use Certificate.
The application indicates that the existing buildings comprise approximately 275sqm
of floor space. This figure includes the built structures (200sqm) and the metal
storage containers (75sqm). The proposed plans seek to retain and upgrade the
historic blacksmith building and replace all other structures with a mix of metal clad
buildings with sedum roofs and a brick and tile engineering workshop. The proposed
scheme provides buildings with a gross useable floor area of approximately 315 sqm.
The proposal therefore seeks to extend the authorised buildings on the site by
115sqm (i.e. by 57.5%). Core Strategy Policy EC3 allows for extensions to an
existing business in the Countryside where it is of a scale appropriate to the existing
development and would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area.
Key to the determination of this application is whether the proposed development
would increase the scale of activity on the site and how this would impact on the
character of the site, its visual appearance, traffic and parking and amenity levels.
The proposed increase in floor area is significant when account it taken of the
existing buildings and the overall size of the site itself (0.1ha). The proposal includes
a building designed for use as a paint workshop and reference is also made to the
on-site manufacture of fibre-glass panels. Both processes are considered general
industrial uses broadly consistent with the use of the site for automotive engineering
(B2). However the form and scale of the proposed building is very likely to lead to a
level of use in excess of existing and historic levels. This assumption is supported by
Development Control Committee
68
21 October 2010
the proposed increase in employees on the site from 1FT& 2Pt to 5FT and the
increase in on-site parking spaces proposed. The proposal increases the built
coverage of this constrained site and allows for the intensification of a B2 general
industrial use. Given the quiet rural location of the site and its prominence, such a
use would be highly visible and of a scale that would have a detrimental effect on the
character of the area.
The Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has provided a
detailed response to the proposal given the rural location of the site and its proximity
to Gunton Park Conservation Area. The response refers to the North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) which indicates that the application site is
located on the boundary of the Gunton and Hanworth Wooded with Parkland
Character Area and the Banningham to Suffield Small Valley Character Area. The
LCA notes that the setting of the parkland makes the surrounding areas of greater
sensitivity than would otherwise be the case, and therefore careful consideration
should be given to ensure that the development does not introduce features which
are not compatible with the character type or erode existing features of importance
within the character type. In addition, the Design Guide stipulates that key objectives
for new non-residential development are to ensure that they are compatible with their
surroundings and that they are integrated successfully into existing settlements and
the countryside with out harming any heritage or landscape interests. Given this
policy context the Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager highlights
two aspects of the proposal which give rise to concerns, firstly the replacement of
sections of existing boundary hedging with a brick boundary security wall and
secondly the increased mass and prominence of the replacement workshop building.
In relation to the former, the proposals include a 22m length of wall along the site
frontage on to The Street and 27m length (punctuated with two gated accesses)
adjacent to the Through Road. The removal of the hedging on the southern
boundary and replacement with a brick security wall is likely to have a significant
adverse impact as it removes a key feature within the area which also aids screening
of the buildings within the site. When the site is approached from the south the main
views surrounding the site are trees, hedging and grassed verges punctuated by built
structures, such as the roof of the property ‘Ponds Head (which is located to the
north of the site) which is prominent amongst the back drop of the trees in Gunton
Park. The proposed wall would introduce a new built structure into the immediate
environment which is not as visually recessive as the previous hedge feature.
Regarding the proposed replacement workshop building this is larger in footprint than
the existing building and extends onto the northern boundary of the site, albeit
leaving a metre of space for hedging. The building would run parallel to the road for
21m with an extension of a further 12m. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager considers this to be a significant increase in the mass of building on the
roadside, and very close to the carriageway. Currently buildings in the village are
positioned well back from the carriageway. The implications of allowing the proposed
development would be to change the character of the village with the introduction of
a new detrimental feature. The proposed hedging is likely to have little effect in
screening the building and it is highly probable that there is insufficient space for the
hedging to establish. The proposed materials and colour would be an improvement
on the existing building and the green colouring would be recessive, but the materials
would still not be characteristic of the location. The proposed enlargement of the
buildings would amount to over-development on this particular site, not in keeping
with the form and character of the village.
Development Control Committee
69
21 October 2010
In relation to vehicular access and parking provision, the Highway Authority has
raised objections to the proposal. The Highway Authority considers that on the basis
of the information submitted the proposals seeks to substantially expand the repair
operations at the site and consider that the access to the site to be unsuitable to
cater for the increase in vehicle movements. In addition in relation to parking
provision the planning application details refer to 5 proposed employees and the
provision of 13 on site parking spaces. The submitted plans indicate 5 parking
spaces within the curtilage of the site. This level of parking falls well below that
referred to in the Core Strategy and there is limited scope to provide additional
provision without compromising access and manoeuvring areas.
Environmental Health have raised concerns regarding the noise associated with the
potential use of the workshop and the potential effect that this would have on
residential neighbours. Policy EN13 requires that all development should minimise all
emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise. There are a number
of residential properties in the vicinity of the site in particular on The Street. A number
of residents living in the vicinity of the site have supported the application but,
notwithstanding this it would be inappropriate in this quiet rural location to fail to
ensure that noise, light and emission/odours are effectively managed. Environmental
Health have recommended in the event of the application being approved that
conditions be imposed to ensure adequate noise reduction measure and the
installation of adequate extraction systems.
This is a small, but prominent village site which is sensitively located adjacent to the
Gunton Park Conservation Area. The site has a lawful use for automotive
engineering and currently many features of the site are not in keeping with the
attractive rural setting and the Conservation Area. Improving the appearance of the
site and allowing for its ongoing employment generating use would have clear visual
and economic benefits. The objective of encouraging new employment opportunities
in the countryside is reflected in Core Strategy Policy EC3 which is supportive of the
extension of existing businesses in the rural area where proposals are appropriate in
scale and where they would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the
area. This approach is consistent with PPS4 (Policy EC6) which indicates support for
the diversification of businesses where proposals are consistent in their scale and
environmental impact with their rural location.
In this instance, it is considered that the scale of this proposal does not comply with
Core Strategy Policy EC 3. The extended buildings would allow for the intensified
use of the site for B2 General Industrial purposes to the detriment of the character
and visual appearance of this rural location, contrary to the requirement of Policies
EN2, EN4 and EN8. In addition the proposal fails to comply with policies CT 5 and
CT6 in relation to safe access and parking provision.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal for the following reasons:The proposal would result in a scale of development that would be detrimental to
both the character and appearance of the site, the surrounding countryside and the
setting of Gunton Park Conservation area. Furthermore the transportation impact of
the proposal is considered unacceptable by virtue of inadequate parking facilities,
creation of unsatisfactory right turn movement and the intensification of vehicular use
of the road network. Contrary to Policies EC3, EN2, EN4, EN8 and CT5 of the North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
70
21 October 2010
19.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/10/0835 - Erection of rear conservatory; Martindale,
Alby Hill for Mr & Mrs Waite
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - NMA1/09/1222 - Non-material amendment request for revised
doors and windows; Rodavia, Church Road for Mr & Mrs D Wilson
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BACONSTHORPE - NMA1/10/0553 - Non-material amendment request for
change of wall finishes; Dales House, The Street for Mr J Cooper
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BACTON - PF/10/0953 - Erection of garage/store (extension of time period for
commencement of permission ref: 07/1752); Bay Cottage, The Green, Barchams
Lane, Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs Sidebotham
(Householder application)
BODHAM - LA/10/0802 - Erection of rear porch; Pine Farm, Manor House Road,
Lower Bodham for Mrs M Jones
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/10/0215 - Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling and Garage; 104 Hall
Street for Executors of Mrs A R Southgate (deceased)
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/10/0877 - Erection of replacement front extension and associated
ramp; 27 Woodfield for Mr J Martin
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PO/10/0937 - Erection of single-storey dwelling & garage (extension
of time limit for commencement of previous permission: 07/1073); Land at
Willow End, 6 Thornton Close for Mr & Mrs S Hudson
(Outline Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0889 - Erection of garden/log store; Saltmarsh
Cottage, Town Yard for Mr R Lawrence
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/10/0815 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Springvale, Colby
Road for Mr P Ridout
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0556 - Change of use of land from public path to residential
curtilage and formation of access and driveway to facilitate diversion of coastal
path; The Lookout, 60 Runton Road for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0596 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 89 Connaught
Road for Mr and Mrs Gee
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
71
21 October 2010
CROMER - PF/10/0649 - Construction of raised deck; Flat 4/5, Lakeside
Apartments, 1 Cabbell Road for Mr R Bowker
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0702 - Erection of single-storey link extension; 22 Cliff Avenue
for Mr and Mrs Chen
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0839 - Conversion of dwelling to four flats; 13 Alfred Road for
R G W Portugal Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0858 - Erection of single-storey side extension; North Cottage,
Overstrand Road for Mr S Massingham
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0928 - Erection of rear conservatory; 36 Lynewood Road for
Miss S Durrant
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0951 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide annexe;
Cherry Tree Lodge, 35 Norwich Road for Mr D Fisher
(Householder application)
CROMER - NMA1/10/0628 - Non-material amendment to replace kitchen window
with French doors and rear dining room window and patio doors with one unit
of folding doors; 14 Hill Close for Mr J Sterne
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
DUNTON - PF/10/0983 - Erection of extension to outbuilding for use in
connection with holiday accommodation; Dunton Hall Farm Barns for Mr P
Allingham
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/0803 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Lilac
Cottage, Chapel Road for Mr & Mrs Coomer
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - NMA1/06/0851 - Non-material amendment request for change of
materials and position of doors; Land at Blackberry Cottage, Chequers Street
for Mr McCarter
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
EAST RUSTON - NMA1/10/0588 - Non-material amendment request for revised
chimney design; Foxhill Cottage, Fox Hill for Mr & Mrs Capper
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/0929 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extensions;
Lowes Farm House, Hunworth Road for Stody Estate
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
72
21 October 2010
EDGEFIELD - LA/10/0930 - Demolition of rear and side extensions and erection
of replacement extensions; Lowes Farm House, Hunworth Road for Stody
Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0779 - Conversion and extension of redundant building to
residential annexe; Erpingham House, The Street for Mr S Willcox
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - LA/10/0780 - Alterations and extension of redundant building to
facilitate conversion to residential annexe; Erpingham House, The Street for Mr
S Willcox
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - LA/10/0837 - Installation of individual letters and projecting sign
and housing and lighting for ATM; 17 Market Place for Barclays
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0883 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions; 57
North Park for Mr and Mrs Thompson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0943 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension;
42 Queens Road for Mr B Dear
(Householder application)
FELBRIGG - PF/10/0894 - Retention of mobile home during construction of
annexe; Chusan, Metton Road for Mr R Walker
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - LA/10/0901 - Installation of louvres to lantern roof and change of
section of roof covering from tiles to slate; The Hall, Felbrigg Park for The
National Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
FELBRIGG - PF/10/0902 - Installation of louvres to lantern roof and change of
section of roof covering from tiles to slate; The Hall, Felbrigg Park for The
National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PM/10/0795 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
(landscaping scheme); 32 Langham Road for Mr and Mrs P Terrington
(Reserved Matters)
FIELD DALLING - PF/10/0975 - Erection of two-storey extension, conservatory
and detached garage (extension of time period for commencement of planning
ref: 08/0450); 90 Holt Road for Mr Brown
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/10/0687 - Installation of photovoltaic array; Sedum House,
Sandpit Lane for Mrs A Ground
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
73
21 October 2010
GIMINGHAM - PF/10/0934 - Erection of single storey rear extension; Hawthorn
Cottage, Southrepps Road for Rose
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - LA/10/0777 - Installation of replacement windows; Mill
House, The Street for Mr A Pannell
(Listed Building Alterations)
HANWORTH - LA/10/0796 - Internal alterations and re-location of entrance door;
Gunton Hall, White Post Road for Reynolds Jury Architecture
(Listed Building Alterations)
HAPPISBURGH - NMA1/09/0308 - Non-material amendment to increase size of
dormer windows; Twee Cottage, The Street for Ms V J Huggins
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HEMPTON - PF/10/0846 - Part demolition of boundary wall and creation of
vehicular access; 4 Shereford Road for Mr Franks
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/10/0888 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Path Cottage,
Staithe Road for Mr Povall
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/0891 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Treetops,
12 Avenue Road for Mr and Mrs D Stafford
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - LD/10/0913 - Demolition of outbuilding; 2 Grange Farm
Cottages, Harvest Lane for Mr and Mrs S Glover
(Listed Building Demolition)
HOLT - LA/10/0855 - Replacement of front pavement light; 3/3A Market Place for
Mr Marsh
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/10/0863 - Installation of front awning; 2 White Lion Street for Ms J
Jordan
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/10/0864 - Installation of front awning; 2 White Lion Street for Ms J
Jordan
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/10/0893 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2 Queens Road for
Mr and Mrs Parfitt
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0918 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 2 Glaven Hale
Close for Mrs M Burnett
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
74
21 October 2010
HOLT - LA/10/0926 - Retention of non-illuminated window sign; 1-5 High Street
for ISG Cathedral Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - AN/10/0927 - Retention of one non-illuminated window display; 1-5 High
Street for ISG Cathedral Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HOLT - PF/10/0960 - Erection of single-storey extension to library; Gresham
Preparatory School, Cromer Road for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/10/0600 - Non-material amendment request to permit revised
design of flat-roofed extension; 21 Greenways for Mrs K Baker
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HORNING - PF/10/0834 - Demolition of two dwellings and erection of two twostorey dwellings and two single-storey dwellings; 22 and 24 Norwich Road for
Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - NMA1/10/0452 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
door and window; 8 Summer Drive for Mr D Sabberton
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
KNAPTON - PF/10/0904 - Erection of replacement garage; Autumn Cottage, The
Street for Mr Brooke Lander
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/10/0857 - Erection of front boundary wall and gates; Chenies,
The Street for Mr D Reynolds
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - NMA1/82/0325 - Non-material amendment request for erection of
covered way and alterations to doors and windows; Moat Farm Barns, East
Ruston Road for Mr R Hart
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/10/0909 - Retention of fencing to
tennis court; The Lodge, Thornage Road for Mr P Mitchell
(Householder application)
MATLASKE - PF/10/0906 - Erection of cartshed style garage and lean-to store; 2
Barningham Place, The Street for Mr Rushmer
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/09/0621 - Conversion of Former Public House to
Two Dwellings and Erection of Two Dwellings; Hastings Arms, Briston Road for
Mr Harold
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
75
21 October 2010
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/07/1620 - Non-material amendment request for revised
finishes and fenestration arrangements; Seaview Cottage, 18 Paston Road for
Anstruthers Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0859 - Erection of single-storey detached dwelling; Plot 4,
Norwich Street for Mr E Church
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0914 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 30 Victoria
Road for Mr & Mrs G A Troth
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/09/0935 - Non-material amendment request for change of
roof gable ends to hipped ends; 3 & 4 Bellevue, Heath Lane for Mr P Apse
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NEATISHEAD - PF/10/0956 - Variation of Condition 5 of planning reference:
05/0875 to allow commencement of development on the conversion of barns to
holdiay accommodation before agreement of building materials; Barns at
Neatishead Hall, Common Road for Mr L Baugh
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0850 - Erection of open side canopy; Unit 10,
Laundry Loke for T C Transport
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/0677 - Conversion of cart shed to B1 (offices); Cart shed,
Lodge Farm, Crossdale Street for North Norfolk Business Centre Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/0849 - Erection of bay window; Woodbine Cottage, Bulls
Row for Mr Gilling
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - LA/10/0794 - Internal alterations to provide en-suite bathroom
facilities; The Pleasaunce, Harbord Road for Christian Endeavour Holiday
Centres Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/0838 - Erection of replacement single-storey side
extension and replacement detached garage; 1 Thurst Road for Mr and Mrs D
Hollingsworth
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/0884 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 35
Mundesley Road for Mr G Jones
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/0885 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Adjacent 16
Pauls Lane for Ms L Gepp and Mr K Gee
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
76
21 October 2010
RAYNHAM - PF/10/0861 - Erection of storage building; The Hatchery, Swaffham
Road, South Raynham for Wensum Pools Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/10/0562 - Erection of extension to shed for storage of
agricultural machinery; Keepers Retreat, Old Turnpike Road for Mr D Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/0631 - Erection of stable/store; 126 Cromer Road, West Runton
for Mr P Rose
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0715 - Erection of replacement single-storey side extension;
Charnwood, Cromer Road, West Runton for Mr and Mrs D Gibson
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0790 - Installation of solar panels and replacement doors and
windows; Banville Barn, Top Common, East Runton for Mr I Hines
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0867 - Erection of single-storey side extension and detached
garage; Woodcocks, Church Lane, West Runton for Mr J Renshaw
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0870 - Erection of first floor rear balcony; Arcadia, Church
Lane, West Runton for Mr A Staras
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0683 - Erection of garage block; Land at Manor Farm,
Cross Street for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0844 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, front bay
window and porch; 15 Sandy Hill Estate, Bard Hill for Mr & Mrs McKnespiey
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - LA/10/0798 - Internal alterations to first floor bathrooms;
Cranmer Hall, Creake Road, Cranmer for Mrs J De Bono
(Listed Building Alterations)
SEA PALLING - PF/10/0168 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
recreational; Land at Clink Road for Sea Palling with Waxham Community Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/10/0886 - Variation of time limit for compliance with
conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission reference 04/2113 and retrospective
approval of boundary fence (to replace wall), and turning, driveway materials
and parking provision; 1 and 2 Hall Inn Cottage, Church Road for Mr E Blaber
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0973 - Retention of 1800mm High Willow Fence; Land
Adjacent to Allotment Gardens, Weybourne Road for Mr Hay-Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
77
21 October 2010
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0879 - Erection of rear conservatory; 26 Hooks Hill Road
for Mr and Mrs Palmer
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0899 - Erection of three self contained flats and garages;
Land adjacent The Beaumaris Hotel, 15 South Street for Mr & Mrs Stevens
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0917 - External alterations to offices, including rooflights;
18 St Peters Road for Mr Little
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0949 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 1 St
Josephs Road for Mr I Mutton
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA2/10/0411 - Non-material amendment request to raise
height of rear roof gable; 17 Uplands Park for Mr Sidebotham
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SKEYTON - PF/10/0801 - Erection of garage/carport/tack room; Crossways,
Swanton Abbott Road for Mr A Smith
(Householder application)
SLOLEY - PF/10/0907 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Ketteringham
Cottage, School Road for Mr & Mrs Newby-Grant
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/10/0833 - Retention of doors to entrance lobby; Tesco Stores
Limited, Old Market Road for Tesco Stores Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/10/0852 - Continued siting of portable building to provide
changing and lounge facilities; Stalham Football Club Rivers Park, Brumstead
Road for Stalham Town Football Club
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/10/0939 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden
and erection of extension to provide double garage; Osier Carr Barn, The Street,
Tatterford for Mr Chamberlain
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0880 - Erection of two-storey side extension; The Far
Cottage, Sandpit Lane for Ms S Warren
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0986 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and detached
garage (revised design); Land adjacent Highwinds, The Green for Mr S Kelly
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/10/0887 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Warren Farm,
Chapel Road for Mr and Mrs Christie
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
78
21 October 2010
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/0853 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Donan,
Market Street for Mr and Mrs A Booth
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - NMA2/08/1178 - Non-material amendment to increase
size of double height window on west elevation from 600mm wide to 1200mm
wide; Barn 2, Ivy Farm Barns, Cranfield Road for Trustees of John Ashtons
Children's Settlement
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0750 - Continued use of dwelling as bed and
breakfast accommodation; Armeria, Warham Road for Ms C Crawford
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0830 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 42
Mill Road for Mrs A Frary
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0905 - Conversion of barn to one two-storey
dwelling; The Coach House, The Bowling Green for Mr Griffiths-Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/09/1034 - Non-material amendment request to
widen proposed kitchen window; Ilex House, Bases Lane for Mrs T Osbourne
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0932 - Erection of single-storey front, rear and side
extensions and alterations to garden wall; Lodge Cottage, Holt Road for Mrs M
Broad
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/10/0872 - Replacement agricultural building for livestock and
storage; Heath End, The Street, Ridlington for Mr R Allcoat
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/10/0873 - Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of
stables and storage building; Mill Farm, Mill Common Road, Ridlington for Mr
Tompkins
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/10/1005 - Alterations and extension to outbuilding to
house swimming pool; The Old Rectory, Rectory Road for Ms S Olivier
(Householder application)
20.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/10/0707 - Erection of one-single storey dwelling (amended
scheme); Land at St Peters Court, Walcott Road for Mr Shearwood
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
79
21 October 2010
ITTERINGHAM - NMA1/09/0911 - Non-material amendment request to alter the
roof; Mere Farm House, Matlaske Road, Mannington for Mrs D Harris
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
OVERSTRAND - PO/10/0890 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land
rear of 2 Church Close for Gravy Developments Limited
(Outline Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/10/0689 - Conversion of and extension to farm buildings to
three holiday apartments and an office; Heath Farm, Norwich Road for
Demogratz Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - LA/10/0948 - Installation of patio doors; Lilac Farmhouse,
Long Common Road for Mr P Clarke
(Listed Building Alterations)
APPEALS SECTION
21.
NEW APPEALS
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING
STIFFKEY - PF/10/0432 - Erection of one and a half-storey side extension; Rose
Cottage, 82A Wells Road for Mr Hickey
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS SHORT PROCEDURE
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
22.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/10/0206 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home and
retention of shed/wood store; Drakes Patch Hart Lane for Mr R Drake
INFORMAL HEARING 01 December 2010
BEESTON REGIS - ENF/09/0011 - Development not in accordance with approved
plans; Heath Barn, Britons Lane
INFORMAL HEARING 14 December 2010
Development Control Committee
80
21 October 2010
23.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
HOVETON - PM/10/0058 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning reference
20041723 to enable approved holiday units to be occupied as two residential
dwellings; Two Saints Barn, Tunstead Road for Legislator 1363
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road for Mr C Jeffrey
SEA PALLING - ENF/09/0151 - Material change of use of the land for the
stationing of a caravan, tents, motorhome and erection of a building
constructed of timber, for residential purposes; Land at The Marrams Clink
Road
24.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/0292 - Erection of Two-Storey Rear Extension; 2
Meadow Cottages, Beeston Common for Mr Gotts
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
BODHAM - PF/09/1202 - Erection of agricultural building and formation of
access roadway; Land at Hart Lane for Mr D Knowles
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin-store; Barber's Shop to rear 22, Station Road for
Museum Cottages
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way for Mr P James
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0197 - Proposed general purpose agricultural building; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Control Committee
81
21 October 2010