OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 23 APRIL 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1566 - Demolition of dwelling, barns and outbuildings and
erection of two and a half storey dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road
for Mrs Cargill
Minor Development
- Target Date: 4 February 2015
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0828 PF - Erection of two and a half storey replacement dwelling - Withdrawn
by Applicant 19/09/2013
PF/14/0785 PF
Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two and a half storey replacement
dwelling
Refused 04/09/2014 - Appeal lodged - outcome awaited
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of a 1950‟s bungalow, associated outbuildings and barn and the
erection of a vernacular style two and half storey dwelling.
The proposed dwelling which would be “L” shaped in form would be sited some 40
metres to the east of the existing bungalow at its closest point and would have a total
floor area of 445.61 sq. metres of habitable accommodation and would comprise 5
bedrooms. In addition there would be an integral double garage comprising a further
44.21 sq. metres of floor space, giving a total floor area of 489.82 sq. metres.
It is envisaged that the materials to be used would consist of a mix of soft Norfolk red
bricks, flint and horizontal timber cladding to the walls, whilst the roof would be of red
Norfolk clay pantiles.
As part of the scheme a new driveway is envisaged which would utilise the existing
southern access to the site and curve round the south edge of the existing bungalow to
the proposed new dwelling.
Development Committee
1
23 April 2015
In addition a comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed both for the holding
which runs to some 16 hectares and the proposed curtilage of the dwelling which is
shown to be some 0.58 hectares. This would be based on the 20 year vision as
expressed in the Integrated Landscape Guidance for the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB) and include the removal of a three poplar trees, remediation of the
former nursery to managed heathland, and extension of the lowland heath habitat. In
addition, the planting of species rich meadows and the management and replanting of
hedgerows in order to provide an interconnecting matrix for wildlife are proposed.
As part of the scheme, three existing holiday cottages adjacent to the northern
boundary of the site would be retained.
The application is supported by plans showing the proposed dwelling, a Planning
Statement containing a Design and Access Statement and Heritage Statement, a
Protected Species Scoping Survey (incorporating a Bat Survey), and Landscape and
Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA).
Amended plans have been received which show fenestrational changes. In addition a
revised Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been received, which
shows the proposed dwelling in its landscape context.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL (Original comments) Wiveton Parish Council - Strongly objects in
that the application differs little from the previous scheme and the policies applicable to
that refusal still apply. To approve this application would undermine the previous
decision.
This proposal would replace a modest single storey bungalow with a three storey
building, sited in a large open area. At first glance the Glaven Valley might not seem that
remarkable, extending a mere 7 miles inland, but the first glance can often be
misleading, because running through this small valley is one of the world's rarest rivers,
a chalk stream that with its distinctive vegetation and flood plain shapes the landscape
around it. Along its short length there are some magnificent viewpoints, but none to
equal those at the lower stretch, which is the part that concerns Wiveton PC in respect
of this application. Among a number of viewpoints, there are three that stand out. The
first is from the public highway of Bridgefoot Lane. The next further to the north is from a
public footpath, and the third is from Three Owls Farm, so it is not surprising that the
applicants wish to build a house there that would command it, and command it, it most
certainly would. Because from most parts of the large stretch of the valley that can be
seen from there this house would dominate the landscape.
Of particular concern for the people of Wiveton is the impact the development would
have on our churches, where it would compete for dominance in the view. This house
would seriously compromise the heritage setting of Wiveton and Cley churches.
As we understand it English Heritage were initially reluctant to support this application,
but then changed their minds based on some rather minor alterations to the design. This
suggests to us that they were standing to close, and did not take the time to go out into
the landscape and look at the wider implications for the valley churches. If they had they
would have noted that the alteration to the scheme would have been too small to be
visible across the valley.
Development Committee
2
23 April 2015
This is a very important matter for Wiveton, given the separate statutory duties under
the Listed Buildings Act 1990 (1) to preserve the setting of these [Grade I] listed
buildings and (2) to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Glaven
Valley Conservation Area of which its churches are a key feature.
Our second concern relates to precedent. There have been two applications in the
village recently, NNDC required both applicants to confirm to the Countryside policies
that apply, one was allowed to incorporate the first floor in the roof space, the other was
kept to a single storey. This proposal is for a building many times bigger than both these
applications put together. For it to get permission would throw the LDF in the waste bin
and set a frightening precedent as so much land banking has been carried out around
the Three Owls site.
There was considerable dissatisfaction in respect of the planning process for the first
application on this site, so it would only be fair to point out that much closer attention will
be given to NNDC's handling of this application. The following policies apply and if they
are not applied in full explanation should be given. Policies HO8, SS2 and EN1 and EN2
of the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy are considered to be
applicable.
In addition, there is a statutory duty under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have a general duty in respect of listed buildings in
exercise of the planning function.
(1)
(2)
In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which
affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case
may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of
preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or
historic interest which it possesses.
Without prejudice to section 72, in the exercise of the powers of appropriation,
disposal and development (including redevelopment) conferred by the provisions
of sections 232, 233 and 235(1) of the principal Act, a local authority shall have
regard to the desirability of preserving features of special architectural or historic
interest, and in particular, listed buildings.
Further comments in respect of amended plans and LVIA;
We appreciate that the agents acting for the applicants are doing all they can to mitigate
the visual appearance of this building, but none of the alterations affect the impact this
very large house will have on the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, and many other
parts of the surrounding countryside. They are quite simply trying to thread a camel
through the eye of a needle. With what is in effect a building of three storeys that is five
times bigger than the original house and which makes nonsense out of H08 and all the
other policies that apply.
A new build 76 metres away from the footprint of the original can hardly be described as
a replacement, it is a new separate building. There also seems to be some confusion
over just where the so-called curtilage lies, is it the boundary of the property, or the
rather vague area define by a few posts and some wire?
If a replacement building can be situated so far away from the original how far does it
have to be before it is no longer a replacement? At the edge of the property? At the
edge of the Parish? Or in Suffolk?
Development Committee
3
23 April 2015
Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that Isolated homes in
the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. There are
none in this case. All along Wiveton Parish Council have underlined their concern with
respect to the Glaven Valley Churches of Cley and Wiveton. The mock up images
contained within the submission from the agents are seriously misleading, showing a
small grey house, blending invisibly into the landscape. The house is not small, it is not
grey and it will never blend into the landscape and will compete with our Church for
dominance in the landscape.
The statement made to the Inspector at the recent appeal for the first application deals
with this aspect and so applies equally to this application and is therefore, copied below.
At first glance the Glaven Valley might not seem that remarkable, extending a mere 7
miles Inland, but a first glance can often be misleading, because running through this
small valley is one of the world‟s rarest rivers, a chalk stream that with its distinctive
vegetation and flood plain shapes the landscape around it. Many gems glitter in the
crown of the North Norfolk AONB, but the Glaven Valley is one of the most important.
Along its short length there are several magnificent viewpoints but none to equal those
at the lower stretch, which is the part that concerns us today. Among a number of
viewpoints but there are three that stand out and show the characteristics of this valley .
The first is from the public highway of Bridgefoot Lane, (see location 1 on the display).
The next further to the north, and from a public footpath (see location 2.) And the third
is from Three Owls Farm, so it is not surprising that the applicants should wish to build a
house that commands it. And command it, it most certainly would. Because from every
part of the large stretch of the valley that can be seen from there , this house would
dominate the landscape.
Of particular concern in this respect for the people of Wiveton is the impact it would have
on our Churches where it would compete for dominance in the view. This house would
seriously compromise the heritage setting of Wiveton and Cley Churches. As we
understand it English Heritage were initially reluctant to support this application, but
then changed their minds based on some rather minor alterations to the design. This
suggests to us that they were standing too close, and did not take the time to go out into
the landscape and look at the wider implications for the Valley Churches. Where it
would have been clear that those alterations made no difference, as they would have
been too small to see.
However, this should still be a very important matter for you, given the separate
statutory duties under the Listed Buildings Act 1990 (1) to preserve the setting of these
[Grade I] listed buildings and (2) to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area of which the Churches are a key feature.
Our second concern relate to precedent. There have been two applications in the
village recently, NNDC required both applicants to confirm to the Countryside policies
that apply, one was allowed to incorporate the first floor in the roof space; the other was
kept to a single storey. This proposal is for a building many times bigger than both these
application pout together. For it to get permission would throw the LDF in the waste bin
and set a frightening precedent as so much land banking has been carried out around
the Three Owls site.
REPRESENTATIONS
Seventy four letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns,
(summarised):-
Development Committee
4
23 April 2015
1. The application is very similar to the one refused last year and the issues remain the
same.
2. The style of architecture and size of development is not appropriate within the Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
3. There is no presumption in the new planning guidelines in favour of development in
designated AONB‟s.
4. The proposed development would result in a serious visual intrusion into the Glaven
Valley Conservation Area.
5. This prominent isolated residential development is unacceptable in the AONB, and
would also fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
6. The proposed new dwelling would result in a disproportionately large increase in
height and scale compared to the existing bungalow.
7. Far from improving on the previous contemporary design the current proposal offers
an ugly attempt at pastiche traditional design, which would cause even greater
visual damage to the precious landscape of the AONB and Conservation Area.
8. The proposed “Threshing barn” approach to the design has produced a marginally
less brutal and industrial appearance but fundamentally the size and siting would
result in a large detached “new build” house in open countryside, which is exactly
what the Core Strategy Policies are designed to secure against.
9. Views of Blakeney Church from the Wiveton Downs footpath would be
compromised by the development.
10. The dwelling is inappropriate in terms of its location, height, scale and appearance.
11. The proposal would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside.
12. The proposed dwelling would be too large and high and prominent in this part of the
north Norfolk coast.
13. The dwelling would be seen from some considerable distance especially from
Wiveton and the Glaven Valley with its listed churches.
14. The proposed dwelling would contravene Core Strategy Policy HO8, as the
proposal is excessively large in bulk and scale, being three storey high. This is a
disproportionately large increase from the original dwelling.
15. The farm barns should not be included as part of the footprint being some 50 metres
away.
16. The proposal would contravene both Policies EN1 and EN2 which are expressly
designed to prevent this kind of development.
17. The proposal is not a replacement dwelling as it is some 50 metres way from the
original dwelling and three storey high. This is a serious misrepresentation which
needs to be addressed.
18. The planning statement accompanying the application states that the net increase in
floor area is 156 sq. metres whereas the actual net gain based on the gross external
areas between the exist bungalow and the proposed new building is approximately
630 sq. metres (that is 790 sq. metres compared to 160 sq. metres, equivalent to
five times of the original).
19. The Planning Statement makes reference to a Landscape Visual Impact
Assessment (LVIA) but no such document is registered as an accompaniment to
this application.
20. At the planning committee meeting for the last application, the case officer bias in
favour of the applicant amounted to a mission statement on their behalf and
reflected baldy on NNDC planning department.
21. There architectural concept of a “Threshing barn” is now used to justify a large
residential building within the open countryside however there are no such buildings
within or anywhere near the application site.
22. The Heritage Statement makes no mention of the statutory test under Section 66
and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The
Council would be justified to refuse the application on this basis alone.
Development Committee
5
23 April 2015
23. This type of scheme, due to its bulk, height and massing would not have a neutral
impact and as such could not be seen to preserve or enhance the area.
24. The proposal would contravene Core Aim 3 of the Core Strategy.
25. This application was submitted close to Christmas when developers knew that most
people would be preoccupied with other matters.
26. The only way to assimilate a building of the floor area proposed would be for the
building to be spread over a larger area, thus reducing its height.
27. The proposal would set a precedent for further applications in this vulnerable and
precious Conservation Area and AONB.
28. Potential noise and light pollution would adversely affect the S.S.S.I Blakeney Esker
and Wiveton Downs to which it adjoins.
29. The proposal is totally inappropriate in the context of the mediaeval Glaven Valley
villages and its surrounds.
30. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF requires that great weight should be given to
conserving the landscape and scenic beauty in AONB‟s, clearly this proposal fails
this test.
31. The first views of the Glaven Valley when approaching from the east are from
Bridgefoot Lane and the proposed dwelling would sit right in the middle of this view
and would become one of its most significant features.
32. The proposal would affect the “heritage setting” of two of the Glaven Valleys most
beautiful churches.
33. English Heritage has failed in their responsibility to assess the impact of the
development against Section 66 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act
1990.
An eight page letter has also been received from the Council for the Protection of Rural
England, Norfolk, which objects to the application and makes the following comments
(summarised):1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Considers that the proposal should be refused as it fails to meet the requirements of
Policies HO 8, EN 1, EN 2 and EN 4; and paragraph 115 of the NPPF
While there are some differences between the current and previous applications,
on policy grounds and possible precedents that could be set, there is no change at
all.
The proposal entails an unacceptable increase in the bulk and scale of the dwelling,
from a single storey bungalow even taking into account the potential increase
allowance for permitted development rights and would not comply with Core
Strategy, Policy HO8.
Elevationally the north west elevation has a remarkably ugly and disjointed
appearance, showing different roof heights and build angles; and most notably the
two storey facade of brick on the left, then a gable end of brick and flint, then a
further area of flint with a porch below, and then on the right hand side a large area
of wood cladding, in which are set two large garage doors. Whilst the north east
elevation which seeks to achieve the fantasy of Threshing barn with its overly large
amount of glazing sits on an open edge of the site and will be a prominent and
unwelcome feature in an open landscape, and visible from much of the coastal arc
from west of Blakeney to beyond Cley and Wiveton. The glass will introduce a
reflective surface during the daylight hours, and illumination at night
The site as viewed from the Saxlingham Road through the two accesses, will
change from being hidden and low profile to an open and formal „gardenised‟ area,
in which set at the back on the left is a large and ugly façade (on the left hand side,
with barn 2 removed, there will be a tennis court).
The open and exposed situation of the proposed dwelling is such that it would be
seen from many points over a wide area. The height contours fall progressively
from the 30 metre contour to the sea in an arc running from west of Blakeney to the
Development Committee
6
23 April 2015
7.
east beyond Cley and Wiveton (the exception being a rise again in the line to
Blakeney Church), and would therefore fail to comply with Core Strategy Policies
EN1, EN2 and EN4.
This site can only be re-developed in a satisfactory way by the replacement
dwelling being on or close to the footprint of the existing bungalow; to a baseline
total floor space of 244 sq. metres or little more; any garaging and storage be
accommodated some way to the north of this as a separate single story building,
where it would be both close to the replacement dwelling and hidden by the high
hedge which fronts the site. Preferably barn 1 should be left as it is, see the
protected species report for the implications of its removal, and of the ivy-covered
trees immediately adjacent north west boundary for bats. The recommendation in
the report for restoration of some hedgerow for bats and other wildlife along
previous field boundaries in the improved pasture grassland of the wider holding
within the ownership should be adopted; this would benefit the ecological network
within the area. The letter is reproduced in full at Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Blakeney Parish Council – (Original comments) Object to the application on the
following grounds:a) The new building is too far from the existing bungalow that it is replacing to be
considered as a „replacement dwelling‟. As a new dwelling in the countryside it does
not comply with NNDC‟s Core Strategy Policies HO4 and HO5 as it is not for Travellers
or Essential Workers in the countryside.
b) If considered to be a replacement dwelling it is totally contrary to Policy HO8 as it
represents a disproportionately large increase in the height and scale of the original
dwelling (the dilapidated outbuilding remote from the existing bungalow cannot be
considered as part of the existing dwelling as suggested by the applicant), and will
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside, given its scale and position moved to the rear of the site where it will be
very visible in the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
c) It is contrary to Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy, which has been adopted in order to
protect the Norfolk Coast AONB. The policy states that proposals that have an
adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be
located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the
development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts. The proposal clearly fails this test
as there are no benefits to outweigh the damaging impact the development will have on
the appearance of the surrounding countryside, and a house of this size and scale could
clearly be accommodated on a less sensitive site.
d) It is contrary to Policy EN2 which has been adopted for the protection and
enhancement of landscape and settlement character. The policy states that
development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance;
• Visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
• The setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas.
This proposal, because of its height, scale and prominent position within the AONB and
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area will have a seriously damaging impact on the
landscape, standing out obtrusively within this very sensitive landscape and in no way
can be considered to enhance it.
Development Committee
7
23 April 2015
This is a highly sensitive site which the above Policies have been designed to protect,
and a proposal such as this one cannot be allowed to over-ride them. If approved, it
would set a dangerous precedent for further, equally damaging, developments in the
North Norfolk countryside. The Norfolk Coast AONB is an important resource for
those living in the area and, equally importantly, for the tourism on which so much
employment relies and it should be protected with great care and vision.
The district Council have had the vision to set out, in their LDF, clear policies to protect
the special character of the countryside, and proposals for development within the
countryside must follow these policies if this character is to be preserved.
Further comments in respect on amended plans and LVIA – Objections as previously
detailed still stand.
Norfolk Coast Partnership – (Original comments) summarised:- Reiterate their
comments in respect of the previous application, which is that a replacement dwelling
on this site could be acceptable in principle if of suitable design and scale and where
overall environmental benefits result. However, these factors need to be carefully
considered given the very sensitive location within the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and the
Undeveloped Coast policy area of the Local Plan, in open countryside rather than within
a settlement.
Whilst recognising that there have been changes in the design and location of the
proposed replacement dwelling compared to the previous application, concerns
regarding key aspects of the scheme remain.
From the perspective of the statutory purpose of AONB designation i.e. the
conservation and enhancement of the area‟s natural beauty suggest that the
interpretation of policies HO8 and EN1 of the Local Plan and of paragraph 115 of the
National Planning Policy Framework are key.
The interpretation of Policy HO8 is of critical importance for this application and for
future applications for which this could set a precedent. Although the policy is not
prescriptive about what constitutes a “disproportionately large increase in the height or
scale of the original dwelling”, in this case, as in the previous application, a reasonable
person would surely consider that replacement of a bungalow with a height of
approximately 3.5 metres and a footprint of 160 sq. metres by a two and a half storey
building with a height of 9 metres and floor area of 526 sq.metres does not meet this
criterion, even allowing for permitted development rights.
The inclusion of the barn as part of the area of the existing dwelling is questionable at
best. Even if this is accepted, allowing for maximum permitted development rights the
increase in area is 42%; if it is not accepted, as it should not be, the increase is 134%.
Furthermore although Policy HO8 is not prescriptive about replacing on the position of
the existing dwelling, again a reasonable interpretation would be that this should be the
case as far as practicable, allowing for a modest increase in size and arrangement.
There would need to be good reasons of public interest and/or benefit for a significant
displacement, which is not the case here. Because of its height, scale and location the
proposed replacement building would clearly have greater impact than the existing
development on the surrounding countryside, especially from the sensitive eastern
quarter – so failing to meet the second criterion of policy HO8. Interpretation of Policy
HO8 in a manner other than this would be likely to give rise to other similar applications
in the AONB which would be very difficult to resist and would have incremental
damaging impacts on the areas natural beauty.
Development Committee
8
23 April 2015
Whilst in terms of Policy EN 1 although the design and position has been amended,
would still clearly detract from the special qualities of the landscape in this part of the
AONB by virtue of its form and visibility over a wide area to the eastern quarter. It would
not be appropriate to, or necessary for, the economic, social and environmental
well-being of the area or contribute to the understanding and enjoyment of the area, and
it would not contribute to delivery of AONB Management Plan objectives. The
development could be located on an alternative site e.g. on the existing footprint, but
would still need to demonstrate that the scale and height was not such as to give rise to
detriment.
They also point to the comprehensive assessment from the CPRE to this application
and recognise and support the validity of these points raised.
The Norfolk Coast Partnership therefore advise that the impacts and implications of
approving this application would greatly outweigh any marginal benefits that might arise
from the proposal.
(Comments in respect on amended plans and LVIA) Consider that their original
comments remain valid.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - (Comments in respect on
amended plans and LVIA) - Has no objections for the following reasons: Concerns have been raised previously over the scale and siting of the new dwelling
within the countryside and the ability of the landscape to absorb the dwelling both
visually and in terms of the landscape character. The LVIA recognises the
distinctiveness and sensitivity of the landscape, which has a combination of elevated
land, long seaward views and a mosaic of heathland landscapes, and notes that it is a
„feature‟ landscape of the AONB. However, it also notes that the landholding does not
in itself have great intrinsic value.
The dwelling has been re-located (from the previous application 14/0785) to inside the
curtilage of the existing farmhouse garden, which it could be argued has less of an
impact on the wider landscape character due to the closer association with existing
buildings. In addition, the application offers a number of landscape mitigation and
enhancement opportunities which seek to stitch the proposed dwelling into the wider
landscape, softening the impact and re-enforcing the overall landscape
character. These include reinstating a mosaic of grassland and heath, regenerating
woodland and copses and reinstating former hedgerows.
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy stipulates that development will be permitted where it
does not detract from the special qualities of the AONB and seeks to facilitate delivery of
the Norfolk Coast AONB Management Plan. Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy is
influenced by both the North Norfolk District Council Landscape Character Assessment
and the AONB Integrated Landscape Character Guidance, and development proposals
should demonstrate that they will protect, conserve and where possible enhance the
special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. The Integrated Landscape
Character Guidance produced by the AONB Partnership provides guidance on how to
manage change (development) to achieve the overall vision for the AONB. The
proposed development has been influenced by this guidance and provides landscape
enhancements which will have some minor beneficial improvements for the
landscape. As such the development can be seen to accord with Policies EN1 and
EN2.
Development Committee
9
23 April 2015
With respect to the scale of the building, having a ridge of over 23 metres in length and
a height to ridge level of just of 9 metres, the LVIA provides photomontages of key
viewpoints and the expected visual impact at 1 and 15 years. The photomontages
illustrate that although the height of the building is significant it remains below the
landscape horizon, therefore with sympathetic materials the building will not be overly
intrusive within the landscape. Furthermore, existing landscape elements (trees,
hedging and topography) help screen and integrate the building within the wider
landscape setting. It is not therefore considered that the proposed dwelling will have a
significantly detrimental visual impact within the landscape.
The Landscape Section do not therefore object to the application subject to a condition
requiring the provision of a Landscape and Ecological Management plan based on the
mitigation and enhancement proposals identified in the LVIA.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - (Conservation and Design) –
(Comments in respect on amended plans and LVIA) - Has no objections for the
following reasons: In terms of siting, locating the building within the existing curtilage is a welcome revision
which would obviate any incursion into the wider landscape.
Whilst in terms of the building itself, the inspiration for its elevations has come from the
threshing barns which populate rural North Norfolk – hence the long ridgeline and the
vertically proportioned gables. Although such an approach could be questioned in the
absence of an accompanying farmhouse, it is a built form which is familiar within the
District and is acceptable in principle. This said, there is an obvious tendency for such
buildings to be inherently imposing. That is to some extent reflected in the latest
proposals which still incorporate a long unbroken ridgeline and relatively robust
elevations. Given the previous concerns over scale and bulk, this is an obvious matter
for our consideration. So too is some of the design detailing which, despite the latest
revisions made, still does not “faithfully and accurately follow the proportions and
detailing that can be found on both farmsteads and in open fields in the area” (6.5.1. of
the D&A Statement).
Dealing firstly with scale, the main body of the building would sit under a continuous 23
metre long ridge and would provide a floor area of some 526 sq.metres. Given it would
also be slightly higher than the core of the previously refused proposal, it would
undoubtedly be a substantial proposition and would have a significant presence on site.
This said, now armed with the updated photo montages, it becomes clear that this
presence would not actually translate into harm being caused to the wider countryside.
This is because it would either be seen against a backdrop of trees or ridgelines, or
within a much wider layered mosaic of hedging and trees. Certainly it would not be
readily visible on the skyline or recurrently viewed at close quarters. No doubt my
Landscape colleagues will address these impacts in more detail.
In terms of the design, the recent revisions have sought to reinforce the agrarian
aesthetic over the domestic. This has resulted in improvements being made to the
fenestration and the rear wing which would certainly create a more authentic
appearance. This said, the new build can still by no means be billed as a faithful and
accurate interpretation of a traditional (converted) threshing barn – this because of its
off-centre midstrey, its Juliette balconies and its flat roof staircase (to name but three)
which are all features with no real historic precedent. Despite this, however, the
combination of the buildings angled siting, and the sort of distances it would generally
be viewed from, would largely negate these purist observations. To all intents and
Development Committee
10
23 April 2015
purposes it would retain an agricultural outline within the landscape and therefore would
not look incongruous.
In summary, Conservation & Design remain comfortable with the principle of a
replacement dwelling on this site (particularly given its improved siting). We also have
no issue with the design of the building moving in a more vernacular direction. Whilst it
perhaps remains larger than ideal and still has some contradictions within its elevations,
it is not considered that this would result in real harm being caused to the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Furthermore, given the large
separation distances between the application site and the nearest listed buildings
(including Wiveton Church), it cannot be reasonably argued that the new dwelling would
harm the setting of any of these heritage assets.
English Heritage – No objection on the following grounds - The current proposal is for a
new dwelling that is broadly similar to the previously proposal in size, scale and
massing, although the ridge line is described as being slightly higher to accord with the
proportions of a threshing barn. The footprint of the new building has been moved to
within the existing residential curtilage of the property. The most significant change is
the architectural approach which takes its inspiration from a traditional threshing barn.
This is in contrast to the contemporary approach used in the previous schemes. The
design now takes a more traditional approach and uses local vernacular materials.
The revised siting of the building brings it closer to the existing built complex. The more
traditional architectural approach is less contemporary than earlier versions. However
the familiarity of the vernacular language and materials could be said to result in a
building which is less assertive in its setting than the previous schemes (although it
might be possible to achieve both a contemporary approach and a close affinity with the
local context).
Environmental Health - No objection to the demolition of the existing dwelling subject to
the imposition of appropriate 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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the re-use
of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies
the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
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
Development Committee
11
23 April 2015
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 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 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. Design.
3. Landscape Impact
4. Impact on heritage assets.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at Committee on 26 March 2015 in order to allow
Members to visit the site.
The site is situated in the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy and is also within the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where Policies SS2,
HO8, EN1, EN2, EN4, and EN8 are applicable.
Policy SS2 relates to development in the Countryside where development requires a
rural location and is for one of a number of types of development, including replacement
dwellings.
Policy HO8 states that proposals to extend or replace existing dwellings within the area
designated as Countryside will be permitted provided that the proposal:


would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling, and
would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
In determining what constitutes a „disproportionately large increase‟ account will be
taken of the size of the existing dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been
extended or could be extended under permitted development rights, and the prevailing
character of the area.
For the purposes of this policy „original dwelling‟ means the house as it was built, or as
existed on the 1st July 1948, whichever is the later.
Policy EN1 states that the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on
the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed.
Development will be permitted where it;
Development Committee
12
23 April 2015



is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or
is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken
as they arise.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of
the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals be informed by, and be sympathetic to,
the distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character)
 gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
 distinctive settlement character
 the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland,
trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for dispersal
of wildlife
 visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
 nocturnal character
 the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
Policy EN4 requires that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly
encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or
enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable.
Development proposals, extensions and alterations to existing buildings and structures
will be expected to:










Have regard to the North Norfolk Design Guide;
Incorporate sustainable construction principles contained in policy EN6;
Make efficient use of land while respecting the density, character, landscape and
biodiversity of the surrounding area;
Be suitably designed for the context within which they are set;
Retain existing important landscaping and natural features and include landscape
enhancement schemes that are compatible with the Landscape Character
Assessment and ecological network mapping;
Ensure that the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the
surrounding area;
Make a clear distinction between public and private spaces and enhance the public
realm;
Incorporate footpaths, green links and networks to the surrounding area;
Ensure that any car parking is discreet and accessible; and
Where appropriate, contain a variety and mix of uses, buildings and landscaping.
Development Committee
13
23 April 2015
Policy EN8 states that development proposals should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of designated assets, (in this case the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area), and other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, 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.
Furthermore, the character and appearance of Conservation Areas will be preserved,
and where possible enhanced, and, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, area
appraisals and management plans will be prepared and used to assist this aim and to
encourage the highest quality building design, townscape creation and landscaping in
keeping with the defined areas.
In addition, the following paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework, (March
2012) are considered to be relevant.
Paragraph 60 - Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose
architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or
initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development
forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local
distinctiveness.
Paragraph 115 - Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic
beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which
have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The
conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these
areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset‟s
conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a
grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or
loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I
and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
Paragraph 137 - Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting
of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that
preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better
reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.
Principle of development
At the present time the site is occupied by the existing bungalow, which has an overall
footprint of some 160 sq. metres, including the conservatory and is situated close to the
entrance off the Saxlingham Road. Under The Town and Country Planning (General
Development Committee
14
23 April 2015
Permitted Development ) Order 2008 a single storey extension of 72 sq. metres (18
metres x 4 metres) could be added to the rear of this property which would give a total
footprint of some 232 sq. metres. Whilst adjacent to the northern entrance to the site is
a single storey rectangular barn of asbestos and steel sheeting which is used for
garaging/storage which has a footprint of 142 sq. metres, giving a total potential
domestic footprint of 374 sq. metres.
Whilst further east along the north boundary are three holiday cottages, which are to be
retained, beyond which is a more modern open fronted barn of asbestos and steel
cladding which has a footprint of 246 sq. metres. In addition, there are other buildings
within the site including a summer house, and Polly tunnels and greenhouses, which
along with the barn would be removed as part of the scheme.
In contrast the proposed dwelling would have a footprint of 260.26 sq. metres. Whilst it
would have an internal habitable floor area of 445.61 sq. metres spread over a lower,
upper ground floors and first floor. In addition, an integral double garage is proposed
which has a floor area of 44.21sq. metres giving a total floor area of 489.82 sq. metres.
Schedule of floor areas:Existing dwelling including garaging and ancillary storage
Existing bungalow (including conservatory)
Possible extension under Permitted Development Rights
(original dwelling)
Detached garaging and ancillary storage within barn closest
to dwelling
Total
Footprint
2
160.0 m
72.0 m
2
142.0 m
2
374.0 m
2
Floor area
2
116.60 m
64.72 m
130.0 m
311.32 m
2
2
2
Proposed dwelling including garaging
Footprint
2
260.26 m
Proposed dwelling including integral garage
Floor area
2
Lower ground floor
Upper ground floor (including balcony)
First floor
Double garage
182.24 m
2
208.73.m
2
54.64 m
2
44.21 m
260.26 m2
Total
489.82m2
Net increase in floor area compared to existing dwelling, including double garage
178.50 m2
As far as Policy HO8 is concerned this makes no reference to the need for the
replacement dwelling to either be on the same footprint as the existing property or for it
to be in close proximity or indeed within the immediate curtilage. Instead, the policy
concentrates on whether the replacement would result in a disproportionately large
increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling, and whether it would materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
In addition, the Policy makes allowances for the fact that the existing dwelling could be
extended under Permitted Development Rights.
Development Committee
15
23 April 2015
In terms of the increase in scale of the proposed dwelling, based solely on the net
increase in floor area of some 178.50 sq. metres, on balance this is not considered to
be excessive and would not provide grounds to refuse the application.
Whilst in respect of the height of the proposed dwelling, due to variations in levels
across the site the intention is that in places the existing ground level would be lowered
between 0.46 metres and 1.85 metres. The effects of these site works would mean that
the slab of the proposed dwelling would effectively be just over a metre lower than the
ground level adjacent to the bungalow. This in turn would mean that the main body of
the building, which has a ridgeline some 23 metres in length, and an overall height of
9.26 metres would in effect only be 2.87 metres higher than that of the existing property
whilst the rear wing and front projection would be approximately 2.28 metres higher. It is
therefore considered that whilst the massing of the building would clearly be greater
than that of the bungalow the finished height of the proposed dwelling in the landscape
would not be significantly more.
Turning to the second criteria although the position chosen for the dwelling would be
some 40 metres further to the east than the existing property it would be within its
curtilage. Furthermore, the fact that the ground level in this area is slightly lower
coupled with the proposed further reduction in ground level would mitigate against any
increase in the visual impact of the dwelling. The photomontages submitted as part of
the Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal prepared by Sheils Flynn, Chartered
Landscape Architects, illustrate that when viewed from two viewpoints, 1.6 metres
above ground level along the Langham Road, referred to as 5 and 6 to the east of
Wiveton Downs, the closet point to the site of which is approximately 580 metres,
although the upper half of the dwelling would visible it would be seen against the
backdrop of woods to the west of the site, or masked by a coppice of trees. Whilst from
viewpoint 4, the closest to the site at 402 metres, views of the site through a gateway in
the roadside hedge would be masked by the coppice of trees in the middle of the field.
However between viewpoints 4 and 5, some 450 metres from the site, it is possible that
the upper half of the roof of the main body of the building would be seen against the sky
line above the roadside and field hedges. Whilst further to the east towards Wiveton any
views of the site would be interrupted by roadside and field hedges. The
photomontages therefore illustrate that although the height of the building is significant
it remains predominantly below the landscape horizon, therefore with a sympathetic
palette of materials, which include red clay Norfolk pantiles to the roof together Norfolk
red brick, flint and natural timber boarding to the walls, the building would not be overly
intrusive within the landscape. Furthermore, existing landscape elements (trees,
hedging and topography) help screen and integrate the building within the wider
landscape setting.
Therefore in terms of Policy HO8 it is considered that on balance the proposal would not
result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling
or materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside.
Design
As far as the design of the dwelling is concerned, the inspiration for its elevations has
seemingly come from the threshing barns which populate rural North Norfolk, hence the
long ridgeline and the vertically proportioned gables. Although such an approach could
be questioned in the absence of an accompanying farmhouse, it is a built form which is
familiar within the District and is acceptable in principle. This said, there is an obvious
tendency for such buildings to be inherently imposing. That is to some extent reflected
Development Committee
16
23 April 2015
in the latest proposals which incorporate a long unbroken ridgeline, 23 metres long and
relatively robust elevations. However the new build cannot be seen as a faithful and
accurate interpretation of a traditional (converted) threshing barn, because of its
off-centre midstrey, Juliette balconies and its flat roof staircase which are all features
with no real historic precedent. Despite this, the combination of the buildings angled
siting, and the sort of distances it would generally be viewed from would largely negate
these features and to all intents and purposes the building would retain an agricultural
outline within the landscape and therefore would not look incongruous. This view has
been supported by the Council‟s Conservation and Design Section who have indicated
that they have no issue with the building‟s design moving in a more vernacular
direction and that whilst perhaps remaining larger than ideal the amended scheme is
acceptable.
Landscape Impact
As far as the impact on the wider landscape the Landscape and Visual Impact
Appraisal, which has been prepared in accordance with recognised standards and
guidelines, suggests that the landscape of the site does not have a particularly
significant inherent value; however it is located within a highly distinctive and sensitive
landscape, of exceptional visual and ecological value. The combination of elevated
land, long seaward views and the mosaic of a heathland landscape makes the site and
surrounding landscape one of the feature landscapes of the AONB. However, it also
notes that the landholding does not in itself have great intrinsic value.
The visual assessment notes that the zone of potential visual impact is restricted to the
immediate surrounds of the site on the western, northern and eastern flanks, as views
from the south are restricted by the presence of the esker. In general views are limited
to those from the public highway and some rights of way, mainly through gaps in
hedgerows and field accesses. The majority of views of the proposed building will be
seen against the backdrop of land, with the only view of the building above the skyline
from the Wiveton/Langham road.
The LVIA concludes that many of the visual effects of the development will be absorbed
by the complex elements of the landscape – topography, trees, copses and hedgerows,
and that views of the development will be transitory as glimpses are gained from field
accesses and gaps in hedgerows. It is also proposed that in time, once landscape
planting has established, short distance views of the building will be reduced further.
Compared to the previous scheme it is proposed that the dwelling would be within the
curtilage of the existing farmhouse garden, which due to its closer association with
existing buildings, would result in the building having less impact on the wider
landscape character.
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy stipulates that development will be permitted where it
does not detract from the special qualities of the AONB and seeks to facilitate delivery
of the Norfolk Coast AONB Management Plan. Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy is
influenced by both the North Norfolk District Council Landscape Character Assessment
and the AONB Integrated Landscape Character Guidance, and development proposals
should demonstrate that they will protect, conserve and where possible enhance the
special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. The Integrated Landscape
Character Guidance produced by the AONB Partnership provides guidance on how to
manage change (development) to achieve the overall vision for the AONB. The
proposed development has been influenced by this guidance and provides landscape
enhancements which seek to stitch the proposed dwelling into the wider landscape,
softening the impact and re-enforcing the overall landscape character. These include
Development Committee
17
23 April 2015
reinstating a mosaic of grassland and heath, regenerating woodland and copses and
reinstating former hedgerows and would it is considered have result in some minor
beneficial improvements for the landscape. As such the development can be seen to
accord with Policies EN1 and EN2.
The Landscape Section therefore do not object to the application subject to a condition
requiring the provision of a Landscape and Ecological Management plan based on the
mitigation and enhancement proposals identified in the LVIA.
Impact on heritage assets
In terms of the potential impact on heritage assets, in addition to the site being within
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, the other principle assets in the area are the
Parish Churches of, Blakeney, Wiveton and Cley-next-the-Sea, which are grade I listed
buildings. St. Nicholas Church, Blakeney is situated on higher ground some 1.0 km to
the north east and the upper half of the tower is visible from the site above trees at
Howe Hill.
Whilst St Mary‟s Church, Wiveton and St. Margaret's Church,
Cley-next-the-Sea are set in the valley bottom north north-east of the site approximately
1.35 km and 1.9 km away respectively.
In considering the application, the Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to
pay "special attention" to the "desirability of preserving" the setting of listed buildings,
and the character and appearance of conservation areas. This means that the
desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings and the character and
appearance of conservation areas are not mere material considerations to which any
weight can be attached. When a local authority finds that a proposed development
would harm the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a
conservation area, it must give that harm considerable importance and weight.
When approaching the site from the east along Bridgefoot Lane the village of Wiveton
and the parish church are seen in the foreground, as indicated from the photomontage,
Viewpoint 10, with the site itself some 2.5 km beyond being seen against the backdrop
of rising ground and the tree line beyond. Whist the upper half of the tower of Blakeney
church is visible in above trees some distance to the northwest. From this direction
given the distance involved, together with intervening features and the recessive nature
of the proposed materials it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would have a
significantly harmful impact on either of the setting of these churches or indeed the
wider Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Whilst in respect of the view from Church
Lane, Cley-next-the-Sea, some 2.3 km from the site, although the site would be seen in
the context of both the Parish Churches of Wiveton and Cley-next-the-Sea which are in
the foreground, given the distance involved and the fact that the dwelling would be seen
against rising ground it is not considered that the proposal significantly affect these
listed buildings or their setting. Whilst closer to the site from the Wiveton Road, just to
the south of The Old Rectory there would be a fairly open view of the site just to the
south of Rubbery Hill. From here the site would be some 700 metres, to the south west
with the dwelling itself seen both in its landscape setting and against the backdrop of
trees. Whilst it is accepted that the dwelling from this location would be visible in the
landscape it is considered that it would not have a significantly adverse impact on the
setting of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and any harm has to be weighed
against the general site improvements.
The Council‟s Conservation and Design Section have indicated that they consider that
the development would result in no real harm being caused to the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, other heritage assets (including
Development Committee
18
23 April 2015
Wiveton church) and the wider countryside and as such would accord with the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN4, EN8 and NPPF Paragraphs 132 and 134.
This view is supported by English Heritage.
Summary
The application has raised a considerable amount of concern primarily in relation to the
proposed re-siting of the dwelling, its scale, massing and design and its impact on the
appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and that it could set a precedent
for other similar developments.
Whilst these concerns are fully understood they have to be balanced against the
relevant Development Plan policies and guidance contained in the National Planning
Policy Framework together with responses from statutory and other consultees. Based
on these considerations although the proposed dwelling would not be on the same
footprint as the dwelling it would replace this is not a policy requirement providing the
dwelling would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of
the original dwelling and materially increase its appearance on the surrounding
countryside. When taking into account the size of the existing dwelling, together with
garaging and storage and the level of additional accommodation which could be
provided under Permitted Development Rights it is not considered that the proposed
dwelling would result in a significant increase in scale. Whilst due to its proposed siting
on lower ground and a reduction in site levels overall ridge height would not be
significantly higher than the dwelling it would replace. Furthermore, whilst it is conceded
that from close to the site to the east it is possible that the upper half of the roof of the
dwelling might be seen against the skyline, from other vantage points to the east and
north east of the site it would be seen again the backdrop of rising ground and trees
beyond. As a result, subject to the use of recessive materials on balance it is
considered that the dwelling would not detract from the special qualities of the AONB
and would not harm the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation
Area or other heritage assets.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with Development
Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including
the submission of a landscape and ecological
management plan, removal of permitted development rights and precise details
of the materials to be used in the construction of the dwelling.
2.
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1658 - Erection of 3 two-storey detached dwellings and new
vehicle access for plot 2; Land Adjacent to Poppyland, Back Lane for Mr and Mrs
Crawley
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 February 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Conservation Area
Residential Area
Development Committee
19
23 April 2015
Settlement Boundary
Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19791934 HR - Access to plots A, C and D As indicated on plan 361/1
Approved 25/02/1980
PLA/19872408 PF - Erection of detached garage to serve existing dwelling
Approved 03/02/1988 (Poppyland)
PLA/19781982 PF - Erection of dwelling & garage
Approved 18/06/1979
(Poppyland)
PLA/19790290 HR - Erection of house and garage
Approved 18/06/1979
(Moonraker)
PLA/20081212 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage
Refused 10/02/2009
(Plot 3)
PF/10/0897 HOU - Erection of ground and first floor extensions
Approved 24/09/2010
(Moonraker)
THE APPLICATION
The proposal seeks the erection of 3 two storey dwellings, each with the first floor
accommodated within the roofspace. Two accesses are proposed; one is an existing
access, which serves an existing dwelling situated east of plot 2 and south of plot 3, with
extant consent to serve the 3 plots. However the proposal seeks to serve plots 1 and 3
from the existing access and proposes a new access to serve plot 2.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Brettle for the following planning reasons:
Highway safety
Neighbour impact
PARISH
Object – concerns over the lack of visibility due to the splay from the existing road not
being good enough for yet more traffic; as per Policy EN4, concerns with the amount of
overshadowing Plot 1 will have on the neighbouring property, „Moonrakers‟, which will
affect the residential amenity of this property.
REPRESENTATIONS
12 objections have been received on the following grounds:
1. Road safety
 Increased traffic
 Narrow one-way road on a hill
 Severe bend where plan proposes making an exit
 Significant drop in level onto the road further reducing the view line of cars
exiting onto the road and of traffic coming up or down the road
 Back Lane has become a „rat run‟ for traffic trying to avoid the High Street and
carries more traffic than it should; cars and lorries
 Owing to existing infill there are already at least 60 plus properties exiting onto
this lane
 If Back Lane had a one-way system there would be no need for objection
 The 34 year old consent is hardly appropriate for today‟s conditions and needs
to be revisited
 All plots should use the existing access rather than creating an additional one for
plot 2
 Increased risk to serious accident occurring (lots of pedestrian traffic but no
Development Committee
20
23 April 2015
pavement)
 I would like it put on record that if the Council allow it [the access to plot 2] to go
ahead as presently contemplated, the Council would be negligently
contributively responsible for any accidents that results
2. Reduction and disruption of existing wildlife
3. Overdevelopment – realistic approach would involve 2 plots
4. Application may be opportunity to obtain planning gain by an undertaking from the
developer to pay for two speed machines which notify speed of vehicles (20 mile an
hour largely ignored)
5. Chalet bungalows with velux windows does not conform to the guidance in the
Blakeney Village Design Statement
6. Density – proposal substantially increases the housing density in the vicinity and is
on close proximity to the neighbours
7. Loss of trees and wild flowers
8. Developers appear to be motivated solely by maximum return on investment to the
detriment of more important considerations
9. Plot 3 boundary will sit only 1.5m from the common boundary and approximately
only 4.5m from the south boundary of my property (North Lea)
10. Height and proximity (plot 3) will dominate and overlook North Lea
11. Restrict light to south of North Lea including south facing windows
12. Impact noise and loss of privacy to North lea (property and garden)
13. No contribution to affordable housing
14. Woodland should be protected; I have observed in the space where development
proposed: greater-spotted woodpecker, tree-creeper, bats, wren, goldcrest, song
thrush, dunnock, long-tailed tit, coal tit, sparrow, blue tit, great tit, tawny owl, sparrow
hawk, blackbird, black-cap, chiffchaff, snipe, woodcock
15. Plot 1 will block light to my [Moonraker] south facing windows
16. Plot 1 is so close to my fence my privacy will be invaded
17. It is time to stop building large two storey second home for the absent rich
18. Wooden single storey chalets would be preferable – eco-friendly, not block others‟
light, affordable, see Kelling Heath website
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection – subject to satisfaction that the 1980 consent
is extant and imposition of requested conditions
English Heritage: No comments – our specialist staff have considered the information
received and English Heritage do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Design) : No objection for the following
reasons: It is understood the principle of development was established and
implemented back in the 1980s; the scale and design of the three dwellings proposed is
considered compatible with the form and character of the immediate area, and my
Landscape colleague has confirmed that he dwellings could be slotted in amongst the
existing trees without detriment to the wooded setting. Therefore, subject to securing
sympathetic, good quality materials/finishes, it is considered that the proposed scheme
would not harm this part of the Blakeney Conservation Area. Conditions requested.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape): No objection subject to
imposition of requested conditions
Historic Environment Service: If planning permission is granted, we ask that this be
subject to a condition for a programme of archaeological work in accordance with
National Planning Policy Framework (2012), para 141.
Development Committee
21
23 April 2015
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 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 EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 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 HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of
affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway safety
3. Neighbour impact
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the development boundary for Blakeney and is also within the
Conservation Area and Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In principle
the erection of new dwellings as proposed is acceptable under Policy SS3 subject to
complying with other Core Strategy policies including EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN8. Policy
EN1 requires that development does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk
Coast AONB, Policy EN2 requires development to protect, conserve and where
Development Committee
22
23 April 2015
possible enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area including the
pattern of distinctive landscape features such as woodland and trees. Policies EN4 and
EN8 require that all development be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged.
Developments should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
designated assets, in this case the Blakeney and Glaven Valley Conservation Areas.
Furthermore proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity for future occupiers.
The proposal seeks the erection of 3 two storey dwellings, each with the first floor
accommodated within the roofspace. Two accesses are proposed; one is an existing
access, which serves an existing dwelling situated east of plot 2 and south of plot 3, with
extant consent to serve the 3 plots. However the proposal seeks to serve plots 1 and 3
from the existing access and proposes a new access to serve plot 2. The Highway
Authority has no objection to the proposal given that there is extant consent for the
access to serve the 3 plots.
Policy HO2 would previously have required not less than 50% of a development (of 2 or
more units) to be affordable housing. However, the Government has subsequently
made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework including in respect of the
threshold of affordable housing. The national threshold is now 10 or more dwellings.
This is a material consideration and this has been adopted by the Council following
referral of a report to the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party in January this
year. No affordable housing is required therefore in respect of this proposal.
The applicant sought pre-application advice in relation to the design of the buildings and
in particular the siting of them given the woodland nature of the site. The layout has
been designed to accommodate the character of the area and the Council‟s Landscape
Officer has advised that although several trees will have to be removed to facilitate
development a comprehensive landscape and planting scheme will assist in restoring
the character of the tree cover lost. It has been further advised that as the properties
would be part of a woodland, in the event of any approval, the developer should market
the development as wooded properties. The un-shaded areas of garden are very close
to the minimum guidelines but should be acceptable to new residents as they would
clearly be wooded properties. Appropriate maintenance of the trees would be
acceptable under Conservation Area Guidelines.
The Council‟s Conservation & Design Officer provided pre-application advice and has
advised that the scale and design of the proposed dwellings is considered compatible
with the form and character of the immediate area subject to the imposition of conditions
relating to prior agreement of materials, on any approval.
The Parish Council has objected to the proposal on highway safety grounds and impact
on a neighbouring property. 12 letters of objection have also been received (see above)
largely on highway safety grounds and impact on neighbouring properties (Moonraker
and North Lea which are situated to the northern boundary of the site) in terms of
overshadowing, loss of light and privacy. It is considered that in the absence of an
objection from the highway authority any refusal on highway safety grounds would be
difficult to reasonably justify.
In terms of impact on the neighbouring properties plot 2 (south of the site) is considered
to sit comfortably within the site and would meet the basic amenity criteria for separation
distances with both existing and proposed dwellings. It is considered that the proposed
detached garage for plot 2 would not introduce any significant detriment to the
Development Committee
23
23 April 2015
amenities of the neighbouring property to the south.
Plot 1 would present to the southern boundary of adjacent property Moonraker a 7m
wide gable with a ridge height of approximately 8m, and a ridge line of approximately
6.9m high extending either side of that gable giving a total width of approximately 11.5m
(at that 6.9m ridge height). A single storey (ridge height 3.5m) element is also proposed
here with a width of 5m. This northern elevation would be situated approximately 1m
from the boundary and approximately 9.2m from the southern elevation of Moonraker.
Three windows are proposed to this elevation (within the gable element), two at ground
floor to serve as secondary kitchen and dining area windows and one at first floor to
serve an en-suite. At ground floor there would be an intervening feature of a close
boarded fence (approximately 1.8m high) and the en-suite could be obscure glazed.
With a separation distance of 9m between the proposed and Moonraker it is considered
that in this aspect the proposal meets the basic amenity criteria (BAC) set out in the
North Norfolk Design Guide and would not therefore give rise to any significantly
detrimental loss of privacy.
In terms of overbearing impacts and overshadowing it is considered that currently the
majority of the rear garden of Moonraker falls within the shade pattern of significant
trees of proposed plot 1 and would largely continue to do so, given the number of trees
to be retained. With this in mind and with the design of the proposed dwelling it is
considered that the proposed gable and stepped down ridge heights would not result in
significantly detrimental loss of light or overbearing impacts. In addition the proposed
dwelling would be protected from overlooking from Moonraker and is therefore
considered to provide acceptable levels of private amenity space for future occupiers.
In respect of Plot 3, a single storey gable would be within approximately 2m of the
boundary with North Lea which is a one and a half storey dwelling with a ridge height of
approximately 7.3m. North Lea has 3 ground floor, high level windows (one obscure
glazed) to its south elevation which is approximately 2m from the boundary. It is
therefore considered that in relation to the single storey element of the proposed
dwelling the BAC would be met. A two storey gable element would be approximately 6m
from North Lea with a small en-suite window proposed at first floor level. This could be
obscure glazed and would in any case also meet the BAC. Windows to a stairwell are
also proposed which would face towards North Lea, again the separation distance of
over 9m more than complies with BAC. In addition in terms of overbearing impacts and
overshadowing it is considered that due to the design of the proposed dwelling, with
differing ridge heights and gable ends facing North Lea, no significant detrimental
impact on the amenities of this neighbour would be introduced by this proposal. A beech
hedge runs along the boundary between the site and North Lea and this is proposed to
be retained and reinforced.
Notwithstanding the objections raised, given the above it is considered that the proposal
complies with the policies of the development plan and is therefore recommended for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to the imposition of specific conditions
listed below:
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning,
including obscure glazing to the first floor en-suite windows on plots 1 and 3.
1. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Development Committee
24
23 April 2015
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed intentions of
the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular access
shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the approved plan
(drawing number 14.3379.076/01/F) in accordance with the highway specification
(Dwg. No. TRAD5). In addition arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to
be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the
highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or
surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. The gradient of the vehicular access shall not exceed 1:12 for the first 5 metres into
the site as measured from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of the safety of persons using the access and users of the highway, in
accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a visibility splay
shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the approved plan.
The splay shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from any obstruction
exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access, on-site car parking and turning areas shall be laid out, levelled, surfaced and
drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for that
specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the interests of
highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
6. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works shall
commence on site until a detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement works,
in connection with the existing access, as indicated on drawing number
14.3379.076/01/F have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate
standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local
highway corridor, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
25
23 April 2015
7. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the off-site highway
improvement works referred to in condition number 6 shall be completed to the written
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed,
in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the
Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan prepared by Mike
Houldsworth dated 5 December 2014 and received by the Local Planning Authority on
17 December 2014.
The planting proposals specified in 5.2 Planting Schedule shall be carried out to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority not later than the next available planting
season following the commencement of development or such further period as the
Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
In order to protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN 4
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9. No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the approved plan to be retained
shall be topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed, within ten years
of the date of this permission, without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority
in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy
10. Any new tree or shrub which within a period of ten years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during
the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the Local Planning
Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval is given to any variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11. All new trees shall be planted in strict accordance with BS 8545: trees from nursery
to independence in the landscape. The planting scheme should be included in the
arboricultural supervision.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
12. Prior to their use on site, brick samples shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
Development Committee
26
23 April 2015
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
13. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted a sample panel of
flintwork shall be prepared, submitted to and agreed in writing by the local Planning
Authority. The panel shall be not less than 1 square metre in size and shall not contain
any flints with a diameter of over 125mm when measured in any direction. The
development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved sample.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
14. Prior to their application, a full schedule of colour finishes to be used on the
approved windows, doors and boarding shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The finishes shall then be applied only in accordance with
the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
15. A) No development shall take place until a Written Scheme of Investigation has
been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme
shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and
1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
2. The programme for post investigation assessment
3. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
4. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of
the site investigation
5. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site
investigation
6. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works
set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation
B) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme
of Investigation approved under part (A) of this condition.
C) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post
investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set
out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under part (A) of this condition. and
the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and
archive deposition has been secured.
A brief for the works can be obtained from Norfolk County Council Historic Environment
Service on request.
Reason:
In the interests of recording and preserving items of archaeological interest, in
accordance with Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
27
23 April 2015
3.
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0070 - Conversion of existing detached two-storey dwelling
into 2 apartments, including construction of dormer window and erection of 6
two-storey dwellings, creation of new access and installation of air source heat
pumps.; Greencroft House, 22 Morston Road for London and Country Homes
(Blakeney) Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 March 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Norfolk Coast Area Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19870509 PF - Enclosed swimming pool
Approved 22/06/1987
PLA/19950605 PF - Erection of boundary walls and piers at existing drive entrance
Approved 26/05/1995
PLA/19970266 PF - Erection of conservatory
Approved 04/04/1997
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion of the existing dwelling into 2no. apartments, including the
construction of a dormer window and erection of 6no. two storey dwellings and creation
of new access.
The proposal would provide 4no. two bedroom houses and 4no. three bedroom
dwellings through a mix of dwelling styles that include two pairs of semi-detached
houses, two detached one and a half storey dwellings and two apartments.
Proposed materials would consist of red brick, flint, clay pantiles and Marley Eternit
cladding.
A 1.5m high flint and brick wall is also proposed along the roadside frontage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue(s):
1. Overdevelopment
2. Impact upon character of area
Also deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection subject to the brickwork to the properties at the rear of the plot being
sympathetic and in keeping with the main house and a tree planting scheme should be
included in order to replenish the vast amount of trees which were felled ahead of this
application being submitted.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. Loss of trees
Development Committee
28
23 April 2015
2. Risk of flooding
3.Overdevelopment
4. Highway safety issues
5. Increase in traffic
6. Additional strain to the mains sewer system
7. Loss of views
8. Already enough development in this area
9. Existing property would be spoilt by this proposal
10. Overlooking from Plot 7 to neighbour
11. Loss of light
12. Concerns over additional use of access track
13. Increase in noise
14. Design does not contribute to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
15. Concerns over loss of wall to rear of site.
16. Not in keeping with the Blakeney village history and preservation
17. Lack of infrastructure
18. Reduction in pedestrian safety
19. Overbearing
20. Proposal would have a significant adverse visual impact on the character of the
neighbourhood
21. Out of scale and character compared with existing developments in the area
22. Would erode sense of place currently provided by visual links to the salt marshes
23. Concerns over height of properties
24. Should comply with affordable housing, sustainability and suitability for disabled
living requirements.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - The site has been the subject of informal advice
regarding the suitability of the existing accesses and the design of the current proposal,
which now provides parking and garaging in accordance with current requirements, an
improved access onto Morston Road with acceptable visibility splays and notes a
frontage footpath/crossing area, which would be subject to a safety audit, to ensure that
the scale and extents of the footpath and position of any crossing point is appropriate in
relation to road users safety and to the scale of the development.
I am able to comment that in relation to highways issues only, that Norfolk County
Council has no reason to resist the grant of consent. Conditions would be required
regarding improvements to vehicular access, no gates, bollards, chain or other means
of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access, visibility splays, access, car
parking, off site highway improvement works.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments regarding air source heat pumps.
Landscape - It is disappointing that mature trees were felled prior to an application being
submitted. The trees had amenity value and could have been incorporated into the
development to provide an instant quality landscape that would have financial as well as
amenity value. The replacement planting indicated on the plans is considered
insufficient to replace the amenity lost. However, subject to an improved landscaping
plan the proposal could be acceptable. Should the application be approved conditions
are required in relation to submission of a landscaping scheme, retention of existing
trees, replacement of new trees and shrubs.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
29
23 April 2015
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of
affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy 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. Density
3. Dwelling mix and type
4. Design
5. Relationship to neighbouring dwellings
6. Affordable housing
7. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
8. Landscape Impact
9. Highway safety
10. Air source heat pumps
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this application having carried out a recent site visit.
1. Principle of Development
The site is located within the Residential Policy Area of Blakeney where new residential
development is acceptable in principle providing it accords with other relevant Core
Strategy policies.
The proposal to retain the existing dwelling on the site and sub-divide it into two
dwellings, and erect six new dwellings is therefore acceptable in principle in this
location.
Development Committee
30
23 April 2015
2. Density
Policy HO7: Making the Most Efficient Use of Land (Housing Density) of the Core
Strategy states that in Coastal Service Villages the aim of the Council is to seek a
density of housing that should be no less than 30 dwellings per hectare. This is provided
that the density of any such proposal is developed in a manner that protects or
enhances the character of the area.
In this case the application site consists of one large three storey property which has
been unsympathetically extended, set within large grounds. The existing dwelling is set
back into the rear of the site with the gardens primarily to the front.
Directly to the west of the site is a row of terraced cottages. There is a footpath between
the site and the rear gardens of the terraced cottages providing rear access to these
properties. To the north are detached and semi-detached cottages, and to the east and
south are a mixture of single storey, one and a half storey and two storey detached
dwellings. The plot sizes for the surrounding neighbouring properties varies.
The density of the terraced cottages directly to the west is approximately 39 dwellings
per hectare which exceeds the 30 dwellings per hectare aim for in the Core Strategy.
However, given that they are terrace dwellings a higher density is to be expected. The
detached and semi-detached properties to the north west and north of the site equate to
approximately 22 dwellings per hectare. To the east, at Pye's Close, the density
equates to 14 dwellings per hectare and to the south of the site approximately 8
dwellings per hectare.
Given the size of the application site and that the proposal is for eight dwellings this
equates to a density of 38 dwellings per hectare being proposed on the site. This is
higher than the 30 dwelling per hectare policy aim. However, in applying the District
Council's 30 dwellings per hectare density requirement for this location this would
equate to 6.3 new dwellings being constructed on the site. Given that six new dwellings
are proposed to be constructed and the existing dwelling converted into two dwellings it
is not considered that the density proposed for this site would be significantly out of
keeping with that of the requirements of the policy or the area.
Whilst the density of the site is higher than the aims of the policy this is a minimum figure
and given the sites immediate context where density and plot sizes vary it is not
considered that the proposal would detract from the character of the area. The density
proposed would therefore be in keeping with the character of the area.
3. Dwelling mix and type
In terms of dwelling mix and type Policy HO1 of the Core Strategy has two parts. The
first part states that on schemes of five or more dwellings at least 40% of the total
number of dwellings shall comprise not more than 70sqm internal floorspace and
incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. The second part states that at least 20% shall be
suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled.
Whilst there is an existing dwelling on the site it is proposed to subdivide this into two
dwellings. In view of this and the six additional dwellings proposed on the site there are
8 dwellings proposed in total. This policy applies to the total number of dwellings on a
site. In order to comply with the first part of the policy 4no. dwellings of the eight
proposed should have 70sqm internal floor area and two bedrooms or less. In order to
comply with the second part of the policy 2no. dwellings of the eight should be easily
adaptable. These figures are rounded upwards as required by the policy.
In this case two dwellings comply with the first part of the policy with a third dwelling
Development Committee
31
23 April 2015
having 2 bedrooms but with an internal floor area of 76sqm. The agent had received
advice from the Planning Policy Manager that provided the units did not exceed 78sqm
that we would normally accept this. Therefore, whilst this unit has the required 2
bedrooms the floor area is 6sqm larger than specified in the policy. However, this
increase is considered to be minor and following the advice of the Planning Policy
Manager considered to be acceptable. It is therefore considered that 3no. dwellings of
the eight comply with the first part of Policy HO1. This means that the proposal is one
dwelling short of being fully compliant with the first part of Policy HO1. However, there is
further 2 bedroom dwelling proposed on the site with an internal floor area of 123sqm,
and a 3 bedroom dwelling with an internal floor area of 106sqm. In view of the shortfall in
one dwelling, and other accommodation proposed on the site, it is not considered that
this provides sufficient grounds to justify a refusal on this ground alone.
The proposed development has 2no. one and a half storey dwellings (Plots 5 and 7),
both of these dwellings have three bedrooms, one of which is on the ground floor. It is
therefore considered that the proposal complies with the second part of Policy HO1.
4. Design
The four dwellings along the roadside frontage have varied ridge and eave heights, as
well as different detailing through the use of materials which are red brick, flint and
pantiles. The design of the roadside frontage dwellings would add visual interest to the
street scene along a road where there is already a mix in types and styles of properties,
and use of different materials. Whilst these proposed frontage dwellings measure
approximately 8m to the ridge there is ample separation between the proposed
dwellings and the existing neighbouring dwellings so as not to have a significant
detrimental impact upon the streetscene. The design and materials proposed for the
dwellings is considered to be acceptable.
Two new one and a half storey dwellings are also proposed in the rear of the site either
side of the existing house. Both of these proposed dwellings would have a ridge height
of approximately 7m, with flat roof single storey elements to the rear of approximately
2.7m in height and single storey wings to the front with pitched roofs measuring some
4.7m to the ridge. On these two units brick and flint is proposed on the southern
elevations and those facing the internal access road. The remainder of the elevations
are brick and Marley Eternit cladding, with pantile roofs.
Given the mix of styles and scale of properties in the immediate area, as well as a mix of
materials such as brick, flint, render and timber cladding it is considered that the design
and materials proposed for these dwellings is acceptable, and would not have a
significant detrimental impact upon the character of the area.
5. Relationship to neighbouring dwellings
In terms of relationships between dwellings the proposal complies with the Amenity
Criteria guidance set out in the Design Guide apart from in three areas of the site.
The first is the relationship between plots 2 and 3 within the site. There is a shortfall of
approximately 2m between these properties. However, given that the access runs
between the two dwellings, that Plot 3 has one ground floor window facing Plot 2, which
is a secondary window to a kitchen/diner it is not considered that this relationship would
be significantly detrimental.
The second is the relationship between Plot 6/6a and Plot 5, where there is a shortfall
of approximately 3.5m. Plot 6/6a has a secondary elevation facing the blank elevation of
Plot 5. However, the windows in this secondary elevation to Plot 6/6a are all secondary
windows to the rooms they serve and are not the sole windows to those rooms. In view
Development Committee
32
23 April 2015
of this it is not considered that the relationship between the two dwellings would be
significantly detrimental.
The third is the relationship between Plot 7 and the neighbouring dwelling to the north
(rear). The shortfall in this relationship is between the single storey rear element of Plot
7 and the neighbour to the north. There is a shortfall of approximately 6m at this point.
However, given that there would be a boundary fence between these two properties and
an access track it is not considered that this would have significant detrimental impact
upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of either property.
The relationships between the dwellings on the site and to the surrounding
neighbouring dwellings is therefore considered to be acceptable.
6. Affordable housing
The site is located within a Coastal Service Village. Policy HO2 of the Core Strategy
would normally apply and requires that in a Coastal Service Village that if a proposed
scheme is for more than 2 units, this would normally require the provision of not less
than 50% of the total number of dwellings being proposed as affordable. However, the
District Council is currently promoting a Housing Incentives Scheme, which means that
should the applicants agree to implement any permission granted within one year of the
date of the decision then no affordable housing requirement would apply.
Notwithstanding either of the above the Government has made changes to the NPPF in
relation to affordable housing and other obligations secured through the planning
application process. These have already come into effect and should be taken into
account in relation to all new and undetermined planning applications. The Guidance
introduces new nationally applied thresholds to the size of developments that can be
required to contribute towards such contributions including the introduction of a new
development size threshold below which affordable housing contributions should no
longer be required. Therefore, affordable housing is no longer sought from
developments of 10 units or less and which have a maximum combined gross floor
space of 1,000sqm. This change to the NPPF is a material consideration in the
determination of this application and supersedes the District Council's affordable
housing policy for 10 units or less. This stance has been adopted by the Council
following referral of a report to the Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party in
January this year. No affordable housing is therefore required in relation to this
proposal.
7. Impact on AONB
Whilst the site is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is located
within an already developed area of Blakeney and is not in an isolated position. There
are existing dwellings to the west, north, east and to the south on the opposite side of
the road. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the special qualities and setting of the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
8. Landscape
The Committee will note the comments of the Landscape Officer in relation to
landscaping. Whilst trees have been felled on the site, it is not located within the
Conservation Area and there are no Tree Preservation Orders in place on the site. No
permission was therefore required in order to fell the trees on the site. The Landscape
Officer is seeking an improved planting scheme to that submitted and at the time of
writing this report the agent was going to submit an enhanced landscaping scheme for
consideration as part of this application. The Landscape Officer has raised no objection
to the application and subject to a satisfactory landscaping scheme being submitted
Development Committee
33
23 April 2015
Officers would have no objections on landscape grounds. The Committee will be
updated at the meeting on this matter.
9. Highways
There is an existing vehicular access to the front of the site onto the Coast Road.
However, this is narrow and is being improved as part of this proposal to serve the site
as the main vehicular access point. There is also an unadopted access track running to
the east and north of the site for which the existing dwelling already has an access. This
would be relocated further to the west to serve Plots 6/6a.
In terms of car parking the proposal accords with the District Council's car parking
standards which required 2no. car parking spaces for two bedroom dwellings and 3no.
car parking spaces for three bedroom dwellings. Garages can be counted as a car
parking space provided the internal dimensions are 3m x 7m.
The Highway Authority have been consulted on the application and the Committee will
note that they have raised no objection. It is not therefore considered that the proposal
would have a significant detrimental impact upon highway safety.
10. Air Source Heat Pumps
Air source heat pumps are proposed as part of this application for each dwelling.
Amended plans have been received altering the location of the air source heat pumps
from that originally submitted, along with specification details and noise levels. The
Environmental Protection Team have been consulted on this matter and at the time of
writing the report their comments were awaited on the acceptability of air source heat
pumps in the locations proposed. The Committee will be updated on this matter at the
meeting. The description of the application has also been amended to include the air
source heat pumps and the application re-advertised and Parish Council reconsulted.
Conclusion
The principle of development is acceptable in this location, and whilst the density of the
development is greater than that aimed for in the Core Strategy it is not considered that
the development would be out of keeping with the character of the area given the varied
densities and plot sizes of surrounding properties. It is not therefore considered to
constitute overdevelopment of the site. There is a shortfall of one dwelling in terms of full
compliance with the first part of Policy HO1. However, this is not considered to be
sufficient to warrant a refusal.
The design and materials of the proposed dwellings are considered to be acceptable as
is the relationship to surrounding neighbouring dwellings, and between the dwellings on
the site. No affordable housing is required, and it is not considered there would be a
significant detrimental impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are not
considered to be any significant detrimental landscape impacts and the proposal is
acceptable in terms of highway safety.
Subject to no objection from the Environmental Protection Team regarding air source
heat pumps the proposal is therefore considered to be broadly compliant with
Development Plan Policy and on balance considered to be acceptable for the reasons
explained in this report.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds
of objection following readvertisement of amended plans including the air
source heat pumps, no objection from the Environmental Protection Team and
the imposition of appropriate conditions including three year commencement
period, in accordance with amended and approved plans, materials,
Development Committee
34
23 April 2015
landscaping, improvements to vehicular access, no gates, bollards, chain or
other means of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access,
visibility splays, access, car parking, off site highway improvement works,
removal of permitted development for any alterations, extensions, insertion of
windows, erection of outbuildings and any other conditions that may be required
from Environmental Protection Team.
4.
HOLT - PO/14/1509 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of two
detached two-storey dwellings; 59 Hempstead Road for Mr P W High
Minor Development
- Target Date: 02 February 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
C Road
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19901081 PF - Bungalow
Refused 31/01/1991
PLA/19890894 PF - To build a tractor shed
Approved 30/10/1989
PLA/19850648 PF - Proposed erection of bungalow
Approved 17/06/1985
PLA/19880480 PO - Development of part of land for housing
Refused 28/04/1988
PLA/19870504 EF - Storage of scrap vehicles prior to dismantling
Refused 21/07/1992
PLA/19841501 HR - Erection of bungalow
Approved 09/11/1984
PLA/19861447 PF - Garage
Approved 06/10/1986
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks outline consent for the demolition of a single storey dwelling and
the erection of two detached two storey dwellings. The access details only have been
submitted for approval. However an indicative layout has been submitted illustrating the
possible footprint of the two dwellings and position within the site.
The application seeks determination of the proposed access with all other matters
reserved. An indicative site layout has been provided which indicates a two bedroom
dwelling and a single garage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is an elected Member of the District Council and the application was deferred
at an earlier Committee to allow Members to visit the site
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
Development Committee
35
23 April 2015
REPRESENTATIONS
1 letter of objection has been received on the following grounds:
 Development will not be in keeping with its surrounding area
 The bungalow next door was built in conjunction with this development and to
knock down one bungalow and change the buildings would not be in keeping
with the bungalow next door
Supporting letter submitted by the applicant in respect of access arrangements (see
Appendix 2).
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): Initial response – To fully appraise whether an additional
dwelling can safely be served from the proposed access position, I would request the
provision of a plan detailing the available visibility splays over the applicants and
highway land to ensure that suitable visibility splays are available in perpetuity.
Response to amended plans: The amended plans details the available visibility splays
from the proposed site access. The plan clearly shows that the visibility splays runs over
private land outside of the application site and therefore the applicants control, without
securing these splays, a change to the frontage area through permitted means
(planting) could remove their availability resulting in a development without acceptable
visibility splays, which would not be acceptable as it there would be an intensification of
use from the additional dwelling and without the security of the visibility splays, the
increases would impact upon highway safety.
Any visibility splays running over 3rd party land would be required to be ensured in
perpetuity through a binding legal agreement (Section 106). As the application currently
stands, the visibility is not secured, as such, I would request that this response be
considered to be a holding objection until such time that the visibility splays are ensured
in perpetuity through a S106 agreement with 57 and 61 Hempstead Road.
Environmental Health: Requests imposition of an informative note in respect of
demolition. The applicant also needs to provide specific details of the proposed
soakaway for managing surface water.
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, refusal 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):
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
CT 6 - Parking provision
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
EN 4 - Design
HO 7 - Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 3 - Housing
Development Committee
36
23 April 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Highway safety
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable Members to visit the
site.
The site is situated within the designated residential area of Holt as defined by the North
Norfolk Local Development Framework Core, where subject to compliance with Policies
SS3, HO7, EN2, EN4, CT5 and CT6 the principle of residential development is
considered to be acceptable.
The proposal seeks to demolish the existing single storey dwelling and to erect two
detached two storey dwellings. The proposal is an outline application with only the
access for determination at this stage. Indicative plans have been submitted to illustrate
a possible layout.
Based on the indicative layout it is considered that it would be possible to design two
detached two storey dwellings the scale and proportions of which would sit relatively
comfortably within the site without introducing significant detriment to the amenities of
neighbouring properties. Notwithstanding this Officer‟s consider that the site may be
better suited to a proposal for a pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings.
The Highway Authority have raised objection to the proposal on the grounds that the
proposed visibility splay cannot be provided without the use of third party land. The
Highway Authority has advised that the visibility splays would need to be ensured in
perpetuity through a S106 agreement with 57 and 61 Hempstead Road in order for the
proposal to be acceptable in terms of highway safety. The applicant is aware of this
advice and has not provided any indication that such an agreement would be
forthcoming. The applicant‟s agent has instead submitted a supporting statement for
consideration by the Committee in respect of the proposed access arrangements which
is attached at Appendix 2. This refers, amongst other matters, to other existing
access arrangements along the Holt Road in the vicinity of the application site that have
limited parking to front gardens where vehicles either reverse into or out of those
gardens to the highway.
It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant has not addressed the
concerns of the Highway Authority. Therefore it is considered that the proposal fails to
comply with Policy CT5 of the Core Strategy by virtue that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that visibility splays required to support an intensification of use (from an
increased number of dwellings at the site) would be ensured in perpetuity. It is therefore
considered that the proposal does not provide safe access to the highway network.
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse for the reason specified below:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority inadequate visibility splays are provided at
the junction of the site access with the County highway and this would cause danger
Development Committee
37
23 April 2015
and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway and as far as can be
determined from the submitted plans, the applicant does not appear to control sufficient
land to provide adequate visibility at the site access.
Accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the above
Development Plan policy.
5.
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached dwellings
and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road for Ashford
Commercial Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 26 March 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19880245 PO - Construction of three detached dwellings with garages
Approved 28/04/1988
PLA/19891365 PM - Construction of three detached dwellings with garages and
ancillary works
Approved 13/02/1990
PLA/19891445 PF - Bungalow
Approved 06/10/1989
PLA/19931275 PF - Construction of three detached houses with garages
Approved 20/12/1993
PLA/19981212 PF - Construction of three detached houses with garages (renewal
of approval 01 931275 PF)
Approved 27/06/2003
PLA/20011691 PO - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Withdrawn 30/01/2004
PLA/20080830 PO - Erection of eight two-storey dwellings
Approved 08/10/2008
PO/10/0871 PO - Erection of one dwelling
Approved 08/11/2010
PF/12/1258 PF - Erection of eight two-storey dwellings and construction of access
road
Withdrawn by Applicant 19/12/2012
PF/13/1021 PF - Erection of 8 two-storey dwellings
Refused 12/11/2013
PM/13/1326 PM - Erection of dwelling and detached double garage
Approved 31/01/2014
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking outline planning permission for the erection of 4 single storey detached
dwellings and 4 two storey detached dwellings. All matters apart from access and layout
are reserved for consideration at a later date.
The vehicular access would be located off the Happisburgh Road, through the garden of
No.45 Happisburgh Road to the application site.
Development Committee
38
23 April 2015
The proposal would provide 4no. two bedroom bungalows, 2no. three bedroom houses
and 2no. five bedroom houses.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor P Moore having regard to the following planning issue(s):
1. Overdevelopment
2. Impact on neighbouring properties
This application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site visit.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on grounds of access to the site and overdevelopment.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:
1. Loss of privacy
2. Loss of light
3. Noise disturbance
4. Lack of parking
5. Bungalows should be built on the site
6. Concerns over loss of neighbouring land to visibility splay
7. Dangerous access a hazard to pedestrians and road users alike
8. Objection to proposal to demolish wall on neighbouring land to create visibility splay
9. Overdevelopment
10. Two storey dwellings inappropriate in this location
11. Access issues due to limited width
12.Concerns over water pressure if this development were to go ahead
13. There is a sewer pipe across site
14. Proposal will spoil the environment
15. Proposal will increase pollution from more cars
16. Proposal would be an eyesore
17. Amenity criteria not complied with for units 6, 7 and 8
18. The position of No.10 Benets Avenue is not shown correctly on the site plan.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - No objection in principle. However, amended plan
required to clarify ownership of the visibility sightlines and footway location.
Landscape Officer - The site is overgrown and the Arboricultural Implications
Assessment submitted with the application highlights and protects the most valuable
trees on the site. 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.
Development Committee
39
23 April 2015
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy 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. Background
2. Principle of development
3. Layout and impact on neighbouring dwellings
4. Dwelling mix and type
5. Design
6. Density
7. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The Committee will be familiar with this application having recently carried out a site
visit.
1. Background
The application site has been the subject of numerous planning applications as can be
seen from the planning history. The site area has also altered over time increasing in
size to that proposed under this current application.
Clearly the planning history demonstrates that the principle of residential development
on the site has been assessed as acceptable in the past. However, none of the previous
permissions have been implemented, so there are no extant permissions on this site.
In 2008 Outline application 08/0830 was approved by the then Development Committee
(East) for the erection of eight two storey dwellings. All matters apart from access and
layout were reserved. The Committee at that time visited the site. That application was
approved at the time when the transition was taking place between the North Norfolk
Local Plan and the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
In 2012, a Full Planning Application reference 12/1258 was submitted for the erection of
eight two storey dwellings on the site. The layout of which was basically the same as
approved under outline application 08/0830. However, Officers had concerns regarding
relationships to neighbouring dwellings surrounding the site in terms of the scale of the
two storey dwellings and positioning of windows. Officers also had concerns in relation
to design, amenity, parking and compliance with Policy HO1: Dwelling Mix and Type.
That application was withdrawn.
Development Committee
40
23 April 2015
A further Full Planning Application reference 13/1021 was submitted again for the
erection of eight two storey dwellings. The layout of the site was basically the same as
previously shown under application references 08/0830 and 12/1258. However, it was
not considered that Officers concerns raised under application 12/1258 had been
addressed. That application was refused on the grounds of design, scale and massing
of the proposed dwellings, detrimental impact upon privacy and amenities of occupiers
of neighbouring dwellings, failure to comply with Policy HO1: Dwelling Mix and Type,
insufficient landscaping to mitigate loss of trees, lack of footpath provision, parking and
turning.
Since the refusal of that application Officers have had informal discussions with the
agent who has amended the scheme to that which has now been submitted.
2. Principle of development
The site is located within the Residential Policy Area of North Walsham where the
principle of residential development is considered to be acceptable providing it accords
with other relevant Core Strategy policies including those in relation to design, dwelling
mix and type, residential amenity, access, parking and turning. There is no affordable
housing requirement in relation to this proposal.
The planning history in relation to this site has demonstrated that residential
development is acceptable on this site. The principle of this proposed development is
therefore considered to be acceptable, and in accordance with Core Strategy policy.
3. Layout and impact upon neighbouring dwellings
Whilst this application is only seeking outline permission for layout and access only at
this stage it is seeking permission for 4no. two storey detached dwellings and 4no.
single storey detached dwellings. This differs to the previous applications for this site
where all the dwellings were two storey.
Previous schemes have shown a cramped form of development to the north west corner
of the site, by trying to accommodate 4no. large detached dwellings. This left little space
between dwellings and their boundaries. However the development as now proposed is
seeking to locate 3no. dwellings on this part of the site, 1no. single storey and 2no. two
storey dwellings. By reducing the number of units on this part of the site, and amending
the dwelling type a more spacious layout has been created. It has increased the rear
garden depths of these dwellings moving them further away from the north west
boundary, improving the relationship to the neighbouring dwellings. There remains a
row of Cypress trees within the rear garden of Unit 2 which would screen any views
between properties. Subject to careful positioning of windows at reserved matters stage
it is considered that this layout and relationship to neighbouring dwellings would be
acceptable.
Units 4 and 5, in the middle of the site, remain as two storey dwellings. There are no
particular concerns regarding the layout of these proposed dwellings on the site. Whilst
the rear garden depths are between approximately 6 - 7m, they are some 15 - 16m in
width. The neighbouring dwellings to the south west have quite long rear gardens and
distances between dwellings would be approximately 33 - 39m. These two units would
face north east over a parking and garage court for dwellings located in Fairview Road.
Subject to careful consideration in relation to first floor rear windows it is not considered
that the layout of the dwellings on this part of the site would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of surrounding neighbouring
dwellings.
Development Committee
41
23 April 2015
Units 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed development are located to the south east of the site
and are all single storey. Previously two units were proposed in this location but they
were for two substantial 4 bedroom two storey dwellings. Whilst these dwellings had
rear garden depths of approximately 14m they measured approximately 5m to the
eaves and 8.5m to the ridge. These units were close to the boundary of the site with the
existing dwellings that are off Fairview Close. The application site is at a higher ground
level than Fairview Close, therefore these proposed dwellings would have had an
unacceptable overbearing impact on the dwellings in Fairview Close some of which
would only have been approximately 7 - 8m away. The scale of those dwellings would
also have had a detrimental impact on the dwellings to the south off St Benets Avenue.
It is now proposed under the current application that whilst there would be three
dwellings located on this part of the site they would be single storey. This would greatly
improve the relationships to the surrounding neighbouring dwellings and subject to an
acceptable scale would not introduce an unacceptable overbearing impact. The three
single storey dwellings have 9m deep rear gardens which falls just under the
recommended depth of 10m. However, given that they are single storey units there
would be no overlooking or loss of privacy issues, and depending on the internal layout
of the units and what windows would be located within the rear elevations they could be
designed in such a way to comply with the suggested Amenity Criteria distances. It is
not therefore considered that the layout of this part of the site would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring
dwellings.
4. Dwelling mix and type
In terms of dwelling mix and type Policy HO1 of the Core Strategy has two parts. The
first part states that on schemes of five or more dwellings at least 40% of the total
number of dwellings shall comprise not more than 70 sqm internal floor space and
incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. The second part states that at least 20% of
dwellings shall be suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or
disabled.
In order for this development to comply with this policy it means that a total of 4no. of the
eight dwellings should comply with the first part of the policy and 2no. of the eight
dwellings should comply with the second part of the policy. The proposal complies in full
with both parts of this policy and is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of
dwelling mix and type.
5. Design
Whilst the appearance of the dwellings is not for consideration at this stage, it is
considered that they could be designed in such a way that they would be of an
appropriate scale for the site and have an acceptable relationship to neighbouring
dwellings. In addition with careful consideration of the positioning of windows the
proposal could comply with the Amenity Criteria in the Design Guide and the dwellings
would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the
occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or future occupiers of the dwellings on the site.
6. Density
In accordance with Policy HO7: Making the Most Efficient Use of Land (Housing
Density) in Principal and Secondary settlements the aim of the Council is to seek a
density of housing that should be no less than 40 dwellings per hectare. This is provided
that the density of any such proposal is developed in a manner that protects or
enhances the character of the area. The precise density is determined by having regard
to the sites immediate context, on-site constraints, the type of development proposed
and the need to provide an appropriate mix of house types and sizes.
Development Committee
42
23 April 2015
In this case given the site area and number of units proposed the development
constitutes 25 dwellings per hectare, which is clearly less than the aim of 40 dwellings
per hectare in the policy. However, if applying the District Councils aim of 40 dwellings
per hectare density requirement to this site it would equate to 12.8 dwellings being
constructed on the site.
There is a mix of densities in the immediate areas surrounding the site ranging from 8
dwellings per hectare to the west and south, and 30 - 33 dwellings per hectare to the
north and east. However, notwithstanding this it is not considered that a higher density
would be appropriate for the site. This is because a further 4 or 5 dwellings would be
required, and given the unusual shape of the site and the need for additional parking,
turning and amenity space it is not considered that these additional dwellings could be
satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the occupiers of the neighbouring
properties.
It is therefore considered that the density is appropriate for the site and on balance
protects the character of the area.
7. Highway Safety
In terms of car parking the proposal complies with the District Council's car parking
standards which require a minimum of 3 car parking spaces for a 4 bed unit or more,
and 2 car parking spaces for a 2 or 3 bed unit. A total of 18 car parking spaces are
provided for, including integral garages. For an integral garage to count as a car parking
space it needs to have a minimal internal dimensions of 7m x 3m.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority have raised no objection in principle
to the proposal, but they do require clarification regarding the ownership of the visibility
splay and land for the required frontage footpath. A plan showing these within the
red-line of the application site has been received. At the time of writing this report a
response was awaited from the Highway Authority. The Committee will therefore be
updated on this matter at the meeting.
Any work that is required to be carried out to third party land in order to be able to
provide the visibility splays required by the Highway Authority is a civil matter not a
planning matter as this is a land ownership issue. The applicant will need to address the
matter of land ownership for the visibility splay and footpath directly with the
neighbouring properties affected.
Conclusion
Whilst previous proposals to redevelop this site have not been considered acceptable
the scheme now proposed has a more spacious layout addressing previous concerns
regarding a cramped form of development. The introduction of half of the units being
single storey has greatly improved relationships between the proposed dwellings and
the surrounding properties.
Subject to no objections from the Highway Authority regarding the amended plan
showing the visibility splays and land required for the frontage footpath the proposal is
now considered to comply with Development Plan policies for the reasons explained in
the report.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve, subject to no objections
from the Highway Authority regarding the amended plan showing the visibility
splays and land required for the frontage footpath and the imposition of
appropriate conditions including statutory time limit, amended plans, and any
other conditions that may be required by the Highway Authority.
Development Committee
43
23 April 2015
6.
SCOTTOW - PF/14/1396 - Temporary change of use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 from
military storage to storage of processed sugar; Hangars 1, 2 and 3, Former RAF
Coltishall for Norfolk County Council
- Target Date: 19 December 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
BX/14/0061 BX - Recycling and restoration of runway areas (County reference:
C/1/2013/1020)
Withdrawn by Applicant 24/11/2014
BX/14/0422
BX - Use of land for fire training purposes including the siting of
containers, modular buildings and portable toilets (County ref: Y/1/2014/1003)
Approved 19/06/2014
PF/14/0642 PF - Change of use of former munitions stores to B8 storage
Approved 18/07/2014
PF/14/0811 PF - Change of use of Hanger 3 and Building 382 for police training and
storage purposes
Approved 28/08/2014
PF/14/1038 PF - Change of use of hanger to B2 and B1 use (general and light
industrial use) and associated outside storage
Approved 13/11/2014
PF/14/1365 PF - Change of use from storage associated with former airbase to B8
storage (storage of empty plastic bottles/caps and cardboard packaging only)
Approved 12/02/2015
THE APPLICATION
The proposal involves the temporary use of three existing hangers (circa 5,500sqm
each) at Scottow Enterprise Park to be used for the storage of sugar. The use of the
hangers for sugar storage had already commenced shortly after the application was
submitted and officers understand this was because there was an immediate need for
British Sugar (Cantley) to store processed sugar. In the event of approval of the
application, planning conditions will need to reflect that the fact that the use has already
commenced.
The applicant has indicated that the temporary use of these hangers for sugar storage
would only occur for up to three years and other longer-term options are being explored
for the use of these buildings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Ivory in view of traffic impacts, potential adverse impact on heritage
assets and the appropriateness of storage uses at this site
PARISH COUNCIL
Scottow Parish Council - No response
Development Committee
44
23 April 2015
Buxton with Lammas Parish Council - No objection subject to conditions that the
application remained temporary whilst a more permanent and appropriate access to the
site is secured which takes traffic away from the residential margins of Badersfield.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received commenting generally on the wider site in
regard to heritage impacts but also commenting specifically that the storage of sugar is
likely to lead to damage to the hangers, murals and artefacts.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions requesting details of any
extractor/ventilation/dehumidifying equipment installed so as to prevent any adverse
noise/odour impacts and also agreement on hours of deliveries.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions - Having regard to the
volume of traffic that previously accessed the operational RAF airbase and the fact that
traffic to this site has significantly reduced since the base closed, it would not be realistic
to recommend refusal of this application on highway grounds.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that traffic follows the route indicated within the applicants
supporting documents and accordingly I recommend a condition to secure this by way
of a Traffic Management Plan.
Conservation and Design Officer - No objection by virtue of no harm to significance of
heritage assets.
Health and Safety Executive - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
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
Development Committee
45
23 April 2015
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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
Principle
Highway Impact
Impact on Residential Amenity
Other Safety Considerations
Heritage Impacts
APPRAISAL
Principle
The re-use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 for storage purposes is considered acceptable in
principle under Core Strategy Policy EC 4 subject to the proposals protecting the
surrounding environment and resulting in no degradation of the site itself.
Highway Impact
In respect of traffic movements the applicant had indicated within their supporting
statement that up to fifteen 40ft (30 tonne) lorries will arrive and depart daily from the
site and each hanger will be filled in turn and that lorries will also arrive with one tonne
bags packed on pallets and unloaded using forklift trucks. The hangars are now full and
the applicant has subsequently confirmed that during filling between November 2014
and Feb 2015 there were 64 lorry movements per day. The applicant has indicated that
there will be no lorry movements until the sugar is required to be removed in circa 12
months‟ time at which point this will be approximately 10 vehicle movements per day
(the applicant previously suggested 4-8 vehicle movements per day).
In respect of the originally stated traffic movements the Highway Authority had raised no
objection subject to a condition to secure a Traffic Management Plan.
Buxton with Lamas Parish Council have requested that traffic be diverted away from
Badersfield through the construction of a new access. Whilst the proposal is to use the
existing access, it is understood by Officers that an alternative access route into the site
from the north east is being investigated/negotiated and this will form the focus for
further development on the site. The temporary permission for the proposal will enable
the access matters to be reviewed in the future.
In light of the material increase in traffic movements the Highway Authority have been
reconsulted and have confirmed once again no objection to the proposal. Therefore,
whilst Officers and the Highway Authority acknowledge the local concerns about traffic
movements during the fill period, without objection from the Highway Authority, Officers
consider there would be no substantive basis for refusal in relation to highway impacts.
Impact on Residential Amenity
Given the distances, the physical storage of sugar in the hangers is unlikely to result per
Development Committee
46
23 April 2015
se in harm to residential amenity. The Environmental Protection Team have requested
details of the extractor/ventilation/dehumidifier equipment to be installed and these
details can be requested by condition requiring their submission within two months of
the date of the decision (if the Committee are minded to approve).
However, it is the vehicle movements associated with the transporting of the processed
sugar that has the potential to affect nearby residents in Badersfield based on the
current access arrangements. The applicant had indicated that delivery times would be
restricted between 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday (March to September) and had
requested that during the initial fill period there be no delivery restrictions. During the fill
period (which commenced without the benefit of planning permission) the Council did
receive a number of calls from local residents about vehicle movements taking place at
all hours of the day disturbing sleep. Officer opinion at that time was that an unlimited
delivery window would not be acceptable and, with the support of Environmental
Protection Officer, insisted that the County Council and applicant restrict initial delivery
movements to between 7am to 10pm on any one day. Officers understand the County
Council did enforce this restriction and, as a result, complaints stopped.
Officers remain of the opinion that, if the Committee are minded to support approval of
the proposal, delivery vehicle movements would need to be the subject of a planning
condition. Officers understand that the County Council are seeking a site wide delivery
receipt/dispatch restriction and have informally requested this be 7am to 10pm Mon to
Fri, 7am to 4pm on Saturdays and no deliveries on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.
Officers consider this would be a reasonable restriction which would protect the amenity
of nearby residents whilst still allowing business to operate successfully. Given the
temporary nature of the proposal, if the Committee are minded to support approval
Officers would recommend the suggested restrictions be imposed by way of condition.
Other Safety Considerations
In respect of issue of safety, sugar is known to pose a risk of explosion, particularly if the
size of sugar particles are below 500 micrometres (sugar dust) which has a larger
surface area to react with oxygen in air. The applicant has confirmed that sugar particles
will be larger than 500 micrometres and not in a dust format and that spark retarders will
be used when loading and unloading so that any risks are reduced even further. Officers
consider that this approach would seem reasonable by the applicant and, if the particle
size of the sugar is as stated by the applicant, then the risk of explosion will be
significantly reduced.
However, confirmation of the views of the Health and Safety Executive have been
sought on the applications and at the time of writing this report their comments are
awaited.
Heritage Impacts
In respect of impacts on heritage assets, the site lies within a Conservation Area and the
hangers have 'local listing' status (ref: LL/84/02, LL/84/03, and LL/84/04). Whilst not
specifically mentioned in the local list descriptions, some of the hangers include murals.
The murals themselves are, in the main, located internally within the hangers and so
play a limited role in the appreciation of the wider character of the area but nonetheless
contribute to the historical context of the site. English Heritage (now Heritage England)
undertook a „Photographic Characterisation‟ of the RAF Coltishall site prior to its closure
and this included photographic records within the hangers capturing the murals.
In considering the application, the Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay
“special attention” to the “desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings, and
Development Committee
47
23 April 2015
the character and appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of
preserving the settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of
conservation areas are not mere material considerations to which any weight can be
attached. When a local authority finds that a proposed development would harm the
setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must
give that harm considerable importance and weight. There is effectively a statutory
presumption against planning permission being granted. That presumption can,
however, be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so, including
the public benefits of a proposal.
In considering what weight to afford to any impacts to heritage assets, the Committee
needs to be mindful of the fact that Locally Listed Buildings are not afforded the same
level of statutory protection as listed buildings and therefore the powers available to the
Local Planning Authority in the event that harm was being caused to the internal fabric
(including the murals) would be limited.
The Council's Conservation Officer is of the opinion that the proposal will not harm the
significance of these designated and non-designated heritage assets. When the doors
of the hangers are closed, there is no discernible visual impact on the character and
appearance of the wider Conservation Area. In respect of the impact on the hangers
themselves, Committee will note the representation received raising concerns about
impact heritage impacts and concerns that the storage of sugar is likely to lead to
damage to the hangers, murals and artefacts. The applicant has indicated that the
murals within the hangers have been covered/protected and the stored sugar is not in
direct contact with the hanger building such that, once the sugar has been removed,
there would be no significant adverse impacts.
On balance, having regard to the likely impacts it is considered that the proposal would
not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and there
are no substantive heritage impact grounds upon which to oppose the application.
Summary
Whilst the application is retrospective in nature and the unrestricted transporting of
processed sugar to the site has had some adverse impacts on residential amenity, the
Committee needs to satisfy itself that the proposed development is acceptable or can
be made acceptable in planning terms. The application is proposed on a temporary
basis and, subject to the imposition of conditions limiting delivery/despatch times is
likely to be considered generally acceptable and would not adversely affect heritage
assets. In respect of the number of vehicle movements, the Highway Authority have
been asked for further comment on the basis of updated traffic figures received and the
Committee will be updated orally. Subject to no objections being received from the
Highway Authority and subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal would
generally accord with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to no objections being received from the
Health & Safety Executive and subject to the imposition of conditions to include
restrictions on delivery/dispatch times to 7am to 10pm Mon to Fri, 7am to 4pm on
Saturdays and no deliveries on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays and any
other conditions considered to be necessary by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
48
23 April 2015
7.
SCULTHORPE - PF/14/0680 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 49m
and a blade tip height of 78m; Land at Manor Farm, Cranmer for Ogden
Renewable Energy
Minor Development
- Target Date: 22 September 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Historic Park and Gardens (Ungraded)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 49m and a
height to blade tip of 78m with a rotor diameter of 58m. The turbine would be located at
Easting: 589600, Northing: 332550. The base of the turbine would be at approximately
47m AOD.
The proposal also includes associated infrastructure to support the turbine including
access tracks, crane hard-standing and turning areas.
The applicant has indicated that the turbine likely to be used is a Gamesa G58 500kW
model.
Details submitted by the applicant indicate that the 49m high steel turbine column would
have a diameter of approximately 3.32m at its base tapering to approximately 2.1m at
hub height.
The applicant has indicated that the associated substation would be housed within the
base of the turbine. The proposed access track would be approximately 4m wide with a
gravel finish. Under the proposed turbine, a crane hard standing and turning area would
be created which will enable construction and decommissioning of the turbine.
The applicant has submitted a number of reports to support their view that the proposal
complies with relevant Development Plan policies.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
All turbine applications are required to be determined by the Development Committee
PARISH COUNCIL – Sculthorpe Parish Council object for the following reasons:
1. The wind turbine would be sited in an inappropriate position - it is close to Sculthorpe
Parish Church and when standing in certain positions in Sculthorpe Village it will be
seen extending above the church roof. The church is a listed heritage building so this
scenario is not acceptable - even more so if aviation lights are fitted to the rotor tips as
requested by the MOD. ·
2. The proposed turbine tips would stand 3.5 times higher than Sculthorpe Church and 7
times higher than Cranmer Hall. This is unacceptable in a heritage area.
3. The wind turbine is sited in Cranmer Park which in itself is a heritage area. It is close to
Cranmer Hall which is listed as are its surrounding buildings. From a heritage viewpoint,
Development Committee
49
23 April 2015
with its Roman history, the site is unacceptable. Other listed buildings are situated close
the church
4. It is known that bats inhabit Cranmer Hall and frequent areas of the church as well as
buildings in Sculthorpe.
5. The road passing only metres away from the proposed turbine, the B1355, is
relatively straight and for that reason is known for the fast speed of traffic - especially by
drivers from the London area travelling to Burnham Market and beyond. There are
corners at either end of the straight stretch of road so drivers will be suddenly exposed to
a distracting view of the turbine when they round the corners. This is a road safety issue
which local people fully understand.
6. The proposed wind turbine site is close to Sculthorpe Airfield extensively used by the
Osprey Helicopters and other aircraft. The helicopters are frequently seen by Sculthorpe
villagers in both daylight and darkness flying at low levels and not conforming to runway
flight paths. They pass over, and close to, village buildings and therefore would be in
danger of flying over, or into, the proposed turbine. We are advised that the staff at
Lakenheath/Mildenhall have not been made aware of this significant danger.
7. Sculthorpe houses in the vicinity of the proposed turbine would be unacceptably
exposed to noise and vibrations - especially when wind is from the north.
8. There are a substantial number of holiday cottages in the surrounding area of the
proposed site and it is most probable that many tourists who enjoy the peace and
tranquillity of the North Norfolk countryside would not choose to be with in close
proximity to a wind turbine.
9. Flicker caused by the sun on wind turbines has been associated with epilepsy,
migraine, nausea and psychological distress at distances of one kilometre. Sculthorpe
village is inside this distance.
10. Sculthorpe Parish Council called a consultation meeting of parishioners on
Wednesday 17 September 2015 at which the overwhelming majority voted that we
object to the planning application.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date 62 representations have been received, all in objection to the proposal.
Summary of comments in objection:
1. Object to the destruction of our beautiful countryside;
2. Have concerns about noise (high and low frequency);
3. Have concerns about vibration;
4. Have concerns about the effect of shadow flicker;
5. Have concerns about impact to wildlife including bats and migrating birds;
6. Have concerns about aircraft safety as there are a lot of low-flying aircraft in the
area;
7. The turbine will be an eyesore;
8. Will adversely affect the setting of the church;
9. Will adversely change the character of this part of the village
10. Will adversely affect the local school;
11. Will be visually obtrusive, especially with lighting;
12. Trees will not screen the turbine;
13. There is no benefit to local residents;
14. Sculthorpe has a Conservation Area which should be protected;
15. The turbine will be a distraction to drivers and will adversely affect highway safety;
16. There surely isn’t enough wind to make this viable;
17. There has been no proper consultation with local residents;
18. The turbine would detract from this relatively unspoilt landscape;
19. Turbines should be off-shore;
20. The turbine blade diameter is equivalent to the wingspan of a 747 jet;
21. The proposal will adversely impact upon numerous listed buildings in the area;
Development Committee
50
23 April 2015
22. Solar would be better;
23. Turbines just aren’t efficient at producing electricity;
24. Will adversely affect tourism in the area.
CONSULTATIONS
Council’s appointed Heritage Consultant (Beacon Planning) Objection - Beacon
Planning were appointed to assist the Council by providing heritage advice on the
application. They formed their own independent view of the application.
Beacon Planning identified harm to the setting of the Church of St Mary and All Saints,
Sculthorpe (Grade II*), Cranmer Hall (Grade II*) and its locally designated park and
garden and Manor Farm (Grade II). The harm to the setting of these assets is of greatest
concern to Beacon Planning, as those are assets of the highest heritage value and the
desirability of the preservation of their settings must be given special regard. This
refers to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990, which requires the local planning authority, in considering whether to grant
planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have
“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting”.
Beacon Planning conclude in respect of the Church of St Mary and All Saints: „..whilst
the turbine is not visible in the viewpoints from the green to the front [selected by the
applicant], as one moves around the green and churchyard itself, it is likely to come in to
view. The approach from the south along Moor Lane is an important one, comprising
one of two historic roads linking the church to the core of the village to the south‟.
In the case of Cranmer Hall and its parkland setting: „The turbine, rising above the
historic tree planting, would comprise a particularly alien feature within this historic
landscape that would distract and detract from the landscape design intentions. As an
integral part of how the hall is experienced, harm to the parkland would cause harm to
the setting of the listed building‟.
In the case of Manor Farm: „The house has a dense tree screen on its northern
boundary which will filter views to the turbine when looking towards the front elevation,
however it will be visible from within the farmland associated with the asset which forms
part of its setting. Furthermore, the construction of the turbine itself will erode part of the
historic farmland currently connected with this asset. The proposals are therefore
considered to cause harm to positive elements of its setting and therefore the
significance of this heritage asset‟.
Whilst the harm to these designated heritage assets is „less than substantial‟ using the
tests in the NPPF, nevertheless it is of considerable significance.
Beacon Planning have also identified that there are a large number of other heritage
assets within the 2km and 5km radii of the application site, and from which the turbine
will be visible. These include the Fakenham Conservation Area and Church of St Peter
and Paul, the Manor and Gatehouse at East Barsham, Egmere Medieval Village and the
Church of St Edmund, Bloodgate Hillfort, and Church of St Peter at Dunton. The impacts
on their heritage significance have been assessed, and are considered to be minor. This
is by virtue of the limited visibility and/or lack of contribution that the application site
makes to their heritage significance.
In our view there is a significant level of harm to a number of highly-graded Listed
Buildings and there must therefore be a strong presumption against the granting of
planning permission. Section 66 of the Act 1990 is clear that in exercising its planning
Development Committee
51
23 April 2015
functions, the local planning authority must pay special regard to the desirability of
preserving listed buildings and their settings. The weight to be given to this special
regard has recently been tested in the High Courts (Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v.
East Northants DC and others [2014] EWCA Civ 137) and it is clear that considerable
weight must be afforded to the protection of listed buildings and their settings in
balancing harm to their heritage significance against other interests.
It is not within our remit to undertake the ‘planning balance’ between the harm which we
have identified and the wider benefits which this scheme will bring. We would however
advise that in our view these would need to be ‘powerful’ (using Justice Lindblom’s word
[in the case of Forge Field]) to outweigh the clear harm which has been identified.”
(See full copy of responses at Appendix 3).
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) – Objection - The application has
been supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by
AAH Planning Consultants dated June 2013.
The LVIA concludes that the overall effect of the wind turbine on the local landscape
character (Rolling Open Farmland) would be slight/moderate adverse, and although
this effect is long term it would ultimately be reversible due to the life cycle of the turbine
(approximately 25 years). A „moderate‟ effect is described as being one where “the
proposed scheme would cause a noticeable difference to the landscape and would
affect several receptors”. A „moderate‟ effect on landscape character is not considered
significant under the EIA Regulations.
Many elements of the submitted LVIA, such as the assessment and judgement of the
capacity and the sensitivity of the landscape to receive the proposed wind turbine, are
considered acceptable and a fair reflection of the proposed development and landscape
impacts. However, it is considered that certain significant landscape features in the
baseline assessment have been undervalued and the magnitude of impact
underestimated.
As recognised in the LVIA the Rolling Open Farmland character type is defined by two
main factors: its topography, large expansive, open, gently rolling or undulating land and
associated uninterrupted skyline views; and its historical land ownership, large land
holdings since the mid eighteenth century, of which Cranmer Hall plays a significant
part.
It is considered that insufficient weight has been given to the impact of the development
on these two defining elements in the assessment of the impacts.
The North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning
Document (June, 2009) (NNLCA) repeatedly states that the erection of wind turbines in
certain areas of the Rolling Open Farmland Character Type can have very severe
effects, and whilst the submitted LVIA acknowledges this to a certain degree in its
assessment, it could be argued that insufficient weight has been given in the
assessment because of the type of change being affected on the landscape by the wind
turbine development.
The proposed development is located specifically within the Egmere, Barsham,
Tatterford Landscape Character Area of the Rolling Open Farmland Type. The NNLCA
states that “this landscape Area is more open and has less built development
(settlement or otherwise) than its neighbouring Areas and most other Types.” The
Development Committee
52
23 April 2015
NNCLA goes on further to state that the area is consequently more sensitive to
increases in built development such as large vertical structures i.e. wind turbines and
telecom masts.
There is therefore a concern that the relatively intact landscape Area of Egmere,
Barsham, Tatterford, which is typical of the landscape character, will be eroded by the
proposed wind turbine by such a degree that it has alters the overall condition of the
landscape from „good‟ to „fair‟.
The damaging effects of the development are
intensified as the existing intact landscape typifies the Type.
The LVIA has also considered the cumulative impacts of the development on the
landscape, in respect of the permitted commercial wind energy schemes at Jack‟s Lane
(6 turbines at 126m to blade tip) and Chiplow (5 turbines at 100m to blade tip) which are
located 7.6km and 9.4km, respectively, to the east of the Cranmer turbine in the
Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk. Other smaller micro-scale wind turbines are
located within the vicinity of proposed Cranmer turbine and have also been taken into
consideration in the assessment.
The LVIA concludes that the cumulative effects of the development are limited or
occasional due to the rolling topography, distance between the developments and the
intervening vegetation. The overall significance of effect is considered as no more than
slight adverse, which is concurred with.
Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy states development that does not respect or enhance
the landscape character of the area should not be permitted. The LVIA acknowledges
that the proposed development will cause a noticeable difference to the character of the
landscape, however it is contended that the effect is more adverse for certain defining
elements of the landscape and therefore has greater significance. Given that the
development will result in adverse impacts to the landscape character contrary to Policy
EN2, the benefits of the turbine with respect to renewable energy policies must be
carefully examined and questioned particularly in view of the importance of the
landscape to the local community.
In respect of ecology the application was supported by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat
Survey, prepared by Peak Ecology Limited dated June 2013. Some mitigation has been
proposed to reduce the potential for minor impacts and based on a precautionary
approach. It is considered that if these mitigation measures are secured via a condition
of planning, the impact of the proposed turbine on biodiversity would be minimal and
consistent with the aims and objectives of Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy and NPPF.
In conclusion it is considered that the proposed turbine will have a moderate/major
adverse impact on a landscape that is currently intact and in good condition. The
proposed turbine would erode the character of the landscape reducing the overall
condition of the landscape to „fair‟. Furthermore, it is considered that the turbine would
introduce a visually discordant element within the Historic Park and Garden of Cranmer
Hall affecting the setting of the hall and the locally designated park and garden. The
proposal contradicts Policies EN2 and EN8 of the Core Strategy and is not supported.
It is recommended that the application is refused due to the adverse impact on the local
landscape and heritage assets.
Environmental Protection Officer - No objection subject to conditions - I have
reviewed the noise reports that accompany this planning application. As the closest non
connected property is 640 metres from the turbine, this falls out of the study area, as
defined in both ETSU 97 and The Good Practice Guide to the application of ETSU-97 for
the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise produced by the Institute of Acoustics in
Development Committee
53
23 April 2015
May 2013.
However, due to the quiet rural background area; I feel it would be wise to add the
following planning condition:
In the event that the Local Planning Authority receives a noise complaint which appears
to be of substance, and once the wind turbine operator has been notified of the
complaint in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the wind turbine operator shall, at its
expense, employ a suitably qualified noise consultant approved by the Local Planning
Authority, to undertake an appropriate noise assessment of the noise emissions from
the wind turbine at the complainant’s property following procedures first agreed by the
Local Planning Authority. A report of the assessment shall be provided in writing to the
Local Planning Authority within 60 days of the request under this condition unless this
period is extended by the Local Planning Authority in writing. If the findings of this report
identify that the wind turbine is causing noise levels considered to be of detriment to the
amenity of the nearby residential properties, a scheme shall be included in the report
detailing remedial works reasonably necessary to address the noise complaint, and
these works shall be implemented in full in accordance with an agreed timescale.
English Heritage (now Historic England) – Objection - The application proposes the
erection of a wind turbine with a blade tip height of 78 metres on land at Manor Farm.
The development has the potential to affect the setting and significance of a number of
designated heritage assets within the vicinity.
We have visited the area to consider the impacts of the proposal. The applicant's
Heritage Statement takes a limited view of the potential impacts and the viewpoints do
not appear to have been chosen to help consider the impact on the historic environment.
However, on the basis of our visit and the submitted information, we consider the turbine
would cause harm to the setting of the Church of St. Mary and All Saints at Sculthorpe,
grade II*; the buildings and landscape of Cranmer Hall, grade II*, grade II and locally
designated and the Church of St. Peter and Paul at Fakenham, grade I and within the
town conservation area. There is potential for there to be harmful impacts on the Church
of St. Peter at Dunton, grade II* and we also have reservations about the impact on the
church and manor at East Barsham, the Slipper Chapel at Walsingham and the
scheduled monument and church at Egmere and at Bloodgate Hill.
In line with the National Planning Policy Framework the public benefits of the proposal
should be weighed against the harm to the significance of the assets. Unless you are
satisfied that the harm is outweighed, we recommend the application should be refused.
(See full copy of response at Appendix 3).
County Council (Highway) - No objection subject to conditions – I have considered the
information submitted within the associated traffic management plan and can confirm
that I am satisfied with the proposed access route for construction traffic and with the
swept path analysis for abnormal loads which has been undertaken.
Given the nature of the development, when up there will be a minimal increase in traffic
generated to the site as a result of the application. In addition, I note from the information
submitted that the construction phase will generate approximately 30 HGV movements
to the site.
Having considered the information submitted I can confirm, in terms of highway
considerations only, I would have no objection to the principle of the development.
However, I would be grateful for the inclusion of conditions relating to the submission of
a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route and provision of wheel
Development Committee
54
23 April 2015
wash facilities.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation (Lands) - No objection subject to conditions
(See full copy of responses at Appendix 3).
National Air Traffic Services - No objection subject to conditions - The proposed
development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not
conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited
Company (NERL) has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Norwich Airport - Safeguarding Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to development
being built as proposed.
Natural England - No objection subject to conditions - Natural England is generally
satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or
landscapes.
King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council - neither supports or objects.
Breckland District Council - No response
Campaign to Protect Rural England - Objection
Open Spaces Society - Objection
Architectural Liaison Officer/safety officer - No response
East of England Ambulance Headquarters - No response
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No response
Norfolk Fire Service - No response
Ramblers Association - No response
Royal Society for Protection of Birds - No response
Adjacent Parishes/Town Councils (a wide consultation was undertaken having regard
to the height of the proposed turbine):
Barsham Parish Council - Objection
Binham Parish Clerk - No Comment
Dunton Parish Council - No response
Fakenham Town Council - Support
Great Snoring Parish Council - No response
Helhoughton Parish Council - No Comment
Hempton Parish Council - No response
Hindringham Parish Council - No response
Holkham Parish Council - No Comment
Kettlestone Parish Council - No response
Little Snoring Parish Council - No response
Pudding Norton Parish Council - No response
Raynham Parish Council - No response
Ryburgh Parish Council - Objection
Stiffkey Parish Council - No Comment
Tattersett Parish Council - Objection
Thursford Parish Council - No objection
Walsingham Parish Council - No response
Warham Parish Council - No Comment
Wells Town Council - No response
Wighton Parish Council - No Comment
Development Committee
55
23 April 2015
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, refusal 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.
EQUALITIES ACT 2010
In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has considered the
requirements under S149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It is considered that the application
raises no significant equality issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008), as well as supplementary
planning documents: the North Norfolk Design Guide Supplementary Planning
Document (December 2008) and the Landscape Character Assessment (June 2009).
The relevant policies are:
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Issues for Consideration
1. Planning Policy Context
2. Landscape and Visual Impacts
3. Impact on Designated Historic Assets;
4. Impact on Residential Amenity;
5. Impact on other Infrastructure Provision
6. Impact on Wildlife/Ecology
7. Impact on Aviation;
8. Impact on Highway Safety & Public Rights of Way;
Development Committee
56
23 April 2015
9.
10.
11.
12.
Impact on Tourism & Other Sectors;
Grid Connection;
Benefits of the Proposed Development;
Overall Summary
APPRAISAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and have had regard to advice
within the Planning Practice Guidance. A Screening Opinion was adopted on 31 July
2014 which considered that that the proposal was not EIA development and that the
potential impacts could be properly and rigorously assessed through the standard
planning process. Officers remain of this opinion.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). Although it preceded the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF), the relevant policies (other than Policy EN8) are consistent with the NPPF and
full weight should be given to them.
Local Policy
Three CS policies are relevant to the application. They are:
 EN2, which requires development proposals to demonstrate that their location,
scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and where possible, enhance,
inter alia, “the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character),” “visually sensitive skylines,
hillsides” and „the setting of and views from historic parks and gardens.‟;
 EN8, which provides that development proposals should preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of designated assets and their settings and that
development which would have an adverse impact on their special historic or
architectural interest would not be permitted; and
 EN7, which provides:
‘Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context
of sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and
their contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and
integration of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be
permitted where individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse
effects on;



the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will
not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the
Development Committee
57
23 April 2015
designation are not compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted
where they are sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary
mitigation measures and meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area’.
Policy EN7 operates in two ways. It commits the Council to granting planning permission
for renewable energy technology where there will be no significant adverse effect on the
landscape and historical assets, residential amenity, highway safety and designated
nature conservation or biodiversity considerations. If there will be a significant adverse
effect on these things, then the Council must consider the benefits of renewable energy
gain, including the contribution to overcoming energy supply problems, and these
benefits must be balanced against the significant adverse effects. If the benefits are
outweighed by the adverse effects, the proposal will not accord with policy EN7. If the
benefits are not outweighed, the proposal will accord with policy EN7.
In consideration of other recent turbine cases, it has been argued by applicant‟s that
Policy EN8 is not consistent with the NPPF, on the basis of the Batsworthy Cross High
Court judgment – a case known as Colman [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin). Officers accept
that Policy EN8 is not fully NPPF compliant, and advise the Committee to have regard to
relevant parts of paragraph 14 and 98 of the NPPF as set out below, together with the
legal duties required to be discharged under Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas Act 1990.
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) came into effect on 27 March 2012
and sets out the Government‟s planning policies. It identifies that the purpose of the
planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The
core principles of the NPPF include encouraging the use of renewable resources such
as the development of renewable energy; conserving and enhancing the natural
environment and; conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their
significance.
In determining planning applications for wind energy development, Footnote 17 of the
NPPF states that planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the National
Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), which should be read
with the relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy
(EN-1). Amongst other things, EN-1 states that the Government is committed to
increasing dramatically the amount of renewable generation capacity.
The Government‟s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes advice relating to
renewable and low carbon energy schemes. Amongst other things, this states that all
communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy,
but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides
environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. The PPG
also includes advice relating to the historic environment.
In June 2013 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued a
Written Statement in respect of onshore wind. A separate Written Statement was also
issued at the same time by the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change.
The Climate Change Act 2008 includes a legally binding reduction in carbon emissions
Development Committee
58
23 April 2015
of 80% by 2050. Towards that goal, the UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 includes a
30% national target for renewable electricity production by 2020. That would contribute
to a 15% target for all energy to come from renewable sources by that date. These goals
were restated in the National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Of that 30% electricity
target, the Renewable Energy Strategy expected 35% to come from offshore wind and
29% from onshore wind, with the remaining 36% from other sources such as solar
power, tidal and wave power, landfill gas and incineration.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute
to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:





have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily,
including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for
co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers’.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:


not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need
for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale
projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;
and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if its
impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable
and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities
should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects
outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria
used in identifying suitable areas’.
Development Committee
59
23 April 2015
In considering this proposal, the Committee should have in its mind the advice set out
within paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:

approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date,
granting permission unless:
 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework
taken as a whole; or
 specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted’.

LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
When considering landscape and visual impact, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 2
(Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character), which states:
‘Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment [NNLCA] and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
 the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its







historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland,
trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for
dispersal of wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map’.
CS Policy EN 7 states at paragraph 3.3.35 that ‘All proposals for renewable energy
should complement the particular characteristics of the surrounding landscape and the
Landscape Character Assessment will assist in assessing the impact of individual
proposals.’
The application site is located on a 3.6ha arable field on land within the undesignated
Development Committee
60
23 April 2015
historic parkland of Cranmer Hall. The site lies at an elevation of approximately 47m
AOD.
The site lies within the Rolling Open Farmland character type as defined in North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment (NNLCA) (Supplementary Planning Document)
(June 2009). The Rolling Open Farmland character type is defined by two main factors:
its topography, large expansive, open, gently rolling or undulating land and associated
uninterrupted skyline views; and its historical land ownership, large land holdings since
the mid eighteenth century, of which Cranmer Hall plays a significant part. The proposed
development is located specifically within the Egmere, Barsham, Tatterford Landscape
Character Area of the Rolling Open Farmland Type. The NNLCA states that “this
landscape Area is more open and has less built development (settlement or otherwise)
than its neighbouring Areas and most other Types.” The NNCLA goes on further to
state that the area is consequently more sensitive to increases in built development
such as large vertical structures i.e. wind turbines and telecom masts.
The application has been supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
(LVIA) prepared by AAH Planning Consultants dated June 2013. The Council‟s
Landscape Officer considers that the LVIA has been prepared by suitably qualified
professionals in accordance with recognised guidelines (The Landscape Institute:
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, 2013).
The LVIA concludes that the overall effect of the wind turbine on the local landscape
character (Rolling Open Farmland) would be slight/moderate adverse, and although
this effect is long term it would ultimately be reversible due to the life cycle of the turbine
(approximately 25 years). A „moderate‟ effect is described as being one where “the
proposed scheme would cause a noticeable difference to the landscape and would
affect several receptors”.
Whilst the Landscape Officer considers that many elements of the submitted LVIA, such
as the assessment and judgement of the capacity and the sensitivity of the landscape to
receive the proposed wind turbine, are acceptable and a fair reflection of the proposed
development and landscape impacts, it is nonetheless considered that certain
significant landscape features in the baseline assessment have been undervalued and
the magnitude of impact underestimated.
For example, it is considered by the Landscape Officer that the weight given in the LVIA
to the sensitivity of the open character, uninterrupted skyline and Cranmer Hall Historic
Park and Garden elements of the landscape have been undervalued; and the
magnitude of the impact the proposed development will have on these features
underestimated. This is important when considering the relative importance of each of
the individual landscape elements affected and the value attributed to them both as
contributing factors in the landscape character and by the local community and thus the
overall perception of the landscape and resultant change.
The Landscape Officer also considers that insufficient weight has been given to the
impact of the development on the two defining elements of the Rolling Open Farmland
character type and that the overall effect of the wind turbine on the local landscape
character should be considered moderate/major which has a greater degree of
significance of impact on the defining features of the overall landscape character type.
The LVIA has also considered the cumulative impacts of the development on the
landscape, in respect of the permitted commercial wind energy schemes at Jack‟s Lane
(6 turbines at 126m to blade tip) and Chiplow (5 turbines at 100m to blade tip) which are
located 7.6km and 9.4km, respectively, to the east of the Cranmer turbine in the
Development Committee
61
23 April 2015
Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk. Other smaller micro-scale wind turbines are
located within the vicinity of proposed Cranmer turbine and have also been taken into
consideration in the assessment.
The LVIA concludes that the cumulative effects of the development are limited or
occasional due to the rolling topography, distance between the developments and the
intervening vegetation. This has been considered in terms of simultaneous or „in
combination‟ visual effects, i.e. as when viewed from a fixed viewpoint or viewpoints,
and also as sequential effects such as when travelling through the landscape along
major highways. The overall significance of effect is considered as no more than slight
adverse, which is a view concurred with by the Landscape Officer.
SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
The Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that, contrary to the conclusions of the
submitted LVIA, with respect to the impact on landscape character, it is considered that
the proposed turbine will have a moderate/major adverse impact on a landscape that is
currently intact and in good condition. The proposed turbine would erode the character
of the landscape reducing the overall condition of the landscape to „fair‟. Furthermore,
it is considered that the turbine would introduce a visually discordant element within the
Historic Park and Garden of Cranmer Hall affecting the setting of the hall and the locally
designated park and garden. Officers would concur with this view. The proposal is
therefore assessed as being contrary to Policies EN 2, EN 7 and EN 8.
IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 8
(Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment), which states:
‘Development proposals…should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, 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 Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay “special attention” to the
“desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings, and the character and
appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of preserving the
settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas are
not mere material considerations to which any weight can be attached. When a local
authority finds that a proposed development would harm the setting of a listed building
or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm
considerable importance and weight. There is effectively a statutory presumption
against planning permission being granted. That presumption can, however, be
outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so, including the public
benefits of a proposal.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the NPPF, which
specifically addresses the need for conserving and enhancing the historic environment
at paragraphs 126 – 141.
In particular paragraph 132 states:
‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
Development Committee
62
23 April 2015
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require
clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building,
park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage
assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck
sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and
gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional’.
Paragraph 133 states:
‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse
consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to
achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following
apply:
 the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
 no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term
through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
 conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is
demonstrably not possible; and
 the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use’.
Paragraph 134 states:
‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’.
Although the NPPF is expressed in terms of balance rather than expressly referring to
issues of weight and significance, the High Court has held that local authorities must
approach the decision in a way that is consistent with sections 66(1) and 72 of the 1990
Act, and therefore that the question should not be addressed as a simple balancing
exercise, but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in favour of
preservation.
The NPPF defines setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is
experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings
evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the
significance of an asset, and may affect the ability to appreciate the significance or may
be neutral. Significance is defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and future
generations because of its heritage interest. Significance derives not only from a
heritage asset‟s physical presence, but also from its setting.
The NPPF requires local plans to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of the historic environment. It recognises that heritage assets are an
irreplaceable resource and they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their
significance. The significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost through
alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.
English Heritage guidance, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), advises that ‘setting
embraces all the surroundings from which the heritage asset can be experienced or that
Development Committee
63
23 April 2015
can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have a fixed boundary and
cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or as lying
within a set distance of a heritage asset.’ The construction of a distant but a high
structure such as a wind turbine may extend what was previously understood to
comprise setting. Development within the immediate or extended setting may affect
significance, particularly where it is large-scale, prominent or intrusive.
The English Heritage document Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the
sustainable management of the historic environment articulates the value of heritage for
its evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. However, the importance of
aesthetic and communal value is not taken through into recent Government policy in the
NPPF.
There are many designated heritage assets within 5 km of the application site, including
2 scheduled ancient monuments, 143 listed buildings, 5 conservation areas and 1
registered and 1 unregistered historic parks and gardens. In particular these include:







Church of St Mary and All Saints, Sculthorpe - Grade II* listed building
Cranmer Hall, Barns and Parkland – Grade II* listed (Hall and Barns),Grade II
listed (Gates and Gate piers) Historic Parks and Gardens unregistered
Manor Farm, Sculthorpe – Grade II listed
Church of All Saints – East Barsham – Grade II* listed
Church of St Peter and St Paul, Fakenham – Grade I listed
The Manor and Gatehouse, East Barsham – Grade I listed
Conservation Areas of Sculthorpe, East Barsham, Walsingham, Fakenham
and Hempton
In considering the impact on heritage assets, a number of consultations were
undertaken including with English Heritage (EH) and with the Council‟s appointed
heritage consultants - Beacon Planning (BP). Copies of consultation replies are
attached in full at Appendix 3. The application is supported by a Heritage Statement
undertaken by AAH planning consultants.
Turning now to specific heritage assets:
Church of St Mary and All Saints, Sculthorpe – The applicant has set out that the
proposal would not result in physical harm to the listed building and that existing tree
cover limits the effect of the turbine from many directions. The applicant sets out that it is
views of the church from the south that would be most sensitive and that the turbine
would be seen at a similar scale to that of the church tower. The applicant suggests this
would ensure that the turbine would not appear overly oppressive in scale in relation to
the church but accepts there would be some harm to the setting with the rotating blades
drawing the eye. The applicant suggests that, as you get closer to the church, the
turbine disappears from view behind the tower and tree cover.
English Heritage comment that ‘The tall turbine rising above the tree line contrasts with
the smaller scale of the traditional buildings and open, flat character of the landscape.
The church tower is the existing dominant feature and its historic landmark status would
be eroded by the taller presence of the turbine. This would result in harm to the
significance of the listed building’.
Beacon Planning comment: ‘The church stands in a rural location, with an open setting
to the south but with trees along its northern boundary and a well treed boundary to
Manor Farm, and the church is viewed against this backcloth. Nevertheless, views to the
open countryside beyond are visible through breaks in this screen. The experience is
Development Committee
64
23 April 2015
one of quiet and tranquillity, a characteristic of Norfolk’s rural churches’.
BP go on to note that „The Heritage Statement is clear that the turbine would be visible in
these key views from the south. It goes on to state that the impacts on closer views
would be mitigated by the mature trees. .. Whilst it is acknowledged that the turbine
would not be visible in these particular views, we agree with English Heritage’s
conclusion that as one moves around the building and churchyard as these spaces are
intended to be experienced, it is likely that the turbine will come into view through breaks
in the trees’.
BP note that ‘The Applicant has acknowledged that harm will be caused to the setting of
the church, which is a conclusion that both English Heritage and we share. The Heritage
Statement concludes that these impacts cannot be avoided….but that its height and
location has striven to reduce its impacts.
BP go on to conclude that „…Nevertheless, the impacts remain significant, and would
harm the heritage significance of this Grade II* listed building’.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, the proposed turbine would
result in harm to the setting of the Church of St Mary and All Saints, a Grade II* listed
building. Whilst this harm amounts to „less than substantial harm‟ under the NPPF
(paragraphs 133 and 134), the harm is still considered to be significant given the
impacts identified above. Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section
66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the
setting of the Church of St Mary and All Saints, and there is a presumption against
planning permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee will
have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the
proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Cranmer Hall, Barns and Parkland – The applicant has set out that the proposed
turbine would not result in physical harm to heritage assets. However, whilst the
applicant has sought to down-play the impact of the turbine along the main approach
drive to the Hall from the east, the applicant has indicated that views of the turbine may
be visible from the south eastern elevation of the of the Victorian period Philip Webb
wing of the Hall, together with the coach-house, stables and walled cottage garden. The
applicant also accepts that, when approached from the northern access road, the
turbine will be visible protruding above the tree line and would have a visual impact on
the setting of Cranmer Hall. The applicant has not recognised the significance of the
unregistered historic park associated with Cranmer Hall. In respect of the Grade II* barn,
the applicant considers the impact on the setting and special qualities of this asset would
be low.
English Heritage note; ‘This is an early Georgian country house with later work by the
Victorian architect, Philip Webb who also designed the stables and possibly the
entrance gates. [The] Council has designated the land around Cranmer Hall and Manor
Farm, including the development site, as historic park and farmland……as a country
house in a historic landscape, part of the significance of the buildings lies in the
landscape setting, both of the immediate gardens and the wider park and farmland. This
illustrates how the house functioned historically and provides an attractive rural setting
to the building’.
EH go on to state that ‘The Heritage Statement notes the turbine would not have an
adverse impact on the main approach as the front elevation faces north east. However,
it does consider 'the turbine would be evident in the broader setting'. Viewpoint 9 [within
Development Committee
65
23 April 2015
the Heritage Statement] is taken from Old Wells Road looking across Cranmer Hall and
Park and shows how the turbine is visible in these open views rising above the trees.
The [applicant] notes the turbine is likely to be visible from the south east elevation of the
Webb wing together with the coach house, stables and walled cottage garden’.
EH conclude that ‘The presence of a tall turbine with rotating blades would erode the
rural landscape character of the setting of the Hall and cause harm to its significance’.
Beacon Planning set out that ‘Cranmer Hall comprises a much altered Georgian country
house of c.1721. It was originally of three storeys, now reduced to two, and reduced in
plan sometime after 1905. It was extended in the late C19 with a two storey three bay
wing attributed to Phillip Webb. Webb was also responsible for the Grade II* listed
stables to the rear, and possibly the Grade II gates, piers and railings at the entrance
from the B1355. The hall sits within a locally designated park and garden identified on
Faden’s map of Norfolk published in 1797. The park description notes the designed
views to the south east, including the remnants of an avenue of trees that would have
drawn the eye towards the plantation towards the edge of the park known as ‘The View’.
The application site is located within the boundary of the designated parkland,
positioned within a field to the northeast of this clump. A historic track connecting the hall
to the Church of St Mary and All Saints travels through the gap between The View and
Foxhill Plantation’.
BP go on to note that ‘The parkland was purposely designed to create key vistas and
views to and from the hall. As such, their significance is closely integrated’.
BP set out that ‘As identified in the Heritage Statement, the main approach [to the Hall] is
from the B1355 to the north as marked by the listed gates, piers and railings, and also
the lodge. This driveway travels in a straight, south-westerly direction and delivers the
visitor to the front façade which accordingly faces northeast. The Heritage Statement
concludes that there would be no impact on this approach’.
BP go on to state that ‘To the contrary, viewpoint 9 [of the applicant‟s Heritage
Statement] is taken from Old Wells Road, with the formal approach to the hall in the
middle ground of the photomontage. The turbine is clearly visible in this view, rising
above historic plantations. It is highly likely therefore that the turbine would also be
visible from the main approach road. Although it will not be seen in direct conjunction
with the front elevation of the main house, the open nature of the driveway permits views
outwards to the parkland and farmland and this is an important part of how the house is
experienced on both arrival and exit. Although much of the former parkland is now
farmed, there is little evidence of built development within these views. The turbine,
rising above the historic tree planting, would comprise a particularly alien feature within
this historic landscape that would distract and detract from the landscape design
intentions. As an integral part of how the hall is experienced, harm to the parkland would
cause harm to the setting of the listed building’.
In respect of the erection of the turbine BP state ‘The construction of the turbine and
access road within the boundary of the historic park and garden will itself cause harm to
this portion. Although it is acknowledged that this is historic farmland rather than
parkland, it nonetheless is within the locally designated area and has a close historic
relationship with Cranmer Hall’. BP also make clear that, contrary to the opinion
expressed by the applicant, the erection of the turbine and associated works would
cause physical harm to the locally designated park and gardens (as a non-designated
heritage asset).
Development Committee
66
23 April 2015
Officers concur with the views of heritage consultees. In light of the duty in section 66(1)
of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of
Cranmer Hall, and there is a presumption against planning permission being granted.
The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the
setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this
presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable
energy benefits).
Manor Farm, Sculthorpe – The applicant has set out that the proposed turbine would
not result in physical harm to heritage assets (although will result in some loss of
farmland currently associated with Manor Farm).
Beacon Planning note ‘Manor Farm forms part of a historic group, with the Grade II*
listed Cranmer Hall and barns to the northwest, Grade II* listed church to the immediate
east, and the locally designated parkland that stretches to the immediate west of the
farmhouse. Historically, a path connected the church to the hall across the parkland,
travelling to the north of Manor Farm. Clearly, these assets share a close historic
relationship. The Heritage Statement notes that the historical interest of Manor Farm is
in part derived from its association with the farmed parkland to the north, and that the
farmed parkland to the north and northwest forms part of its setting’.
BP go on to comment that „The house has a dense tree screen on its northern boundary
which will filter views to the turbine when looking towards the front elevation, however it
will be visible from within the farmland associated with the asset which forms part of its
setting. Furthermore, the construction of the turbine itself will erode part of the historic
farmland currently connected with this asset. The proposals are therefore considered to
cause harm to positive elements of its setting and therefore the significance of this
heritage asset‟.
Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990,
the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of Manor Farm, and
there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The strength of the
presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed
building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed
by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Church of All Saints – East Barsham –The applicant has set out that the proposed
turbine would not result in physical harm to heritage asset. The applicant concludes that
‘Whilst the more open nature to the south does contribute to the setting of this listed
building it is considered that the proposed turbine would not intrude into this setting to a
degree that would result in harm to the special qualities that warranted its designation as
a grade II* listed building’.
English Heritage consider that photomontages should be provided to demonstrate no
significant impact on the heritage asset.
Beacon Planning have noted that ‘This church sits on a high point within the village at
the crossroads with the road to West Barsham. The topography drops away in the
direction of the road, but rises towards the application site. The church is screened with
a dense tree screen on its western boundary such that it does not have a commanding
presence over the landscape to the west. No verified views have been produced to
confirm or disprove the presence of the turbine in views to and from the church. If the
turbine can be glimpsed, the topography and tree screen around the church will limit any
impacts such that any harm is considered to be minimal’.
Development Committee
67
23 April 2015
Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990,
the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm (albeit limited) to the setting of the
Church of All Saints, East Barsham, and there is a presumption against planning
permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the
degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider
whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including
renewable energy benefits).
Grade II Listed Buildings in Sculthorpe & Sculthorpe Conservation Area
Beacon Planning have comment that „Sculthorpe village contains a number of Grade II
listed buildings and the southern portion is designated as a conservation area. The
Heritage Statement notes that generally the listed buildings have a village setting and
that the turbine would have minimal impact, and we concur with this view. With respect
to the conservation area, the analysis concludes that views to the turbine would be
limited, and that the turbine would not represent a significant intrusion within its setting.
This is a logical conclusion. Any harm to these assets is therefore considered to be
limited‟. Officers would concur with this view
Therefore whilst any harm is considered to be „less than substantial‟ the Committee
must approach the decision in a way that is consistent with sections 66(1) and 72 of the
1990 Act, and therefore that the question should not be addressed as a simple
balancing exercise, but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in
favour of preservation.
Other Heritage Assets including The Manor and Gatehouse, East Barsham,
Church of St Peter and St Paul, Fakenham, Egmere Medieval Village and the
Church of St Edmund, Bloodgate Hillfort, and Church of St Peter at Dunton
together with Conservation Areas of East Barsham, Walsingham, Fakenham and
Hempton
English Heritage have noted that ‘There are a number of scheduled monuments which
have not been considered because they are more than 2km from the turbine but fall
within an approximate 5km radius. Of these we have some· concerns about the potential
impact of the turbine on the broader landscape setting of the Egmere Medieval
Settlement and the Ruins of
Church of St Edmund, listed grade II*, which is prominently sited on high ground
enabling broad views to the south in the direction of the proposed turbine. We also note
that Bloodgate Hill Fort is noted as having views eastwards, in other words in the
direction of the proposed turbine to the south east’.
In respect of other heritage assets, Beacon Planning have indicated that ‘The impacts
on their heritage significance have been assessed, and are considered to be minor. This
is by virtue of the limited visibility and/or lack of contribution that the application site
makes to their heritage significance’.
Therefore whilst any harm is considered to be „less than substantial‟ the Committee
must approach the decision in a way that is consistent with sections 66(1) and 72 of the
1990 Act, and therefore that the question should not be addressed as a simple
balancing exercise, but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in
favour of preservation.
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
Having considered the applicant‟s Heritage Statement, as well as the advice from
English Heritage (now Historic England) and the Council‟s appointed Heritage
Development Committee
68
23 April 2015
Consultants (Beacon Planning) and having taken account of other material
considerations, it is considered that the proposed turbine would result in a less than
substantial, but yet significant, level of harm to:

the setting of Cranmer Hall a Grade II* listed building (with locally designated
park and garden) which is a highly valued heritage asset. In officers‟ view, the
harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a strong presumption
against the granting of planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that
there would need to be compelling public benefits in favour of the turbine to
override this presumption;

the setting of the Church of St Mary and All Saints, Sculthorpe a Grade II*
listed building and a highly valued heritage asset. In officers‟ view, the harm to
the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a strong presumption against the
granting of planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that there would
need to be compelling public benefits in favour of the turbine to override this
presumption;

the setting of the Manor House/ Manor Farm, Sculthorpe a Grade II listed
building and a valued heritage asset. In officers‟ view, the harm to the setting of
this heritage asset gives rise to a presumption against the granting of planning
permission. Officer advice therefore is that there would need to be cogent public
benefits in favour of the turbine to override this presumption;

The proposal will have some, albeit very minor, impact on the setting of the
Church of All Saints, East Barsham; The Manor and Gatehouse, East
Barsham; Church of St Peter and St Paul, Fakenham; Egmere Medieval
Village and the Church of St Edmund; Bloodgate Hillfort; and Church of St
Peter at Dunton together with a limited impact on the character and
appearance of the Conservation Areas of Sculthorpe, Fakenham, East
Barsham, Walsingham, and Hempton. In officers‟ view, harm to the setting
and/or character and appearance of these heritage assets could give rise to a
presumption against the granting of planning permission. Officer advice
therefore is that the Committee must have regard to the impact on these
heritage assets and approach the decision in a way that is consistent with
sections 66(1) and 72 of the 1990 Act.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The turbine would be sited in a predominantly rural area. There are no properties within
500m of the turbine but approximately 40 properties within 1km of the turbine.
The closest residential properties lie within two distinct groupings, to the
south/southeast and to the north/northwest of the proposed turbine location.
To the south/southeast lie residential properties at:
Manor House and Manor Farm barns (circa 600m)
Manor Farm Bungalow (circa 740m)
Rectory (circa 770m)
Properties along Creake Road (circa 850m)
Properties along Moor Road (circa 900m)
To the north/northwest lie residential properties at:
Development Committee
69
23 April 2015
Cranmer Lodge (circa 660m)
Cranmer Hall (circa 930m)
The Coach House (circa 977m)
Gardeners Cottage (circa 980m)
Cranmer Hall Barn (circa 990)
Home Farm (circa 1,200m)
Cranmer Country Cottages (circa 1,300m)
Homefield Cottages (circa 1,350m)
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY – VISUAL INTRUSION
The proposed turbine, with a hub height of 49m and a height to blade tip of 78m, will
undoubtedly be one of the tallest structures within the immediate location (this compares
to Sculthorpe Church tower estimated at 22m tall). Established woodland planting
primarily related to Cranmer Hall would serve to diminish the visual intrusion of the
turbine to some degree (particularly at Cranmer Lodge and Home Farm to the north and
around Manor Farm Barns and the Manor House to the south). However, the effect of
tree screening would be diminished further to the south especially along Creake Road
and Moor Lane. However, whilst the turbine will likely be visible to a number of residents
above the trees either within their front or rear gardens, the majority of properties along
Creake Road and Moor Lane are orientated east to west and therefore the turbine is
unlikely to be a dominant or overbearing intrusion from internal rooms. This coupled with
the distances generally in excess of 800m would suggest that the proposal would not
result in significant overbearing impacts sufficient to justify refusal on these grounds
alone.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - NOISE AND GENERAL DISTURBANCE
When considering issues relating to noise and general disturbance, the Committee is
advised to take account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and also
advice within Policy EN 13 (Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation) which
states:
‘All development proposals should minimise, and where possible reduce, all emissions
and other forms of pollution, including light and noise pollution…Proposals will only be
permitted where, individually or cumulatively, there are no unacceptable impacts on
[amongst other things] the natural environment and general amenity; health and safety
of the public; and the need for compliance with statutory environmental quality
standards.
Exceptions will only be made where it can be clearly demonstrated that the
environmental benefits of the development and the wider social and economic need for
the development outweigh the adverse impact’.
In respect of noise, paragraph 123 of the NPPF includes the general aim that planning
policies and decisions should avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts
on health and quality of life as a result of new development. Paragraph 124 goes on to
seek that planning policies sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit
values and national objectives for pollutants (which may include noise). A footnote refers
to the national Noise Policy Statement for England (2010) (NPSE) which seeks to
promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of
noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development. Its aims
seek to both avoid significant adverse impacts and to mitigate and minimise adverse
impacts. Its Explanatory Note refers to how significant adverse effects might be defined
but acknowledges that it is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure
that is applicable to all sources of noise in all situations. No such measure is offered and
Development Committee
70
23 April 2015
further research is advised. In that context the main national policy on control of noise
from wind farms was previously set out in the former PPS22 and its Companion Guide.
However this was replaced in March 2014 with the online Planning Practice Guidance.
The Planning Practice Guidance sets out at Paragraph: 015 Reference ID:
5-015-20140306 that the ETSU-R-97 report – ‘The assessment and rating of noise from
windfarms’ ETSU for the DTI (1996) (ETSU) should be used by local planning
authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments. Good
practice guidance on noise assessments of wind farms has been prepared by the
Institute Of Acoustics. The Department of Energy and Climate Change accept that it
represents current industry good practice and endorses it as a supplement to
ETSU-R-97’.
ETSU-R-97 gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of
protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind
farm development. The ETSU report recommended limits to turbine noise as
summarised below:

Normally, 5 dB above background subject to lower limiting values of:
 Daytime: 35 to 40 dBA in low noise environments (e.g. rural areas)
 Night time: 43 dBA, assuming bedroom window(s) open
(Limiting values defined as LA90,10mins,free-field)
It follows that compliance with ETSU recommended noise limits should avoid noise from
giving rise to significant adverse impacts.
Whilst a number of residents have raised concerns about noise impacts, until such time
as government guidance indicates otherwise, the ETSU guidance remains valid and is
used by the Planning Inspectorate when determining wind turbine appeals
The applicant has submitted a noise assessment undertaken by Clement Acoustics. A
copy of the Environmental Protection Officer comments are available at Appendix 3.
The Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed the acceptance of the submitted
noise report and subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would be in
accordance with the requirements of ETSU, in compliance with CS Policies EN 13 and
the relevant section within CS Policy EN 7 in relation to noise impacts.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - SHADOW FLICKER
The Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 5-020-20140306)
states:
Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass
behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties.
When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the impact is known as ‘shadow
flicker’. Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines
can be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their
southern side.
Modern wind turbines can be controlled so as to avoid shadow flicker when it has the
potential to occur. Individual turbines can be controlled to avoid shadow flicker at a
specific property or group of properties on sunny days, for specific times of the day and
on specific days of the year. Where the possibility of shadow flicker exists, mitigation can
be secured through the use of conditions.
Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, where proposals for wind turbines
Development Committee
71
23 April 2015
could give rise to shadow flicker, applicants should provide an analysis which quantifies
the impact. Turbines can also cause flashes of reflected light, which can be visible for
some distance. It is possible to ameliorate the flashing but it is not possible to eliminate
it’
The proposed turbine would have a maximum rotor diameter of 58m and therefore,
using the guidance within the Practice Guide, only properties within 580m (10 x 58m) of
the turbine and within 130 degrees either side of north would be likely to be affected.
There are no known residential properties within this distance, the closest property
being „Cranmer Lodge’ at approximately 660m north east of the proposed turbine. As set
out above, Cranmer Lodge is substantially screened by trees in the direction of the
turbine, and whilst the tip of the turbine may be visible, at this distance it is considered
that shadow flicker would not occur given the maximum size of turbine proposed.
Officers therefore consider that the proposal would be unlikely to give rise to instances
of shadow flicker affecting neighbouring residential properties.
IMPACT ON TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
The Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 5-017-20140306)
states:
‘Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions (e.g. radio,
television and phone signals). Specialist organisations responsible for the operation of
electromagnetic links typically require 100m clearance either side of a line of sight link
from the swept area of turbine blades’.
In considering the impact of the turbine of television reception, the analogue signal was
switched off in this area in Nov 2011 and, in theory, the digital signal should be stronger
than the previous analogue signal. However, there is no information available other than
in relation to the analogue signal to assess the impact on current television reception.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the impact on television reception, if the Committee
were minded to approve the application, Officers suggest that a suitably worded
condition should be imposed requiring the applicant to submit a scheme to secure the
investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to TV and radio
reception caused by the operation of the turbine. This is common practice in wind
turbine decisions allowed at appeal.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY – OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Whilst the proposed turbine would be a significant addition to the skyline and would be
visible to a significant number of residents at a variety of distances from the turbine
base, given the distance from the closest residential properties it is not considered that
the turbine could be said to result in significant adverse overbearing impacts, is not likely
to result in significant adverse noise impacts nor is it likely to result in instances of
shadow flicker at the closest residential properties. In addition, subject to the imposition
of appropriate conditions, the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse impact
on television or radio reception. Therefore, in respect of impact on residential amenity,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal is considered to comply
with relevant Development Plan policies.
IMPACT ON WILDLIFE/ECOLOGY
When considering the impact on wildlife/ecology, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 9
(Biodiversity and Geology), which states:
‘All development proposals should:
Development Committee
72
23 April 2015



protect the biodiversity value of land and buildings and minimise fragmentation
of habitats;
maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of natural
habitats; and
incorporate beneficial biodiversity conservation features where appropriate.
Development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect to nationally
designated sites [including AONB] or other designated areas, or protected species, will
not be permitted unless;



they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm;
the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of
the site and the wider network of natural habitats; and
prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the nature
conservation interests of nationally designated sites will not be permitted.
Development proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance
biodiversity or geodiversity interests will be supported in principle.
Where there is reason to suspect the presence of protected species applications should
be accompanied by a survey assessing their presence and, if present, the proposal
must be sensitive to, and make provision for, their needs’.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) which specifically addresses the need for
conserving and enhancing the natural environment at paragraphs 109 – 125.
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states:
‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by:



protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests
and soils;
recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where
possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline
in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are
more resilient to current and future pressures.’
In considering the application, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the likely
impacts of the proposed single wind turbine on wildlife and ecology are known and
understood to ensure that there are no likely significant adverse impacts on protected
species or other important flora and fauna either on the site or passing over the site.
The applicant has submitted an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey produced by Peak
Ecology Ltd. The report highlights that there are no statutory or non-statutory designated
sites for conservation with 2km of the survey area. The survey identified that the land
affected by the proposed development is predominantly arable with hedgerow field
boundaries and some scrub, woodland and ruderal vegetation nearby. The survey did
Development Committee
73
23 April 2015
not reveal the presence of any protected species on site; however the habitats present
were suitable for breeding birds and foraging/commuting badgers and/or bats.
The Landscape Officer considers that the report has been prepared in accordance with
recognised standards and procedures by suitably qualified ecologists and is accepted
as being fit for purpose. The report provides a comprehensive impact analysis of the
proposed wind turbine in respect of its size and location and potential impacts on
habitats and species and does not highlight any specific concerns. The conclusions of
the report are concurred with by the Landscape Officer and it is not considered that the
proposed turbine would have any significant adverse effect on protected species (such
as bats, badgers and breeding birds) or the interest features of the North Norfolk Coast
Special Protection Area (SPA) that is located approximately 12km to the north of the
site.
Some mitigation has been proposed to reduce the potential for minor impacts. It is
considered that if these mitigation measures are secured via a condition of planning, the
impact of the proposed turbine on biodiversity would be minimal and consistent with the
aims and objectives of Policy EN9 of the Core Strategy and NPPF.
IMPACT ON AVIATION
Consultations have been undertaken with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), National Air
Traffic Services (NATS En Route) and Norwich Airport. Whilst a number of residents
have raised concerns about the safety of a turbine near to an active air strip used by
both UK and US aircraft (including low flying Osprey and Apache helicopters),
consultees have responded on the basis that, subject to the imposition of conditions,
including the provision of aviation lighting, the proposed turbine would not give rise to
safeguarding concerns nor would it cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air
Defence radar installations (nor pose an unacceptable risk to low flying aircraft). Officers
have sought to re-confirm the position of the Ministry of Defence and the response of no
objection subject to conditions remains. The proposal therefore complies with relevant
Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY & PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
The applicants have set out the proposed route for the turbine components which would
arrive at site from the west (port of King’s Lynn) on the A1078 and then onto the A148
turning left onto the B1355 and then left into the application site.
The Highway Authority have confirmed that they are satisfied with the information
submitted by the applicant subject to conditions requiring a construction traffic
management plan and provision of wheel wash facilities.
In respect of the impact of the proposed turbine on Public Rights of Way (PROW), the
closest footpath is Sculthorpe FP1 more than 800m away from the proposed turbine
site. Whilst the turbine is likely to be visible from this footpath, the impact would be
limited by virtue of the distance from the turbine site.
In respect of matters relating to highway safety and public rights of way, subject to the
imposition of conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with Development Plan
policies.
IMPACT ON TOURISM & OTHER SECTORS
A number of representations have suggested that the proposed turbine would have an
adverse impact on tourism and this in turn would have an adverse economic impact on
the area.
Development Committee
74
23 April 2015
Whilst there is no doubt that the addition of a turbine would have an adverse landscape
impact (see Landscape and Visual Impacts), a decision to refuse the turbine based on
its potential to reduce tourism in the area would be very difficult to substantiate without
hard evidence.
Objectors in relation to recent turbine applications in North Norfolk have referred to the
tourist industry of North Norfolk having an estimated worth of £416m and employing
over 9000 people in 2012. Objectors in those cases have also suggested that various
surveys show that between 20% and 40% of tourists could be put off visiting an area by
the presence of wind turbines and have implied that if only 10% were deterred this would
result in a devastating loss of 900 jobs and £40m each year to North Norfolk‟s economy.
Officers have not been made aware of any clear or definitive evidence to support a link
between the introduction of turbines and a reduction in tourism numbers and, in any
event, there are many factors outside the control of the Local Planning Authority which
would influence tourism in the North Norfolk Area. The impact on the wider tourism offer
and the image of North Norfolk as an unspoilt area would be difficult to accurately
gauge. In considering the impact on tourism, without firm evidence to substantiate a
significant adverse impact, officers would advise against refusal on those grounds.
BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Taking account of the requirement under CS Policy EN 7 that turbines above 15m
should ‘deliver economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly
related to the proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local
area’ and taking account of the advice within the NPPF that, when considering
renewable energy proposals, any identified harm should be weighed against the public
benefits of the proposal, the applicant has set out the following benefits attributable to
the proposed development.
RENEWABLE ENERGY BENEFITS
In considering the renewable energy benefits of the proposal, the applicant, in their
design and access statement has referred to the fact that ‘The NPPF states that the
wider economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects at whatever
scale are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining
whether proposals should be granted planning permission’.
However, the applicant has not set out the likely electricity generation from the proposed
turbine and therefore it is difficult to gauge exactly what renewable energy benefits will
be derived and this is important, particularly when having regard to assessing whether
the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh any identified harm to heritage assets.
The size and capacity of the turbine (coupled with the average wind speed of this area of
between 4.1 to 5.1 metres/second – Source: Met Office) would suggest an electricity
yield estimated at enough electricity for approximately 200 homes (using the latest 2010
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) figures for the amount of electricity
consumed by an average UK household (4,359 kWh)).
This would make a positive contribution towards renewable energy generation and
therefore some weight can be afforded to this in favour of the proposal.
OTHER ECONOMIC / COMMUNITY / LANDSCAPE /HERITAGE ASSET BENEFITS
The applicant has not set out any other economic, community, landscape or heritage
asset benefits within the submission.
Development Committee
75
23 April 2015
The Committee cannot therefore afford any weight to other benefits.
ASSESSMENT UNDER POLICY EN7
The commitment to grant planning permission for renewable energy technology,
contained in Policy EN7, is not relevant to this proposal, since it will have significant
adverse effects on the landscape and historical assets. The committee must consider
the benefits of renewable energy gain, including the contribution to overcoming energy
supply problems, and balanced these benefits against the significant adverse effects
outlined above.
Officers consider that the benefits of renewable energy gain, including the contribution
to overcoming energy supply problems are clearly outweighed by the adverse effects of
the proposal relating to landscape and historic asset impacts. As such it is considered
that the proposal does not accord with policy EN7.
OVERALL SUMMARY
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The proposal seeks to erect a single wind turbine with a hub height of 49m and a height
to blade tip of 78m on land at Manor Farm, Cranmer which is located at approximately
47m AOD.
Officers have sought to set out the relevant policy tests within this report and having
considered all of the evidence available, it is considered that the key planning issues
hinge on an assessment of the impact of the proposed turbine on the wider landscape
and on heritage assets, balanced against any public benefits (including renewable
energy benefits) that might arise as a result of the proposal. The Council is also required
to apply the statutory presumption against a grant of planning permission where the
proposed turbine would adversely affect the setting of a listed building or the character
and appearance of a conservation area, and consider whether this presumption is
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Officers consider that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would
generally accord with Development Plan policy in relation to impacts on residential
amenity (including noise impacts), impacts on wildlife and ecology, aviation, highway
safety and tourism, as detailed above, such that refusal in relation to these matters
alone could not be substantiated or justified.
In relation to landscape impacts, the Council‟s Landscape Officer considers that the
proposed turbine will have a moderate/major adverse impact on a landscape that is
currently intact and in good condition. The proposed turbine would erode the character
of the landscape reducing the overall condition of the landscape to „fair‟. Furthermore,
it is considered that the turbine would introduce a visually discordant element within the
Historic Park and Garden of Cranmer Hall affecting the setting of the hall and the locally
designated park and garden. The proposal therefore does not comply with Policy EN2,
in that it has failed to demonstrate that its location, scale and design will protect and
conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical character), visually sensitive skylines, hillsides and the setting of and views
from historic parks and gardens.
In relation to heritage assets, whilst the proposed development would not physically
result in loss of historic fabric it is considered that the proposal would result in a
significant level of harm to the setting of a number of highly-graded Listed Buildings. The
proposal would also result in some (albeit very minor) harm to the character and
Development Committee
76
23 April 2015
appearance of Sculthorpe, Fakenham, East Barsham, Walsingham, and Hempton
Conservation Areas.
Each listed building, and each conservation area, needs to be considered in order for
the Committee to fulfil its duty under sections 66(1) and 72 of the LBCA Act 1990 to pay
“special attention” to the “desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings, and the
character and appearance of conservation areas – i.e. apply a statutory presumption.
This is not a simple balancing exercise, but a question of whether there is justification for
overriding the presumption in favour of preservation. Accordingly, in relation to each
listed building and each conservation area, the Committee will have to consider whether
it accepts that there is harm and whether the presumption against planning permission
which arises as a result of any harm is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal
(including renewable energy benefits). Officer advice is that, in relation to the harm that
the proposal will cause to the setting of the Church of St Mary and All Saints, Sculthorpe,
Cranmer Hall (including the locally designated park and garden associated with the Hall)
and Manor House/ Manor Farm, Sculthorpe there would need to be compelling public
benefits in favour of the turbine to outweigh the presumption.
The applicants have not clearly set out the renewable energy benefits of the proposal
and Officers have estimated the turbine would generate enough electricity for
approximately 200 average sized homes
No other benefits have been set out by the applicant in favour of the proposal.
Officers consider that the benefits of renewable energy gain, including the contribution
to overcoming energy supply problems are outweighed by the adverse effects of the
proposal relating to landscape and historic asset impacts. As such it is considered that
the proposal does not accord with policy EN7.
Having regard to the proposal as a whole it is considered that there are insufficient
compelling public benefits to outweigh the identified harm.
RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL
The proposal does not comply with the Development Plan in that it does not
comply with the following policies:
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
EN 7 - Renewable energy
The proposed turbine would result in harm to setting of number of heritage
assets, some of which are of the highest designated category including of the
Church of St Mary and All Saints, Sculthorpe, Cranmer Hall (including the locally
designated park and garden associated with the Hall) and Manor House/ Manor
Farm, Sculthorpe. Whilst this harm is ‘less than substantial’ in terms of the NPPF,
it is still significant.
The statutory presumption in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Area) Act 1990 against planning permission being granted in light
of the effect of the proposal on the settings of the above identified listed
buildings is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, including the
renewable energy benefits. Furthermore, having regard to paragraph 98 of the
NPPF, the harmful impacts of the proposal are not and cannot be made
acceptable.
Development Committee
77
23 April 2015
In addition the proposed turbine would incur harm to the landscape (particularly
landscape character area Rolling Open Farm Land (ROF) 1) that is currently intact
and in good condition. The proposed turbine would erode the character of the
landscape reducing the overall condition of the landscape.. Furthermore, it is
considered that the turbine would introduce a visually discordant element within
the Historic Park and Garden of Cranmer Hall affecting the setting of the hall and
the locally designated park and garden. These impacts are considered to be
significant and contrary to Policy EN2.
Having regard to the above identified significant adverse impacts on landscape
and heritage assets it is considered that the benefits of renewable energy gain
(including the contribution to overcoming energy supply problems) do not
outweigh the identified harm and, as such, the proposal would not accord with
Policy EN 7.
8.
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0001 - Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 32 no.
dwellings, accesses, roads, open space and associated works; Hilbre, Holway
Road for Norfolk Homes
Major Development
- Target Date: 06 April 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Cycleway
Development within 60m of Class A road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Area
S106
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/2003/0995 - Residential development
Approved 10/04/2008
PO/11/0440 - Residential development (extension of time limit for implementation of
permission ref: 03/0995)
Approved 26/06/2013
DP/14/1200 - Prior notification of intention to demolish former school building with
classroom block
Approved 09/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
The proposals are for a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached two storey
properties. Dwelling sizes range from one to five bedroom units.
Three points of access are proposed; two via an existing road junction onto Holway
Road (which also serves the adjoining community centre) and one via Snaefell Park, an
adjacent housing estate. Thirteen of the dwellings would have their vehicular access
from Holway Road and nineteen from Snaefell Park. A 2m wide footpath is proposed
through the site to provide a pedestrian link between Snaefell Park and Holway Road.
An area of public open space is proposed (700 sqm approx).
External building materials are to comprise a mix of brick, coloured render, timber
Development Committee
78
23 April 2015
cladding and slate coloured tiles.
Surface and foul water disposal is proposed via mains connections at the adjoining
Snaefell Park estate. An on site attenuation tank is proposed to regulate surface water
flows.
Amended plans have been submitted which incorporate minor re-positioning of certain
plots, detailed house design revisions and changes to certain roof and brick materials.
Accompanying the planning application is an application under the Council's Housing
Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing to 20% (6 units) together
with a relaxation of renewable energy and sustainable homes code level requirements.
Submitted with the application are the following documents:
Planning/Design and Access Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Protected Species Survey
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Landscape Statement
Contamination Report
Draft S.106 Planning Obligation
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Shepherd having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Access.
A Committee site visit was held on 16th April.
TOWN COUNCIL
Raises no objection to the design and materials to be used for the dwellings but does
object to the main access being from Snaefell Park. Would like to see the main point of
access being from Holway Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters received from nine local residents raising the following objections and concerns:
 Vehicle access to a major part of the development via Snaefell Park estate in
terms of highway / pedestrian safety and residential amenity.
 Vehicle access should be from Holway Road only.
 Snaefell Park is not adequate to cater for the additional traffic which will result
from the proposed development.
 Access from Snaefell Park onto Holway Road is difficult.
 Colours to the proposed render finishes.
 Relationships with certain adjoining properties in terms of overlooking and
overshadowing.
 Drainage.
 Construction traffic
 Absence of renewable energy being incorporated as part of the development.
 House designs different to Snaefell Park.
 Protection of slow worms on the site
Letter of objection received from the Sheringham Society to the access proposals from
Snaefell Park.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Advises that there is available capacity at the Cromer Wastewater
Recycling Centre and the sewerage network to cater for the development. Comments
Development Committee
79
23 April 2015
that the preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage
system. The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the application
relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to a condition relating to surface water
drainage.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations) - Advises that there is sufficient
capacity at the local primary and high schools to cater for the proposed development.
Financial contributions are sought towards library provision (£60 per dwelling) and fire
hydrant provision.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions in respect of
road construction and construction traffic details.
Strategic Housing Officer - Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in
Sheringham with 113 households on the Housing Register and in addition there are a
further 127 households on the Transfer Register and 727 households on the Housing
Options Register who have stated that they require housing in Sheringham.
With reference to the accompanying Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme application (to
reduce the affordable housing provision from 45% to 20%), supports a timescale for
delivery on the basis of requiring site clearance works, construction of the main access
road carriageway up to base course together with sewers and utilities beneath and
completion of 6 dwellings within 18 months of the date of planning permission.
Comments as follows on the tenure mix of the 6 (20%) affordable dwellings proposed
which comprise:
Rented
Shared Equity
1 x 1 Bedroom House
2 x 2 Bedroom Houses
2 x 1 Bedroom Houses
1 x 2 Bedroom House
"The shared equity dwellings were initially proposed to be provided at 75% of the open
market value, although it has now been agreed with the applicant that they will sold at a
share which is affordable based on local incomes and local house prices. Policy H02 of
the Core Strategy states that the tenure and mix of the affordable housing should reflect
the identified housing need at the time of the proposal and should contribute to the
Council‟s target that 80% of the affordable dwellings are provided for rent. The
proposed mix that only 50% of the affordable dwellings are for rent is a concern as this
site is not contributing to the Council‟s target and there are only limited opportunities to
provide affordable housing in Sheringham. The applicant has not stated that the viability
of the proposed scheme requires that 50% of the affordable dwellings are provided for
shared equity and so this tenure split cannot be supported.
Comments as follows on the tenure mix of the 14 (45%) affordable dwellings proposed
which comprise (in the event the delivery requirements of the Housing Delivery Incentive
Scheme not being met):
Rented
Shared Equity
1 x 1 Bedroom House
2 x 1 Bedroom Flats
4 x 2 Bedroom Houses
2 x 1 Bedroom Houses
1 x 2 Bedroom Flat
4 x 2 Bedroom Houses
Development Committee
80
23 April 2015
"The proposed mix of affordable dwellings does not reflect the identified housing need
for Sheringham as it does not include larger family dwellings for rent or sufficient rented
dwellings and this mix is therefore not supported."
Comments as follows on the location of the proposed affordable dwellings within the
development:
"The affordable dwellings are grouped into one part of the site which is not an issue if
20% of the total number of dwellings are affordable, however, if 45% of the dwellings are
affordable, this will result in 14 affordable dwellings being provided in one group of which
11 will be served by a separate access from the rest of the site and the market
dwellings. This results in a poor integration of the market and affordable dwellings
across the whole site. It is however, noted that the proposed scheme has a
contemporary design theme which is applied to both the affordable and market
dwellings so that the affordable dwellings are visually integrated into the overall
scheme."
Comments as follows in respect of the type of affordable housing proposed on this site
and another in Sheringham applied for by the same developer:
"The applicant currently has another planning application for the provision of 52
dwellings on the other side of Holway Road, this site has also been accompanied by a
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme application to reduce the affordable housing
provision to 20%. The proposed mix for the affordable housing on this second site is
also on the basis that 50% will be for rent and 50% for sale on a shared equity basis. The
two sites together fail to provide the most appropriate affordable housing provision to
meet the identified housing need for Sheringham as they do not provide a 4 bedroom
house for rent within the 20% affordable housing mix and provide insufficient rented
dwellings. The proposed mix for 45% affordable housing across both sites also does
not provide the most appropriate affordable housing provision to meet the identified
housing mix because of the lack of larger dwellings for rent and the high proportion of
shared equity dwellings. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is currently no
intermediate affordable housing in Sheringham, there is also a clear need for rented
affordable housing which these sites do not adequately address."
Recommends certain revisions to the draft S.106 Agreement in terms of the timing of the
affordable housing provision in relation to the market housing.
Conservation and Design Officer - Comments that the proposed layout "raises no
particular concerns from a design point of view and in fact offers a relatively intimate and
additive footprint upon which to build the three-dimensional scheme. This refreshing
lack of regimentation has the potential of creating a layered scheme in which the
buildings potentially take the lead over the carriageways."
With regard to the proposed house types comments that "the applicants have on this
occasion opted for a more contemporary architect-designed approach. This is to be
welcomed in principle given the mixed form and character locally and the fact that the
site lies well beyond the historic core of the town. Elevationally, this approach generally
works well on the majority of the plots. However, there are a few localised instances
where some of the detailing could perhaps be improved or where the individual designs
err back to the 1970s rather than forward to the 2010s.
In respect of the choice to incorporate elements of coloured render comments that
"whilst certainly not averse to the use of strong colour...... rather than compliment,
however, these colours could potentially clash and create excessive contrast. Ideally a
more harmonious suite of colours should be chosen to increase the coherency of the
Development Committee
81
23 April 2015
end result". In addition suggests a different choice of brick and a variation in roof
materials.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
Landscape Officer - Comments that the site previously contained a number of mature
trees, many of which have been removed in consultation with the Council's tree officer.
Those remaining trees which are shown to be retained will provide a welcome mature
backdrop to the development. The accompanying landscaping proposals which include
additional trees and shrub planting throughout the site, boundary hedge planting and the
area of open space are considered acceptable. Recommends conditions in respect of
tree protection and securing the landscaping proposals.
Notes that slow worms (protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act) have already
been translocated off the site with the cooperation of Natural England. The development
could potentially offer small biodiversity enhancement opportunities through the use of
native planting within the landscaping scheme, provision of bat and bird boxes and the
sowing of a wildflower mix within the open space.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments that the development provides for
about 700sqm of public open space which is below that which would normally be
required. However the nearby Pretty Corner Woods provides extensive open public
access and the land at Morley Hill will supplement this when available. There is
therefore excellent provision of public open space in the immediate vicinity of the
development.
Points out that it is unlikely that the District Council would wish to adopt the proposed
area of open space.
Environmental Health - Requests surface water drainage condition.
Norfolk Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer) - No concerns raised.
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 SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of
affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
Development Committee
82
23 April 2015
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development layout.
2. Access arrangements / highway safety.
3. Dwelling mix and type.
4. Design / external materials
5. Relationships with adjacent properties
APPRAISAL
Site location / characteristics
The site (1.18 ha.) comprises land formally belonging to a private school which has
been disused for in excess of 20 years. It is located off to the eastern side of Holway
Road (A1082) a main arterial route serving Sheringham, and set back bordering onto a
former layby which now provides access to the adjacent new community centre. The site
borders the community centre to the south and existing residential development on its
remaining boundaries. Irregular in shape the site has a change in gradient (approx 5-6
metres) between its western boundary (towards Holway Road) and its north/eastern
boundaries (adjoining the Snaefell Park estate). There are a number of trees around the
site's perimeter.
Principle of development
The site is located within the identified development boundary for Sheringham and is
designated 'residential' in the adopted Core Strategy proposals map. Furthermore the
site has the benefit of an extant outline planning permission for residential development.
The principle of developing the site for housing is therefore established.
Layout and access considerations
Overall the proposed layout is considered acceptable. The distribution, orientation and
variety of dwelling types across the site, together with the provision of open space,
retention of several trees, pedestrian linkages and the utilisation of the change in land
levels all contribute towards making this a good quality residential development .In
terms of relationships with existing neighbouring properties there are two instances
where concerns have been raised with the applicants. The submitted amended plans
have not fully addressed these concerns and further revisions are being sought.
The density of the development (27 dwellings per hectare) is appropriate for this location
and in keeping with nearby existing housing development.
The main issue which has raised objection to the application relates to the access
arrangements and in particular the proposed road link via the Snaefell Park estate. As
Development Committee
83
23 April 2015
proposed, an existing small cul-de -sac (which currently serves three properties) would
be extended to serve an additional 19 dwellings. The Highway Authority's position on
this issue is clear in that they have raised no objection to the application. As a means of
explanation to local residents' concerns the highway officer has commented as follows;
"Whilst the proposals would no doubt increase traffic on Snaefell Park it is the view of the
Highway Authority that the existing estate roads are technically adequate in terms of
width, alignment and construction to cater for the additional traffic. In light of this there
would appear no grounds on which the Highway Authority could substantiate a
recommendation of refusal."
Housing mix / affordable housing provision
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. The proposed
development more than meets this requirement with 47% of the proposed dwellings
comprising 2 or less bedrooms.
Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires that on developments of this size, 45% of the
dwellings should be 'affordable', subject to viability. However, as mentioned above, the
applicants have applied under the Council's Housing Incentive Scheme to reduce the
amount of affordable housing provided to 20%. This would be subject to a legal
undertaking (S.106 Obligation) to secure early implementation of the development
(construction of the main access road to base course, sewers and utilities beneath and
the construction of 6 dwellings within 18 months).The application also provides details of
45% affordable housing provision (14 units) in the event of the Housing Incentive
Scheme requirements not being met.
Members attention is drawn to the comments (above) of the Council's Strategic Housing
Officer, who raises concerns regarding the proposed tenure mix of the affordable
dwellings (shortfall in rented properties) and the absence of larger family dwellings
within this mix. These matters are being raised with the applicants and members will be
updated at the meeting.
Design / external materials
The applicants have adopted a modern / contemporary approach to the house designs
which contrast with the more traditional designs on the adjoining Snaefell Park estate
(built by the same developer some 10 -15 years ago). As referred above in the
comments of the Conservation and Design Officer this approach is to be welcomed,
subject to certain number of detailed design amendments.
This contemporary approach is also reflected in the proposed choice of external
materials. All the dwellings incorporate brickwork and varying elements of timber
boarding. In addition several of the units include elements of coloured render and zinc
roofing. The render colours proposed are relatively bold (blue, yellow, olive, red and
orange). For the most part these colours will be visible from within the development.
The further comments of the Conservation and Design Officer will be reported at the
committee meeting.
Conclusions
This site has been disused and in an abandoned condition for a number of years and its
redevelopment is to be welcomed. The application is locally contentious in view of the
proposed access arrangements, but there would appear to be no substantive grounds to
object to this aspect of the application on grounds of highway safety or residential
amenity. Overall the proposed development is considered to be acceptable, subject to
the resolution of minor revisions to the layout (relationships with adjoining properties)
Development Committee
84
23 April 2015
and subject to the comments of the Conservation and Design Officer on the recently
submitted amended plans.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to the satisfactory
resolution of minor changes to the site layout, affordable housing mix, no
objection from the Conservation and Design Officer to the amended plans,
completion of a S.106 Planning Obligation and the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
9.
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0104 - Erection of single-storey rear and side extensions;
13 St Austins Grove for Ms G Woolrych
- Target Date: 24 March 2015
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/14/0033 ENQ - Extension
21/03/2014
THE APPLICATION
The plans seek permission to erect a single-storey rear (north elevation) extension with
side extensions to the east and west elevations. The plans indicate the extensions
would measure 13m W x 4.3m D (tapering to 2.7m D) x 3m H giving additional floor
space of 68sq.m. The original dwelling and existing extension have a floor space of
95sq.m. The proposed extension would increase the overall size of the property by 71%.
The proposed development is not eligible for the „Larger Single-Storey Extension
Permitted Development‟ as the extension projects beyond the sides walls making it a
side and rear extension.
The plans indicate the extensions would have a render finish, uPVC doors and windows
and a fiberglass flat roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. R. Smith, with regard to the size and design of the proposed
extension, specifically the proposed extensions flat roof.
TOWN COUNCIL
Sheringham Town Council: The Town Council object to the proposal on the following
grounds:
The town council have concerns over the flat roof, they would like to see a pitched
roof as an extension of this size would be out of keeping for a flat roof. Also an
extension of this size is out of keeping with surrounding developments.
REPRESENTATIONS
There have been no representations
Development Committee
85
23 April 2015
CONSULTATIONS
None
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):
SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS12: Sheringham
EN4: Design
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. The design of the extension with regard to its flat roof and size.
2. The impact of extension on the form and character of the surrounding area.
APPRAISAL
The property at 13 St Austin's Grove is a modest, single storey, hipped roofed residential
dwelling with a flat roofed single-storey rear extension. The site is narrow and relatively
steep with the existing dwelling located on land to the rear of the site where the site
widens.
The development site is surrounded by two-storey dwellings. The neighbouring
properties on St Austin's Grove lie forward of No.13 and to the rear elevation lie the rear
gardens of numbers 34 and 35 Nelson Road.
Policy SS1 & SS12
St Austin's Grove lies in a residential area and settlement boundary of Sheringham.
Sheringham is defined in the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as a secondary
settlement. Subject to compliance to relevant Core Strategy policies development in
secondary settlements is in principle acceptable. The proposed extension is considered
compliant with the aims of Core Strategy Policies SS1 and SS12.
Policy EN4
Policy EN4 states all development should be of a high quality, reinforce local
distinctiveness and preserve and enhance the character of the area. Additionally,
development should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity
of nearby occupiers.
In terms of design: the constraints of the site in terms of steepness and limited width
have proved challenging with regard to extending the existing property. The applicant
considered the possibility of demolishing the existing property and rebuilding but the
cost was prohibitive.
The proposed extension, whilst significantly larger than the existing flat roofed rear
extension, would, for the most part, be tucked behind the existing dwelling with 1.2m
Development Committee
86
23 April 2015
extending beyond both the east and west elevations, which when viewed from the road
would be virtually unnoticeable. Furthermore, given the siting of the dwelling within the
topography of the site, the extension would not be significantly visible from the
neighbouring properties to the side or rear elevations.
St Austin‟s Grove contains a range of property types and styles, generally they are large
two-storey detached dwellings sited on relatively large plots. Given the modest
proportions and the typical appearance of this 1950s bungalow, it is considered that the
proposal, by virtue that it would be largely sited to the rear of the host dwelling, would not
detract from the host dwelling, neighbouring properties or the form and character of the
area.
The Local Development Framework Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document
paragraph 3.6.2 states, "Flat roof forms are not normally acceptable. However,…flat
roofs can be considered providing the building to be extended is of no real architectural
merit".
On balance it is considered the proposal is acceptable in terms of design.
In terms of Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC): the siting of the proposed development and its
single-storey form suggests it would not be considered overbearing. To the side
elevations the proposed fenestration would not significantly exceed what which is
already present. The fenestration to the rear elevation would include an obscured
glazed bathroom window and eaves height bedroom window. The rear elevation
windows would overlook the rear boundary fence/hedge.
It is considered the proposal is acceptable in terms of Basic Amenity Criteria.
The development as proposed is considered to be in accordance with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to conditions listed below
(i) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
(ii) This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing number
GA20 REV1) received by the Local Planning Authority on 31 March 2015.
(iii) The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be in
full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(iv) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting
that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other alteration to the
extension hereby permitted (including the insertion or any further windows or rooflights)
shall take place unless planning permission has been first granted by the Local Planning
Authority.
Development Committee
87
23 April 2015
10.
THURSFORD - PF/15/0028 - Erection of single-storey extension to side/rear of
existing annex accommodation; Heath House, Brick Kiln Road for Mr
Graham-Wood
- Target Date: 05 March 2015
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20091042 HOU
Conversion of Former Workshop to Annexe
Approved 15/12/2009
THE APPLICATION
The plans seek permission to extend the existing annexe accommodation with the
erection of a single-storey extension to the side (east elevation) and rear (north
elevation). The plans indicate the proposed extension would be constructed of materials
similar to the existing structure. The proposed extension would measure approximately
52sq.m., this equates to a 130% increase to the size of original annexe accommodation.
Within the submitted details the applicant states: larger annexe accommodation is
required as the resident of the annexe (the son of the occupant of the host dwelling)
wishes to marry and start a family.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at the last meeting for a committee site visit.
Previously at the request of Cllr. A. Green with regard to the building remaining as an
annexe with continued dependency to the main dwelling.
PARISH COUNCIL
Thursford Parish Council: To date (6 March 2015) the Parish Council has not responded
REPRESENTATIONS
There have been no representations
CONSULTATIONS
None
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, refusal 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):
Development Committee
88
23 April 2015
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).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
APPRAISAL
Heath House is a large two-storey detached dwelling set within substantial grounds. An
enclosed courtyard lies to the rear of the property. The courtyard comprises of single
storey buildings. To the rear of the courtyard area lies a three bay garage block and the
existing annexe. The existing annexe lies at a right angle to the garage block and was
formally a workshop. The former workshop was granted permission for change of use to
annexe accommodation in 2009 (PF/09/1042).
The site has been the subject of a Committee site visit.
Policy SS2
The site is located in an area defined by the North Norfolk adopted Core Strategy as
Countryside. Policy SS2 of the adopted Core Strategy states development in such a
designated area is limited to that which supports the rural economy and meets a local
housing need. The policy is designed to discourage the proliferation of dwellings in
areas where public services are limited, resulting in a dependency on travel by car to
reach basic services, in favour of more sustainable development in the designated
growth settlements. However, Policy SS2 does make provision for annexe
accommodation.
Residential annexe accommodation is accommodation within a residential curtilage and
ancillary to accommodation available in a main dwelling. Ancillary accommodation
provides semi-independent living to a family member/relative or an individual with some
personal connection to the main dwelling. An annexe should form part of the same
"planning unit" by sharing the same access, parking and garden so as to avoid the
annexe becoming a self-contained dwelling, separate and apart from the original
dwelling.
The criteria for assessing an application for annexe accommodation concerns: the
physical relationship between the main dwelling and the annexe, the size/scale and use
of the annexe and could the annexe be used as part of the main dwelling once the
dependency need has ceased.
The existing annexe at Heath House has a relatively close physical relationship to Heath
House and its modest size suggests it would have some degree of dependency upon
the main dwelling. Furthermore, the annexe is currently being used as a unit of
accommodation by the son of the occupants of Heath House.
Whilst the proposed extension would not change the relationship between the annexe
and Heath House it would significantly increase the size of the annexe. The floor space
would increase from 40sq.m to 92sq.m equating to a 130% increase of the original
annexe. The annexe's increased size would enable it to accommodate more facilities
thereby reducing its dependence upon Heath House. In addition, its use as a family
residence suggests the annexe would be taking on the characteristics of a separate
dwelling.
Furthermore, the plans show the annexe as having its own amenity area and car parking
Development Committee
89
23 April 2015
for two vehicles. Given the host property has two vehicle accesses off Brick Kiln Road,
one of which could serve the annexe without detriment to the host property further
suggesting the annexe's potential independence from the host dwelling.
It is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy SS2 in that the proposed extension
to the existing annexe would constitute an unsatisfactory form of development,
tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside by reason of its size,
facilities, amenities and use as a family home.
It is also considered that the annexe's use as a family home would be in breach of
condition number 3 (PF/09/1042) which states,
"The annexe accommodation hereby approved shall not be occupied at any time
other than the purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as
Heath House, Brick Kiln Lane, Thursford".
Policy EN4
The aim of Core Strategy Policy EN4; is that development should be designed to a high
standard, reinforce local distinctiveness and should not have a significantly detrimental
effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupants.
With regard to Policy EN4 in terms of design: the 130% increase in the annexe‟s floor
space would result in a disproportionate increase in size and scale to the existing
building. In addition the proposal has a 'bulky/boxy' appearance which would form an
awkward relationship with the linear appearance of the existing annexe and garage
block.
With regard to Policy EN4 in terms of Basic Amenity Criteria: despite the substantial size
of the proposal it would not result in a significant negative impact on the amenities of the
neighbouring dwellings.
Although the design of the proposed extension lacks finesse, it is considered that given
the site is set back from the highway and screened from public view via mature hedging
and trees it would be difficult to sustain an objection to the proposal on design grounds.
RECOMMENDATION: To Refuse for the reasons specified below:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would constitute an
unsatisfactory form of development, tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the
countryside by reason of its size, facilities, amenities and use as a family home.
The proposed development would constitute a breach to condition number 3 of planning
permission PF/09/1042 which states, “the annexe shall not be occupied other than for
purposes ancillary to the dwelling known as Heath House, Brick Kiln Road, Thursford.
NR21 0BQ”.
Development Committee
90
23 April 2015
11.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1583 - Alterations to dwelling including the
erection of a single-storey front extension and installation of front balcony, the
erection of two-storey and single-storey rear extensions and the installation of
render and cladding to the front and rear of dwelling; East Quay House, East End
for Mr S Howe
- Target Date: 28 January 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Young
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Flood Zone 3
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/1030 HOU
Alterations to dwelling including erection of second floor extension
Withdrawn by Applicant 06/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
Alterations to dwelling including the erection of a single-storey front extension and
installation of front balcony. The erection of a part single-storey and two-storey rear
extension and the installation of render and cladding to the front and rear of dwelling.
Amended plans received revising the design to incorporate retention of pitched roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The original application was referred to committee at the request of Councillor
Terrington on the following planning grounds:
The proposed building is not in keeping with its surroundings or the historic nature of the
East Quay.
The application was subsequently amended and was delegated approval subject to no
new grounds of objection being received.
TOWN COUNCIL
Original Comments - Objection. The Council strongly objects and doesn't want to see a
carbuncle on the East Quay.
Awaiting further comments in relation to the amended scheme.
REPRESENTATIONS
The amended site notice expired on the 13th April and to date have received four
objections with the following comments:
 Concerns with the significant increase in the size of the building now proposed.
 Which would result in a significant loss of residential and private amenity space.
 Neighbouring properties will be overshadowed and suffer a significant loss of
outlook.
 First floor balcony would create noise and disturbance and loss of privacy.
 Result in the means of access into the backyard being closed off for the purpose of
maintenance .
 Reducing the car port with residential space could lead to more congestion on the
quay and reduced amenity.
 The development is unsympathetic to the character of the area, missing the
opportunity to create an improved building which would enhance the appearance.
Development Committee
91
23 April 2015


Impact on the Listed Building and the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
Contravene to policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN8.
CONSULTATIONS
Comments on original scheme, Conservation and Design With this resubmission according with pre-application advice, Conservation & Design do
not have any objections to this application.


Firstly, in terms of scale, pre-application discussions focused on reducing the
overall mass of the building to ensure its compatibility with the tight confines of the
site. In this regard, the applicant's timeline below is actually very useful in
illustrating how the latest proposal would be smaller than the existing building and
all the subsequent iterations. This is considered important in ensuring that the
property does not overly exert itself within the street scene; NB: it is arguable
whether the existing building would be approved today given its pitched roof and
solid brick gables, and its close proximity of the adjacent buildings - certainly it
does not make a positive contribution to the appearance and character of the
conservation area in its current form.
Turning to design, negotiations initially involved retaining the pitched roof as a
means of grounding the building on site. However, it quickly emerged that a much
„lighter‟ and more „honest‟ building could be created by removing the roof. It was
also apparent that the impact upon the property behind could be significantly
improved in the process. For this to be successful, however, it was felt that the
elevations needed to make better use of relief and materials to move away from the
original bulky and boxy proportions. This has been reflected in the layered
elevations now submitted which would not only offer depth and visual interest, but
which would also effectively break up the overall mass. With the glazing and the
balcony then taking advantage of its coastal position, it is considered that the
building as altered would sit comfortably on its site and will continue the welcome
trend of good contemporary architecture within the town (which began with the
superb Roundhouse, which continued with the Shellfish Handling facility and which
will perhaps best be illustrated when the re-worked proposals for the Maltings are
submitted).
Whilst such buildings do not fit the conventional view of local distinctiveness, they have
been purposefully designed for their immediate context and are without doubt distinct to
each locality. Moreover, they not only add interest within the designated area but also
continue the tradition of each age making its own contribution to the established form
and character (the Quayside alone features a range of building types and ages).
Providing this is done in a complementary rather than a competitive way, there need be
no Conservation & Design objections.
In summary, it is considered that this amended scheme would produce a building which:
a) would now be compatible with the site in scale terms,
b) would not harm the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed East Quay House,
c) would offer a qualitative and bespoke design which would enliven and add visual
interest to the existing building, and
d) would enhance the appearance and character of this part of the Wells
Conservation Area.
In the event of an approval being issued, please condition the prior agreement of the
bricks, windows, balcony detail and render colour.
Development Committee
92
23 April 2015
No objections to amended scheme.
Environmental Health –
There are no adverse Environmental Health concerns in relation to this proposal
therefore have no objections.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk 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 EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
3. Design
4. Impact on Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with this site after considering the application at the previous
committee meeting and agreeing to a delegated approval as per the officer
recommendation subject to no new objections being received. However since the last
committee meeting and the amended site notice expiring there has been objections
received.
The amended plan shows that the original dwelling including the pitched roof will be
retained, the application would include extensions to the front and rear of the property
and the installation of front balcony, along with cladding and render to front and back of
the dwelling.
The site falls within the residential policy area of Wells-Next-the-Sea as designated in
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, where alterations and extensions to dwellings
Development Committee
93
23 April 2015
are permitted in principle provided they are in accordance with other relevant Core
Strategy policies. The site is also located within the designated Conservation Area and
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policy EN1 states that development will be permitted where it does not detract from the
special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals, including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in this
case the Wells-Next-The-Sea Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings 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 existing building is a detached two-storey property which is approximately 574
square metres. The existing dwelling is not considered to be of any special architectural
interest or design merit and it makes little contribution to the immediate context or the
wider character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Given the form and
appearance of the existing dwelling, these changes offer the opportunity for
enhancement.
Whilst the original proposal was considered to be acceptable by officers, the amended
plan is also considered to be acceptable in design terms.
The proportions of the proposed extensions have been kept to a minimum with the two
storey extension to the rear projecting by approximately 1.3m and the single storey
extension measuring 3.1m by 3.7m with a height of 2.6m. It is considered that the
overall scale of the extensions proposed would be acceptable and would not have an
adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties. It is not considered that
the proposed extensions would have any adverse forms of overshadowing on the
neighbouring properties which already share a close relationship and would not impact
on the first floor tertiary windows on the neighbouring property to the South. The size of
the extensions proposed have not changed significantly from the previous scheme
where there were no objections received, and therefore officers still consider the
proposal to be acceptable.
The single storey front extension would increase the size of the garage, it would
protrude from the front by 1.3m. The proposed balcony to the front elevation of the
property would face over the Quay. It is not considered that it would cause any adverse
forms of overlooking. The proposed balcony was included on the original application
where there were no objections received.
In terms of local distinctiveness, the Conservation and Design Officer considers the
amended design to be acceptable with the use of render and cladding. Whilst the
majority of buildings in the immediate area are of a traditional form and constructed in
brick and flint, there are a number of exceptions to this. In view of the context and given
that the proposed alterations would result in an improvement from the existing dwelling,
there is no objection. In fact Policy EN4 positively encourages innovative design which
reinforces local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 2.3.1. of the adopted North Norfolk Design Guide states that whilst
successful elevations respond to the materials seen on surrounding buildings this does
Development Committee
94
23 April 2015
not imply slavishly copying existing materials, rather it can involve creating interesting
contrasts and textures between complimentary materials. It is considered that the use of
different materials of the extension including vertical cedar cladding, render, red brick
helps to break up the building elements on front elevation more effectively, providing
more depth and visual interest. The materials and joinery can be conditioned in order to
ensure that the materials proposed would be appropriate for the site and its location.
Overall, it is considered that the building as altered would sit comfortably within the
locality. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area and it would be compliant with Policies EN4 and
EN8.
In terms of the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, although East Quay
House holds a prominent position, it is considered that the alterations would not result in
the dwelling having an adverse impact on the special qualities of the area. It is
considered that there would be adequate parking retained.
In conclusion, it is considered to adhere to the Development Plan policies as outlined
above.
RECOMMENDATION:
That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve subject to no new
grounds of objection and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
12.
WEST BECKHAM - PF/15/0102 - Erection of part two-storey/part first floor
extension to convert single-storey dwelling into two-storey dwelling; Glabri, Back
Lane for Mr and Mrs Clarke
- Target Date: 09 April 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside Policy Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/14/0141 ENQ - Second Floor Extension to Single Storey Dwelling
20/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
The proposal involves the raising in height of both the walls and roof of the existing
single-storey dwelling in order to create a two-storey dwelling. The dwelling will be 15m
wide (an increase of 2m) with a height of 8.2m (an increase in height of 3.1m). The
floorspace of the dwelling will increase from approx. 104sqm to approx. 120sqm. Larger
windows will be introduced on both the front and rear elevations at ground and first floor,
along with an entrance lobby on the front (within a gabled extension) and patio doors at
the rear. It is also proposed to introduce a first floor balcony on the north-facing elevation
which overlooks agricultural fields.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr A Sweeney citing the following reasons - scale and landscape
impact of the development.
Development Committee
95
23 April 2015
PARISH COUNCIL
Support the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
One representation from a neighbouring property has been received in support of the
proposal.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - no objection.
Conservation, Design & Landscape (Landscape) - object to the application. The
existing plot is prominent within the group of buildings clustered around Back Lane by
virtue of its siting adjacent to open fields and the lack of boundary vegetation. The
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (SPD June 2009) defines the
surrounding landscape as Tributary Farmland (TF3 Hempstead, Bodham, Aylmerton &
Wickmere). This landscape type comprises a relatively high level topography with
settlement concentrated in dispersed elongated villages separated by a higher than
average number of small fields.
This proposal would significantly increase the massing of the dwelling within its rural,
open setting. Although visual impact is limited from the main road to some degree by
existing vegetation around the former pond and field hedging, all elevations of the
building as proposed would be prominent on this eastern edge of the settlement,
particularly the north and west. In this regard the proposals would have an adverse
impact on the local landscape character, by increasing the dominance of the built form in
the rural landscape.
Existing buildings on Back Lane close to the site comprise an informal mix of
single-storey, some one-and-a-half storey dwellings and small outbuildings.
Given the open landscape setting of this site and the surrounding mixed built form,
Conservation Design & Landscape consider that the visual impact of this proposal,
together with the resulting impact on the prevailing landscape character would be
contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN2: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape
Character.
The proposal would also conflict with important elements of Core Strategy Policy
EN 4: Design, in particular:
 Proposals should be suitable designed for the context in which they are set
 Proposals should ensure that the scale and massing of buildings relates
sympathetically to the surrounding area
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, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
96
23 April 2015
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies
the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Settlement character
4. Landscape impact
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The dwelling in question lies within the Countryside policy area as defined under Policy
SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this area, proposals to extend existing
dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies. In this instance, those policies relating to the scale of the
proposed extension and impact upon the landscape are of particular relevance, as
discussed below.
Design (Policies HO 8 and EN 4)
It is proposed that the extension will use matching materials to those that already exist
and as such, there are no concerns in regards to this aspect of the proposal, though the
overall bulky appearance, particular on the front and rear of the dwelling, would be
rather bland.
Of more concern is the size of increase proposed in terms of the scale of the proposal,
particularly in regards to height. Policy HO 8 of the Core Strategy states that residential
extensions in the countryside must comply with the following two criteria:
 it must not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the
original dwelling, and
 must not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the
surrounding countryside.
Furthermore, and linked to the above, Policy EN 4 states that extensions are expected
to:
 be suitably designed for the context within which they are set; and
 ensure that the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the
surrounding area.
The dwelling is essentially going from one to two-storey, which, in this particular case, is
considered to involve a disproportionately large increase in height of the existing
dwelling. It should be noted that pre-application advice was offered (verbally) to both the
agent and applicants indicating that an increase in height to a two-storey dwelling was
unlikely to be acceptable. The agent/applicant have tried to demonstrate that there are
two-storey dwellings nearby and as such, this proposal would not be out of place in
regards to the existing settlement character. In this case, the context of the dwelling in
terms of its immediate surroundings needs to be considered, and the exposed position
Development Committee
97
23 April 2015
that it occupies on the edge of the built up area. Although there is scope for a modest
increase in size, the increase in height on the scale proposed will make the dwelling
appear to rise significantly above the existing neighbouring plots (those immediately to
the south and west being single-storey) and will look out of place. As such, it is
considered that the proposal would be contrary to Policies HO 8 and EN 4.
Amenity (Policy EN 4)
Although there may be some modest overlooking into the amenity area of the dwelling to
the west, as a result of the increase in height of the dwelling, this is not considered to be
significantly detrimental. Furthermore, the proposal should not result in any loss of light
to neighbouring dwellings. As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with
Policy EN 4.
Landscape Impact (Policy EN 2)
Policy EN 2 states that proposals for development should demonstrate that their scale
and design will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the distinctive
settlement character and their landscape setting. In this particular case, the increase in
height to a dwelling on what is slightly elevated ground and in a relatively prominent
position, would significantly increase the impact that this dwelling would have on the
surrounding landscape. It would be seen against the backdrop of agricultural land and
will result in the dwelling being significantly more visible when approaching the site
along Sheringham Road from the north. This view has been echoed by the Landscape
Officer, who has raised an objection to the proposal. It is therefore considered that the
proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape character of this
particular area, contrary to Policy EN 2.
Car parking (Policy CT 6)
The parking requirement for a 2 and 3 bedroom property is the same and as such, there
will be no change to the existing provision. The Highways Authority have no objection to
the proposal and as such, it is considered to be compliant with Policy CT 6.
Conclusion
It is considered that although a modest increase in size of the existing dwelling would be
acceptable, the scale of change proposed under this application would result in a
disproportionately large increase in the height of the existing dwelling in this location
which in turn, would be out of keeping with nearby development and have a detrimental
landscape impact and as such, fails to comply with Policies HO 8, EN 2 and EN 4 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Policy EN4: Design
It is considered that the proposed extension would result in a disproportionately large
increase in the height of the existing dwelling, the scale of which would not conform to
the existing settlement character. Furthermore, the proposal would result in the dwelling
having an unacceptable visual impact upon the surrounding landscape.
Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies HO 8, EN 2 and EN 4 of the
Development Plan.
Development Committee
98
23 April 2015
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
13.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE UPDATE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
January to February 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 4) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the fourth quarter of 2014/15.
8 major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 83 minor
applications and 173 other applications, a total of 264 applications, a decrease of 69
compared with the previous quarter.
The most recent quarter saw 7 of the 8 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, i.e. 87.50%. Up from the 78.57% for the previous quarter,
the cumulative figure for 2014/15 at 74.42% remains comfortably above the 40% figure
set for special measures by the Government.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance decreased by 7.148% to 45.42% over
the previous quarter, as against the Council‟s target of 70%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance decreased by 8.32% to
58.96%, below the Council‟s target of 70%.
Members will appreciate that performance has again dropped over the last quarter in
respect of “minors” & “others”. This follows the re-structuring within the Service and
the Development Management Team has been operating with 2 vacant posts during
the quarter.
Pre-application enquiries were down on the previous quarter. So were Discharge of
Condition applications. „Do I Need Planning Permission‟ enquiries were down slightly.
Duty Officer Enquiries were significantly up at 843.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went up to 92.04%.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 8
decisions were made, 4 allowed and 4 dismissed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 564 were submitted and handled during the
quarter, a decrease of 7 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the fourth quarter of the year has again seen a dip in performance in
respect of “minors” and “others”, as the Service continues to experience a period of
staff turnover, coupled with re-structuring. The recent recruitment process has only
been partially successful so the Service will continue to go through the re-structuring
process for some time. However, two new officers are due to start in the
Development Management Team at the end of May and an improvement in
performance is expected from that time onward.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager ext 6149)
Development Committee
99
23 April 2015
14.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ANTINGHAM - PF/14/1540 - Conversion of existing residential dwelling to hotel
accommodation and insertion of replacement doors and windows; The Barn
House, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TZ for Gunton Arms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/15/0241 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
Orchard House, 5 The Paddocks, North Walsham Road, Bacton, NORWICH, NR12
0LN for Mr P Bayley
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PU/14/1353 - Prior notification of intention to convert
agricultural building to C3 (residential dwelling); Point Farm, The Street, Barton
Turf, Norwich, NR12 8BB for Mr R Lamb
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/1421 - Erection of single-storey side, porch extensions
and addition of pitched roof to detached garage; Staitheway, Staithe Road,
Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8AZ for Mr & Mrs Oakden
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/1575 - Demolition of bungalow and outbuildings the
erection of two-storey dwelling with half basement; Sandywood, Sheringwood,
Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8TS for Mr Mackenzie
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0056 - Erection of detached two car open fronted
garage; Two Pines, Sheringwood for Mr T Perry
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0179 - Erection of side/rear extension; 22 Abbey Park,
Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8SP for Mr J Payne
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0250 - Erection of 14.75m wooden jump tower (part
retrospective), installation of 2 ground mounted area lights and 4 bulk head
standard lights; Hill Top, Sheringwood for Hilltop Outdoor Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - LA/15/0127 - Repair work to roof structures, parapets and abutments
of the chancel, nave and south porch, improvements to rainwater goods and
drainage, installation of new roof coverings to nave and relay the pantiles on the
south porch and chancel, reinstate lath and plaster ceiling in chancel and
masonry repairs to the walls of nave and chancel; All Saints Church, The Street,
Cockthorpe for Norfolk Churches Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
BINHAM - PF/15/0141 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
12/0663 to permit decrease in size and height of proposed side/front
single-storey extension; Foxburrow Farm, Binham Road, Hindringham,
Fakenham, NR21 0DH for Mr Wordingham
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
100
23 April 2015
BRININGHAM - NMA1/13/1157 - Non-material amendment request to permit
removal of chimney and replace large window in east elevation to a smaller
window at higher level; Meadow View, Burgh Stubbs, Melton Road, Briningham,
Melton Constable, NR24 2DX for Mr & Mrs R Kelly
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BRISTON - PF/14/1586 - Erection of rear and link to garage extensions, raising
roof height, insertion of dormer windows and balcony to provide
accommodation in roofspace; The Maples, Fakenham Road, Briston, Melton
Constable, NR24 2HJ for Mr M Newman
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/0129 - Conversion and erection of extension to garage block to
provide detached ancillary annexe accommodation; The Acorns, Mill Road,
Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JF for Mr K Lubbock
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/14/1503 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref:
13/1505 to permit insertion of roof lights to rear west roof slope; Land adj. 104
Hall Street, Briston, NR24 2LQ for Mr K Sturman
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/14/1284 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent Forge Cottage, The Street, Catfield, Stalham for Mr P Duval
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/14/1689 - Demolition of existing chalet bungalow and erection of
replacement one and a half storey dwelling; Hastings Farm Bungalow, Wood
Street, Catfield, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5DF for Mr Lowe
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/15/0095 - Erection of part two-storey/part first floor front
extension; The Rectory, Fenside for Mr Berry
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0726 - Erection of replacement single-storey side
extension, erection of single-storey rear extension, insertion of first floor window
to rear gable and installation of chimney to gable; Long House Yard, High Street,
Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr & Mrs Fish
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0727 - Alterations to internal and external fabric to
refurbish and repair existing house, erection of rear and side single-storey
extensions and rebuilding of rear gable and reinstatement of chimney; Long
House Yard, High Street, Cley-next-the-Sea for Mr & Mrs Fish
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - AI/15/0098 - Display of three illuminated fascia signs; Dunes Arcade,
Promenade, Cromer, NR27 9HE for Triangle Amusements Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - NMA1/13/0564 - Non-material amendment request to use 20/20 plain
tile instead of red clay pantiles; Garage/store adjacent 7 Colne Cottages, The
Croft, Cromer for Mr A Raby
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
101
23 April 2015
CROMER - NMA3/05/0527 - Non material amendment request to render brick
work to part of ground floor of building.; Former Fletcher Hospital, Roughton
Road, Cromer for J A Investments
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/15/0163 - Installation of dormer window to west elevation roof
slope and flue; 31 Cliff Drive, Cromer, NR27 0AW for Mr Longley
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/0255 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 20 Whitehouse
Estate, Cromer, NR27 0EP for Mr and Mrs M Galaskey
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/0201 - Demolition of existing garage block and erection of
replacement car-port with storage; The Old White Horse, Hunworth Road,
Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2AE for Mr Thomas
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0133 - Demolition of rear conservatory and erection of
single-storey side/rear extension; 4A Driftlands, Fakenham, NR21 8EB for Mr D
Rokoszny
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - AI/14/1633 - Display of three illuminated fascia and one projecting
signs; 8-10 Bridge Street, Fakenham, NR21 9AQ for ACCA Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0071 - Erection of detached garage and store/shed; 14
Sculthorpe Road, Fakenham, NR21 9HA for Mr Jarvis
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0139 - Erection of first floor extension and rear single-storey
glazed link extension; Rustic House, 11 Victoria Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8LB for
Mr & Mrs Potts & Rumley
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0174 - Erection of replacement front porch; 5 North Park,
Fakenham, NR21 9RG for Mr & Mrs Farrow
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0093 - Erection of industrial unit; Land at Wymans Way,
Fakenham for Payne & Payne SIPP
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0125 - Erection of rear extension; Appledore, 1 Thorpland
Road, Fakenham, NR21 8JQ for Mr Hicks
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0137 - Erection of steel framed storage building and revision
to parking/layout and access to that permitted under Planning application
PF/12/0833; Unit 1, Clipbush Business Park, Hawthorn Way, Fakenham, NR21
8SX for Matt Pope Motorcycles
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
102
23 April 2015
FELMINGHAM - PF/15/0190 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, detached
timber workshop and detached car port; Larks Rise, North Walsham Road,
Felmingham, North Walsham, NR28 0JU for Mr S Emms
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - NMA1/14/1011 - Non material amendment request to permit
alteration to roof design; 1 Council Houses, Croxton Road, Croxton, Fakenham,
NR21 0NU for Mr & Mrs Cousins
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/1551 - Re-construction of former piggery to form cart
store/barn/garage unit; Gimingham Hall, Hall Road, Gimingham, Norwich, NR11
8EZ for Mr & Mrs Rose
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - LA/15/0134 - Internal and external alterations and erection of
single-storey extension; Woodhouse Farm, Holt Road, Bale, Fakenham, NR21
0QL for Mr and Mrs S Papworth
(Listed Building Alterations)
GUNTHORPE - PF/15/0200 - Erection of single-storey extension; Woodhouse
Farm, Holt Road, Bale, Fakenham, NR21 0QL for Mr & Mrs Papworth
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/15/0115 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
replacement dwelling; Anon, Bush Drive for Mr Byford
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/14/1548 - Conversion and extension of stables to provide holiday
accommodation and erection of stables; The Croft, Stalham Road, Hickling,
Norwich, NR12 0XT for Mr A Simmonds
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/15/0220 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Lyemoon,
Vale Road, High Kelling, Holt, NR25 6RA for Mr Carter
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - NMA1/14/0754 - Non-material amendment request to permit removal
of curved front facade and install replacement protruding corner boards;
Holkham Hall, Holkham Park for Holkham Hall Estate
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOLT - PF/15/0046 - Erection of replacement roof to rear extension.; Greshams
School, Cromer Road, Holt, NR25 6EA for Greshams School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/15/0061 - Demolition of timber shed and installation of 15m monopole
with 3 antennas, two 300mm dishes, erection of 2 equipment cabinets, 1 meter
cabinet at base of tower and 1.8m palisade fence; Proposed Aldi Foodstore, Old
Station Way, Holt, NR25 6DH for Vodafone Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/15/0040 - Repainting of front elevation, internal alterations and render
to rear elevation; 20 New Street, Holt, NR25 6JH for Mr Mickelburgh
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
103
23 April 2015
HONING - PF/15/0078 - Conversion of outbuilding to holiday unit and erection of
bio mass plant/store room; Heath Farm, St Villiers Road, Honing, North
Walsham, NR28 9PH for Mr and Mrs J Alcock
(Full Planning Permission)
HONING - PF/14/1638 - Change of use of agricultural land to garden and to
formation of access; Land off East Ruston Road, Honing, Norfolk, NR28 9PF for
Miss F Rice
(Full Planning Permission)
HORSEY - PF/14/1528 - Demolition of existing single-storey dwelling and
erection of replacement one and a half-storey dwelling; Mere Sea, Binsley Close,
Horsey, Great Yarmouth, NR29 4EG for Mr Garman
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/15/0039 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Mill Farm,
Belaugh Road, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8UU for Mr A Cassie
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/15/0182 - Demolition of existing garage and erection of
single-storey side/rear extension and installation of raised terrace/decking; Rose
Villa, Horning Road West, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8QH for Mr & Mrs
James-Alison
(Householder application)
INGHAM - PF/14/1660 - Retention of replacement rooflights; Gable Barn, Sea
Palling Road, Ingham, Norwich, NR12 0TW for Mr R Spackman
(Householder application)
INGHAM - LA/14/1694 - Retention of replacement rooflights; Gable Barn, Sea
Palling Road, Ingham, Norwich, NR12 0TW for Mr R Spackman
(Listed Building Alterations)
KNAPTON - LA/15/0037 - Insertion of replacement hardwood windows to
north/east elevation, re-roofing and repointing to flintwork; Old Hall, Hall Lane,
Knapton, North Walsham, NR28 0SG for Mr Roundtree
(Listed Building Alterations)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/1307 - Siting of residential caravan; Fiesta, Sunset Walk,
Bush Estate, Eccles-on-sea, Norwich, NR12 0SX for Mr D Huxter
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - NMA1/14/0665 - Non material amendment request to permit
change from flint work to brick to rear and side elevation and to installation of
cladding to two rear apexs; Wickets, Thursford Road for Mrs Price
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LUDHAM - PF/15/0030 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Town House,
Staithe Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5AB for Mrs Rodford
(Householder application)
MATLASKE - PF/15/0154 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 3 The Old
School, Wood Road, Matlaske, Norwich, NR11 7LE for Ms H Everton
(Householder application)
Development Committee
104
23 April 2015
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/1651 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning
permission reference: 03/0755 to permit revised internal layout and retention of
additional windows and doors; Barns 2, 3 and 5, Culpits Farm, Hindolveston
Road, Melton Constable, NR24 2NF for Oakmoor Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/14/1652 - Retention of installed windows and doors
to units 2, 3 and 5; Barns 2, 3 and 5, Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road, Melton
Constable, NR24 2NF for Oakmoor Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
NEATISHEAD - LA/15/0197 - Replacement of windows; Allens Farm, School
Road, Neatishead, NR12 8BU for Mr Longfield
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0119 - Change of disused door to window of shop
front; 1 The Terrace, Market Place, North Walsham, NR28 9BU for Arthritis
Research UK
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0167 - Demolition of conservatory and erection of rear
single-storey extension; 4 Lime Tree Road, North Walsham, NR28 9DY for Mr &
Mrs Randall
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/14/1400 - Non material amendment request to permit
reduction of projection of rear extension to 3m; 67 Bradfield Road, North
Walsham, NR28 0HQ for Mr & Mrs Baldwin
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0144 - Erection of part first floor and two-storey side
extension; 125 Brick Kiln Road, North Walsham, NR28 9XR for Mrs J Eldred
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0222 - Erection of single-storey side extension; The
White House, Holgate Road, White Horse Common, North Walsham, NR28 9LP
for Mr & Mrs Coop
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0244 - Erection of side extension to existing detached
garage; 5 Brick Kiln Barns, Manor Road, North Walsham, NR28 9LH for Mr
Barnes
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0091 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
installation of decking to rear garden; Colwyn, 20 Stevens Road, Cromer, NR27
0HZ for Mr & Mrs Brown
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0097 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
96/1393 to permit to change operating hours FROM 9am - 6pm on any day TO
9am - 8pm Monday to Saturday and 9am - 6pm on Sundays all year; Karttrak, Hall
Road, Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 0JW for Karttrak Cromer
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
105
23 April 2015
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0041 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front
porch; 3 Craft Lane, Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 0LL for Mr Bullen
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/0007 - Erection of front porch and installation of render to
existing garage and cladding to front elevation.; 15 High Street, Overstrand,
Cromer, NR27 0AB for Mr Kimp
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - NMA2/13/1166 - Non material amendment request to permit
alterations to road layout, arrangement of panels, increase in size of customer
switchgear cabinet, fencing details and additional gated accesses; Former
Airfield, West Raynham for Good Energy West Raynham Airfield Solar Park (30)
Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RUNTON - DP/15/0338 - Prior notification of intention to demolish 4 single-storey
holiday chalets; The Poplars Caravan Park, Brick Lane, East Runton, Cromer,
NR27 9PL for Poplars Caravan Park
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
SALTHOUSE - NMA1/10/0571 - Non-material amendment request to 45 degree
pitched glazed addition to proposed window on north elevation, remove chimney
and replace with flue, increased size of front roof lights and cladding with
HardiePlank rather than timber; 2 Bungalow, Bard Hill for Mr N Featherstone
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0045 - Erection of single-storey rear, two-storey side/front
extensions and insertion of bay window to ground floor front elevation; 27
Common Lane, Sheringham, NR26 8PW for Mr & Mrs Eldridge
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0166 - Insertion of rooflight to south facing roofslope;
Seawinds, 4A Links Road, Sheringham, NR26 8LP for Mr T Jones
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0034 - Demolition of existing single-storey side extension
and erection of replacement single storey side extension; 1 Cliff Road,
Sheringham, NR26 8BJ for Mr M Stone
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0110 - Change of use of ground floor from office to
residential and erection of front single-storey extension and erection of front
wall with railings; 47 Church Street, Sheringham, NR26 8QS for Dr Hamvas
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0199 - Erection of second floor extension; The Mo
Sheringham Museum, Lifeboat Plain for Sheringham Museum Norfolk Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
SIDESTRAND - PF/15/0132 - Conversion and extension of existing detached
garage to ancillary annexe accommodation; 6 Tower Lane, Sidestrand, Cromer,
NR27 0NA for Mr I Watkins
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
106
23 April 2015
SKEYTON - PF/15/0099 - Erection of storage building (revised position);
Crossways, Swanton Abbott Road, Skeyton, Norwich, NR10 5AU for Mr A Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - PF/15/0176 - Erection of rear extension; Field View, Frankfort, Sloley,
Norwich, NR12 8HG for Mr I Butcher
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/1363 - Erection of one and a half-storey detached
dwelling; Plot 12 Beechlands Park, Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8NT for Mr T
Blyth
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/0088 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
Yew Tree Cottage, Sandy Lane, Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8NJ for Mr and Mrs C
Holman
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/0096 - Conversion of ground floor retail unit to form one
residential flat; 57 High Street, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9BB for Mr and Mrs
Waller
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/15/0053 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; Nuholme,
St Johns Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9BE for Mr and Mrs Taylor
(Householder application)
STIBBARD - LA/14/1676 - Internal and external alterations and insertion of
French doors to rear ground floor and rooflight to rear roof slope; The Grove
Farmhouse, Bells Lane, Stibbard, FAKENHAM, NR21 0EW for Mr Spencer
Ashworth
(Listed Building Alterations)
STIFFKEY - PF/15/0014 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Rose Cottage,
82A Wells Road, Stiffkey, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AJ for Mr Howard Jones
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/15/0194 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 3 Meadow
View, Trunch Road, Swafield, North Walsham, NR28 0PE for Mr & Mrs Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/0066 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 13/1499 to permit retention of render to existing walls; 37 St Giles
Road, Swanton Novers, Melton Constable, NR24 2RB for Mr P Smithers
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0086 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Primrose Cottage, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TF for Ms
Parsons
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0101 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2 The
Paddock, Topps Hill Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TR for Ms P Tremlett
(Householder application)
Development Committee
107
23 April 2015
THORPE MARKET - LA/15/0131 - Internal alterations to doors; Poppyland
Cottage and Annexe, The Green, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8AJ for Mrs P
Bowles
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/14/1636 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
installation of rooflights to east elevation roof slope to facilitate loft conversion;
Orchard House, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TH for Mr & Mrs D
Wright
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/15/0075 - Erection of front porch; 16 Pyghtle Close, Trunch, North
Walsham, NR28 0QF for Mr and Mrs W Smirk
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/0031 - Conversion of agricultural barn to residential dwelling;
Barn at Partridge Farm Barn, Crowgate Street, Tunstead, Norwich, NR12 8RH for
Mr Paterson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0148 - Erection of rear/side single-storey
extension and insertion of roof lights to north elevation.; Uplands, 23 Mill Road,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HE for Mr and Mrs Whitaker
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0076 - Change of use of grassed area and
re-surface with permeable paving to use as 11 car-parking spaces for tenants
use; adjacent 11 Knitting Needle Lane, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1LN for Victory
Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0084 - Erection of two-storey side and
single-storey front extensions; 10 Bluebell Gardens for Mr K Seecharan
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1437 - Erection of part single-storey and
two-storey extensions, detached four car garage with room above and garden
shed and installation of gates; Clarence House, The Buttlands,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EY for Mr B Hopkins
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/1438 - Internal alterations, erection of part
single-storey and two-storey rear extensions, erection of detached four car
garage with room above and garden shed and installation of gates; Clarence
House, The Buttlands, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EY for Mr B Hopkins
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0195 - Erection of one and a half-storey side
extension; Caprice, Clubbs Lane, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1DP for Mr Saunders
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0203 - Erection of part two-storey front and first
floor side extension; Tikara, Jolly Sailor Yard for Mr Emerson
(Householder application)
Development Committee
108
23 April 2015
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/12/0141 - Non-material amendment request to
insert brick arches over four existing windows; 9 Tunns Yard,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1DF for Mr M Tetlow
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WEYBOURNE - PF/15/0185 - Increase of depth of 3 existing dormer windows to
rear roof slope; Field House, Sheringham Road, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7EY for
Mr J Lloyd
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/15/0080 - Demolition of conservatory and erection of
single-storey rear extension; Sun Cottage, Church Road, Wood Norton,
Dereham, NR20 5AR for Mr D Nudd
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - LA/15/0081 - External alterations to facilitate erection of
single-storey rear extension; Sun Cottage, Church Road, Wood Norton,
Dereham, NR20 5AR for Mr D Nudd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WORSTEAD - PF/14/1456 - Retention of extractor fan duct housing; The White
Lady, Front Street, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9RW for Mr Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - LA/14/1457 - Retention of extractor fan duct housing; The White
Lady, Front Street, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9RW for Mr Gilligan
(Listed Building Alterations)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0106 - Removal of condition 7 of planning permission ref:
14/1009 to delete Code Level 3 requirement; Windy Ridge, Meeting Hill Road,
Meeting Hill, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9LT for Mr W Nash
(Full Planning Permission)
15.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1159 - Erection of single-storey detached dwelling; Land at
63 Oak Street, Fakenham, NR21 9DZ for Mr C Cunningham
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0155 - Demolition of detached double garage and
erection of single-storey dwelling; Monument Cottage, Norwich Road, North
Walsham, NR28 0JA for Mr G Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/15/0247 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 2 Farm
Cottages, Beach Road, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9PA for Mr and Mrs T
McCrohon
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0063 - Erection of side extension to facilitate garage
conversion to habitable accommodation (part retrospective); 8 Rushmer Way,
Sheringham, NR26 8YA for Mr R Hooker
(Householder application)
Development Committee
109
23 April 2015
STALHAM - PF/15/0072 - Erection of front single-storey extension with balcony
above, insertion of French doors, velux windows to front roof slope and window
to north gable end; Wesley House, St Johns Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9BG
for Mr & Mrs Sheehan
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PU/15/0100 - Prior notification of intention to change of use
of agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Barn off Aylsham Road, Swanton
Abbott, for Whitwell Hall Farm Ltd
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
APPEALS SECTION
16.
NEW APPEALS
None.
17.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS – PROGRESS
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0785 - Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two
and a half storey replacement dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PD for Mrs K Cargill
INFORMAL HEARING 17 March 2015
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0120 - Formation of caravan park to provide pitches for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area with office/warden
accommodation and amenity building; Land South of North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh for Happisburgh Estates
INFORMAL HEARING 12 May 2015
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
18.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road, Aylmerton
for Mr D Oliver
BRISTON - PU/14/1390 - Prior notification of intention of change of use of
agricultural building to three dwelling houses (C3); Barn at Boundary Farm,
Reepham Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JN for Mr & Mrs Berwick
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park and
ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9JJ
for Crematoria Management Ltd
ROUGHTON - PF/14/0677 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Woodlands, Cromer Road, Roughton for Mr D Sayer
Development Committee
110
23 April 2015
19.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
HEMPSTEAD – PF/12/0562 – Change of Use from Public House to Residential at
Hare and Hounds Public House Hempstead NR25 6LD for Mrs Valerie Purkiss
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
The District Council refused planning permission for change of use of the public house
to residential use and this decision was the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of
State. The Inspector appointed to determine the appeal determined the main issue to
be whether the loss of the public house would be acceptable in light of policies dealing
with the loss of local services and community facilities.
The Inspector drew attention to paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) which requires planning decisions to guard against the
unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services and noted the relevance of the
Council‟s Core Strategy policy CT3. This includes public houses as “important local
facilities” and their loss will only be permitted where either there is alternative provision
in the area or it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention
including evidence that the business is not viable and that all reasonable efforts have
been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for at least 12 months.
Members will recall that matters relating to drainage were raised during consideration of
the application to which this appeal relates. Drainage issues were also considered by
the Inspector who concluded that the only deliverable drainage option for use as a
public house would be a cesspool solution. He also considered representations on
possible alternative drainage options and costings and concluded that “the installation
and operational cost of a cesspool would be substantial.” Based on the latest and
detailed trading figures as submitted by the appellant, the Inspector concluded that a
cesspool drainage solution is not viable for public house use.
The Inspector went on to consider how the business had been marketed, concluding
that “reasonable efforts have been made to sell the public house at a realistic price for a
period of at least 12 months in accordance with Core Strategy policy CT3.”
Baconsthorpe Parish Council had submitted a petition and the Inspector noted that the
appeal proposal would result in the loss of a community facility to which there is
significant local objection. However he stated that “even with a degree of community
support translating into regular custom this may not be sufficient to generate a viable
concern irrespective of who is the landlord.” The Inspector found that he could give only
limited weight to community opposition to the proposal.
The Inspector‟s overall conclusions were that

There are exceptional circumstances regarding a viable drainage solution such that
the proposed loss of the public house would be acceptable in light of policies
dealing with the loss of community facilities.

The appellant has made reasonable efforts to sell the public house at a realistic
price over a lengthy period.
Accordingly this appeal was allowed.
Development Committee
111
23 April 2015
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8JU for Mr & Mrs J Bonham
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0626 - Use of land for siting six mobile units (4 caravans, 2
pods) for residential accommodation for family and friends and use of the
existing dwelling for shared facilities (amended description); 67 Cromer Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8DF for Mr & Mrs G Malone
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
WEYBOURNE – PF/14/0450 – Continued use of land as camp site and retention of
amenity block at The Barn Bolding Way Weybourne Holt NR25 7SW for Mr
Charles Harrison:- DISMISSED
This appeal related to the continued use of land as a camp site and retention of a
building described as an amenity block. The Inspector found the main issues to be



Effect on the character and appearance of the AONB
Highway safety
Effect on living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to noise
and disturbance
The Inspector described the appeal site as an area of grassed land within which is a
modest timber clad building with UPVC doors and windows. The site is enclosed by
substantial hedging, with restricted inter-visibility to adjacent countryside. The Inspector
went on to assess the proposal against relevant policies in the NPPF and the Council‟s
Core Strategy, concluding that there would not be a significantly harmful effect on the
AONB.
Turning to highway safety, the Inspector noted that the site is accessed from the main
A149 road by a single-track driveway which also serves a number of dwellings. At the
junction with the A149 visibility is restricted by tall brick piers and walls and falls
significantly below the Highway Authority‟s visibility splay requirements. Intensification
of the use of this junction associated with the appeal proposal would not be acceptable.
On living conditions the Inspector noted that the camp site is separated from the rear
gardens of a number of dwellings by small parcels of land owned by the appellant. Local
residents had expressed concerns about noise from campers and dogs and also about
campfires. The Inspector found that their gardens would be adversely affected by noise
and disturbance due to the proximity of the camp site, particularly during the summer
months.
The appeal was therefore dismissed on highway safety and amenity grounds and by
reference to the relevant policies of the NPPF and the Council‟s Core Strategy.
20.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
112
23 April 2015