OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 23 AUGUST 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
UPPER SHERINGHAM - NNDC TPO (UPPER SHERINGHAM) 2012 No. 1 – The
Old Chapel, Chapel Yard
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order(TPO) at the above site.
Background
The Council received a Tree Works Application to fell a large, prominent Cypress
Tree at the Old Chapel in the Upper Sheringham Conservation Area. The reasons
for felling the tree were that it was shading a rental property, it contained many
pigeons that were causing mess and branches were falling from the tree.
A Landscape Officer subsequently visited the property and considered that the
problems raised could be minimised by appropriate tree management; and that the
tree had high amenity value. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was duly served to
protect amenity.
Representations
One letter of objection has been received and the main grounds of objection to the
Order are as follows:
The tree overhangs the property causing shading, raises concerns regarding safety
and the pigeons in the tree cause problems from their droppings with mites and fleas
entering through the roof.
The agent for the owners of the property also reports that the previous three
residents stated that they were unhappy living with a large tree so close to the
house.
A copy of the letter is attached as Appendix 1.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s Human Rights, and the
general interest of the public, it is considered that the confirmation of this Order
would be proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
1
23 August 2012
Appraisal
Appropriate management of the tree would alleviate the problems raised. The agent
submitted a further Tree Works Application after a site meeting with the Landscape
Officer to discuss appropriate management of the tree. The Officer considers that
the works now completed have minimised the issues raised and that there is no
longer a valid reason for felling the tree.
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy?
It can be confirmed that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order?
The tree contributes significantly to the landscape of Upper Sheringham and
removal would be detrimental to amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed
(Source: Simon Case Landscape Officer Ext 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
NORTH WALSHAM - NNDC TPO (NORTH WALSHAM) 2012 No.11 - Land at
Muckle Hill Farm, Anchor Road, Spa Common
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect a group
of five oak trees at the above site.
Background
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Section was contacted by the owner of
Muckle Hill Farm who was concerned that a group of oak trees on his land were at
threat from works to a neighbouring canal. The Landscape Officer made an
assessment of the trees using the nationally recognised Tree Evaluation Method for
Preservation Orders (TEMPO) and considered that the trees merited the serving of a
TPO.
The group of oak trees is clearly visible from public places and is a natural feature in
the local landscape. The extensive nature of the clearance works taking place along
the North Walsham and Dilham Canal appeared to put the trees under threat. It was
considered expedient to serve a TPO to protect amenity.
The Order was duly served on 8 December 2011. The objector to the Order asked
for more time to prepare a case including legal issues. The legal issues raised on
behalf of the objector have been considered; essentially the objector queried the
Development Committee
2
23 August 2012
Council's powers to serve the Order. However, the six month deadline for
confirming the Order lapsed and a new Order was made on 25 May 2012.
Representations
Objections to the Order:One letter of objection to the Order has been received from the Old Canal Company.
In summary the main objections are:
1. The proprietors of the North Walsham and Dilham Canal are jointly and severally
entitled as enabled by statute to maintain their canal.
2. The trees are not substantially visible from a public place.
3. The roots of the trees threaten to interfere with the efficient working of the canal.
4. The value of the trees in relation to biodiversity is questionable.
5. The jurisdiction for deciding this matter resides with seven Commissioners
appointed by the Sheriff of Norfolk rather than North Norfolk District Council.
A copy of the letter is attached as Appendix 2.
Appraisal of the objections:In response to the objections the following comments are made:
- A TPO protects amenity and does not prevent appropriate management and this
includes Statutory Undertakers such as the canal company.
- The trees are visible from a public footpath and contribute to the wider landscape.
- If it is shown that the roots are interfering with the canal then the removal of the
threat would be accepted as appropriate management with appropriate mitigation for
loss of amenity.
- Oak trees are widely accepted as being highly valuable for biodiversity.
A TPO does not prevent appropriate tree management. It is considered that the
Council has jurisdiction to determine this matter rather than seven Commissioners
appointed by the Sheriff of Norfolk referred to by the objector due to the Canal
Company being a Statutory Undertaker. If the Council refuses a tree works
application for appropriate management, an appeal against that decision would be
determined by the Secretary of State under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s Human Rights, and the
general interest of the public, it is considered that the confirmation of this Order
would be proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
3
23 August 2012
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the group of trees makes a significant contribution to the
quality of the local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that it therefore
has high amenity value.
Conclusion
The legal issues raised in the attached correspondence have been assessed and it
is considered that they do not prevent the Committee from making a decision to
confirm the TPO.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: Simon Case (Landscape Officer) Ext. 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind-turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 October 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19930648 PF - Erection of four wind turbines and one switchroom
Refused 06/05/1994 Appeal Dismissed 08/09/1995
Development Committee
4
23 August 2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 60m and a
height to blade tip of 86.5m. The turbine would be located at Easting: 613970,
Northing: 338220. The base of the turbine would be at 90m AOD.
The proposal also includes associated infrastructure to support the turbine, a single
storey substation building, access tracks and crane hard standing and turning areas.
The applicant has indicated that the turbine likely to be used is an Enercon E-53
model, although an alternative model being considered is an Enercon E-48, the
difference between the two models being the rotor diameter (52.9m on the E-53 and
48m on the E48). Both would have a hub height of 60m.
Details submitted by the applicant indicate that the 60m high steel turbine column
would contain three sections and would have a diameter of 3.3m at its base tapering
to 1.33m at hub height.
The single storey substation building would have a footprint of approximately 29sqm.
It would have a height to eaves of 2.25m and a height to ridge of 3.9m. The building
would be constructed of brick and flint under a clay tile roof. The proposed access
track would be approximately 4m wide with a 50mm thick 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 proposed turbine would have to conform to current safety standards.
The applicant has submitted a number of reports and additional reports to support
their view that the proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in view of the range of
issues and extent of representations associated with the application.
PARISH COUNCIL – Bodham Parish Council – No clear recommendation (3
councillors in favour and 3 councillors have made no comment with 1 abstention).
REPRESENTATIONS
To date 1,826 representations have been received, 368 in favour, 1,456 against and
2 commenting.
Summary of comments in objection:
1. Total eyesore and blot on the landscape;
2. Will have a significant environmental impact (visual and audible);
3. Efficiency of wind turbines is not proven;
4. More turbines should be built off-shore and not on-shore;
5. This country does not have a coherent energy policy;
6. Renewable sources will only ever play a small part;
7. The turbine will be clearly seen in Baconsthorpe;
8. It will adversely affect the whole beautiful area, which people come from far and
wide to enjoy;
9. There are already 88 turbines being built off shore to power 120,000 homes;
10. Why do we need one at Bodham;
11. This is more about making money for the land owner;
12. Approval of this application would set a damaging precedent;
13. This will blight the area;
Development Committee
5
23 August 2012
14. Will adversely affect the AONB;
15. The proposal is contrary to the Council’s Landscape Plan;
16. The turbine would be visible over a considerable distance;
17. Noise would adversely affect those living near the site;
18. Noise Guidance from ETSU is outdated and will result in adverse noise impacts
being allowed to occur;
19. The proposal is out of scale with the surrounding landscape;
20. The turbine would be taller than the existing radio mast by some considerable
distance;
21. The turbine would cause shadow flicker;
22. The proposal would add light pollution at night time if a warning light is needed for
aircraft;
23. Noise pollution will occur over a 6 mile radius depending on weather conditions
and wind direction;
24. Noise pollution/shadow flicker and general anxiety/stress associated with this
project will have a detrimental effect on the health of those living nearby;
25. The proposal would have a negative impact on tourism
26. Who wants to visit an area full of turbines;
27. The visual impact will be seen by a large number of people including walkers,
cyclist, bird watchers from a very large part of North Norfolk including from areas
of outstanding natural beauty;
28. The proposal will industrialise and dominate the landscape;
29. The proposal would have an adverse impact on wildlife including birds, bats and
other wildlife;
30. The proposal will blight surrounding land and will prevent people from selling their
homes;
31. This could result in a reduction in Council Tax;
32. The proposal, if granted, would encourage other land owners to also consider
wind turbines, which would be damaging to the character of the area;
33. The proposal could have adverse impacts on aircraft, radar, television and phone
reception;
34. Other back-up power sources will always be required;
35. What happens when the subsidies dry up;
36. North Norfolk has already done its bit offshore;
37. The impact on West Beckham is not emphasised in the report;
38. There are contradictions in the report regarding the impact of the turbine on the
landscape;
39. Other sites have not been considered;
40. Benefits to the local community are limited;
41. The turbine is the same height as a 22 storey building;
42. The skyline will be blighted for many miles around;
43. This part of Norfolk is a virtually unspoilt, rural, tranquil place that attracts visitors
from all around the world;
44. To build a turbine at Bodham would be as contemptible an assault on our
national heritage as taking a Stanley knife to a publicly-owned painting by John
Constable;
45. If the nation needs wind farms then they can be built off-shore;
46. This is not about local need but about the landowner making a profit at the
expense of North Norfolk residents;
47. The proposal would infringe nearby residents Human Rights;
48. There is a case in Lincolnshire where neighbours of a wind farm scheme were
driven out of their home through low-pitch noise impacts;
49. Average wind speeds on land are not sufficient to produce acceptable amounts of
power;
50. The development is only viable as a result of government grants;
Development Committee
6
23 August 2012
51. Wind turbines are unreliable and ugly;
52. They do not belong near people’s homes;
53. One turbine will contribute virtually nothing to green energy;
54. The construction phase will have a harmful impact on the rural lanes to the site;
55. Why not solar panels instead;
56. The turbine will be seen from Lower Bodham, Matlaske, North Barningham,
Baconsthorpe, Plumstead, Gresham, West Beckham, Bessingham and
Letheringsett to name but a few places;
57. The long term benefits in preserving the environment outweigh any benefits from
this proposal;
58. Would have no objection to a small turbine;
59. Approval here would open the floodgates to more turbines;
60. The costs do not outweigh the benefits;
61. The reasons for refusing the 4 turbines in 1994 still apply now;
62. Will pose a risk to aircraft safety;
63. The proposal would cause interference to television and mobile phone reception;
64. Will have adverse impacts on health;
65. The rotating blades would attract the eye;
66. Rotating blades visible from the road would be a danger to highway safety;
67. A Bill going through Parliament will specify minimum distances for turbines from
houses;
68. Adverse impact on roads and verges to bring components to site;
69. Wind turbines have to be backed-up by conventional power stations;
70. Agricultural land should not be diverted from food production;
71. Government subsidies are being cut and these turbines only exist because of
subsidy;
72. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be required;
73. Wind turbine syndrome is a potential issue for near neighbours;
74. Visual impact will be greater in the winter when trees lose their leaves;
75. Turbines are not particularly efficient;
76. Proposal would be contrary to Landscape Character Assessment guidance;
77. The turbine would be highly visible on the Cromer Ridge and would affect the
AONB;
78. Will adversely affect the setting of Barningham Hall, a landscape designed by
Humphrey and John Adey Repton;
79. There is a good deal of thoroughly Reptonian design at Barningham and a good
deal of work was done in his time;
80. The parkland was not enclosed by a woodland belt, but was integrated with the
surrounding countryside by means of some carefully placed clumps;
81. Repton placed a good deal of emphasis on the approaches to the house. These
were designed to provide a changing display of distant views into the countryside
beyond the parkland. Again these views were carefully calculated to make the
house itself the climax of the drive. The proposed turbine will be in sight from
these approaches, and It seems that it will also be in sight at some of these
climactic points;
82. The surrounding countryside has changed very little since Repton worked at
Barningham;
83. For these reasons alone it would not be possible to argue that the turbine will
have no deleterious effect on the landscape;
84. The applicants have failed to properly understand the impact of the proposal on
Barningham Hall.
A 160 page document opposing the application was submitted on behalf of a local
campaign group called No To That Turbine (NOTT). The document comments,
amongst other things, in relation to doubts about the planning submission and seeks
Development Committee
7
23 August 2012
to provide comment in relation to planning policy, location of the development,
landscape and visual impact, historic environment and archaeology, ecology and
ornithology, noise impacts, shadow flicker, transport and access, public safety and
benefits and needs.
Summary of comments in support:
1. This is an ideal location for such a project;
2. The site has good wind speeds;
3. We desperately need more renewable energy in our area;
4. Look forward to seeing the turbine producing lots of green energy;
5. The proposal is designed to provide the local vicinity with alternative forms of
electricity generation;
6. Subject to the imposition of appropriate safeguards there is no reason to reject
this;
7. I don’t see how a wind turbine will damage views in any way;
8. Domestically produced energy should be supported;
9. Renewable energy is something we need for the benefit of future generations;
10. Will have minimal impact on neighbouring areas;
11. This project is the way forward;
12. I’m all for seeing these lovely things become part of our British landscape;
13. This will benefit the whole community;
14. It’s certainly better than nuclear;
15. We need to consider alternative energy sources, especially in this age of rising
fuel prices;
16. The height of the turbine will ensure a good rate of efficiency;
17. Wind turbines are not ugly;
18. Construction will create jobs;
19. The turbine would be a good learning tool for school children;
20. There is no evidence that house prices would suffer from a wind turbine;
21. People should embrace the positive steps being taken by this and many other
projects;
22. The existing mast already creates a large element in the landscape and has a
purpose that people will benefit from – the turbine will do the same through
generating green electricity;
23. We need more of these turbines to cope with our increased energy demand;
24. Electricity provision for 600+ homes has to be welcomed;
25. This area was once renowned for its numerous windmills;
26. This proposal will spearhead North Norfolk’s contribution to green energy;
27. Turbines generally pay back all of their manufacturing carbon costs within the first
7 months of operation;
28. Committee should visit the turbine at Blood Hill, Somerton to see the positive
impacts;
29. The proposal is in line with local and national policy.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) –
Objection - Having examined the proposal from various viewing points but in
particular those referred to me in my e-mail of 22 May I remain of the opinion that the
turbine would both seriously harm the setting of heritage assets and the wider
landscape (See full copy of responses at Appendix 3).
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Objection - I remain of
the opinion that the visual impact of this large scale single turbine would be
sufficiently adverse on the surrounding landscape, in particular TF3 Tributary
Farmland as defined in the NNLCA, and affected designated heritage assets (historic
Development Committee
8
23 August 2012
landscapes, listed buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments) to warrant refusal of
the application in accordance with Policy EN2: Protection & Enhancement of
Landscape and Settlement Character of the North Norfolk Local Development
Framework. (See full copy of responses at Appendix 4).
Environmental Protection Officer - No objection subject to conditions - ETSU is the
recognised guidance and this has been followed and the proposed wind turbine has
met these criteria. We are now satisfied that we have sufficient information to make a
decision on this proposed turbine and we have no further objection, provided that
conditions are applied. (See full copy of responses at Appendix 5).
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Support
English Heritage – Objection - In light of the significance of the heritage assets
concerned we do not consider that a turbine such as this would be capable of
delivering sufficient public benefits to outweigh the harm caused. We fully accept that
it is for the Local Planning Authority to weigh the harm against the public benefit, but
our recommendation to the LPA is, as previously stated, that given the quality and
significance of the assets involved we do not believe the public benefits arising from
the proposal will be sufficient to outweigh the harm. The application should therefore
be refused. In arriving at this recommendation we have reviewed the findings of
recent appeal decisions to inform our balancing of the harm against public benefit.
(See full copy of responses at Appendix 6).
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions - When
assessing the suitability of a site for use as a wind farm, Best Practice Guidance is
provided by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) and also by Planning Policy
Statement 22 (PPS22). When assessing the technical and commercial elements of
project viability, several factors need to be considered including (amongst other
considerations) land availability and also road access. Whilst no details have been
provided for the off-site highway improvements required to widen the edge of the
carriageway, nevertheless I am satisfied that such works can realistically be achieved
and I would be happy for this point to be covered by standard conditions.
Notwithstanding the above. please be advised the delivery route for the abnormal
loads will result in temporary loss of highway verges and impacts upon overhanging
tree branches. Whilst we will expect the developer to fund the off-site works, if you
grant approval to this development then the requirement to facilitate free passage
along the public highway would overrule any TPO's protecting overhanging
branches. Accordingly you are advised to take this point into account when
assessing the suitability of the impact to the landscape.
Defence Estates Organisation (Lands) - No objection subject to conditions (See full
copy of responses at Appendix 7).
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. (See full copy of
response at Appendix 8).
Norwich Airport - Safeguarding Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
(See full copy of response at Appendix 9).
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service – Objection - The proposed
development causes substantial harm to three designated heritage assets: St.
Development Committee
9
23 August 2012
Peter's Church, North Barningham, All Saints' Church, Bodham and Baconsthorpe
Castle, and we therefore recommend that it be refused, in accordance with
paragraph 132 of the NPPF and policy EN8 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. (See
full copy of response at Appendix 10).
Norfolk Constabulary Headquarters – Objection – Will have an adverse impact on the
future use of the Cock Point Radio mast (See full copy of responses at Appendix
11).
Natural England - No objection subject to conditions - Natural England is generally
satisfied with the ecological surveys and assessment of impacts that has been
undertaken for this proposal, particularly concerning bats and birds. We welcome the
proposal for post-construction monitoring and advise that this should be conditioned
if planning permission is granted. (See full copy of response at Appendix 12).
Royal Society for Protection of Birds - No response
East of England Ambulance Headquarters - No response
Norfolk Fire Service - No response
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No objection - Taking into account that the viewpoints
from Roman Camp, Bennington's Lane and Sandy Hill Lane are likely to represent
examples of the highest level of visual impact of the wind turbine from the AONB,
based on current information and site visits, the NCP does not raise an objection to
the planning application for this project. (See full copy of response at Appendix 13).
SURROUNDING PARISHES
Aylmerton Parish Council – Objection – Whilst appreciating the need for green
energy, concerned about impact on the landscape and feel the turbine is too large for
this rural area. Could also set a precedent for further development.
Baconsthorpe Parish Council – Objection – Impact on Baconsthorpe Castle and its
setting, impacts on landscape. Concerned about impact on bats and great crested
newts. Consider that benefits do not outweigh impacts.
Beckham Parish Council – Objection – Contrary to LDF Landscape Character
Assessment, impact on bats, impact on Pink Footed Geese, does not show proximity
to houses, there will be nuisance to local residents caused by noise and shadow
flicker, still unclear what type of turbine proposed.
Beeston Regis Parish Council - No response.
Brinton Parish Council – Objection – Would set a precedent for the area. Object to
size of the turbine and the visual impact on the amenity value of the North Norfolk
countryside, which relies on tourism as a major employer.
Gresham Parish Council - No objection or comment.
Hempstead Parish Council – Comments only (3 councillors in support, 3 against and
1 with no comment).
High Kelling Parish Council - No response.
Development Committee
10
23 August 2012
Holt Town Council – Objection – Visual Impact, Potential precedent for North Norfolk,
Should be off-shore, Will contribute very minimally to power resource for national
grid.
Kelling Parish Council – Objection – A blot on the landscape in an area of AONB.
Could be a danger to migrating birds which fly over the site.
Lessingham Parish Council – Comments only in respect of location (will have a
considerable impact for many miles), will be a prominent feature, noise could be an
issue, shadow flicker cannot be entirely eliminated, the proposal is only economic
with subsidy.
Matlaske Parish Council - No objection/No Comment.
Plumstead Parish Council – Objection – Would be a blot on the landscape.
Sheringham Town Council – Objection – detrimental to the rural landscape in an area
of AONB. Visual intrusion. There are sufficient out at sea.
Stibbard Parish Council – Objection – turbines should stay offshore. The proposal will
have a hugely detrimental effect on our countryside and its population.
Upper Sheringham Parish Council – Support – However concerns raised about the
issue of precedent.
Weybourne Parish Council - No response.
Wiveton Parish Council – The proposal is high enough to be seen from as far away
as Holkham and Wells and many other parts of the AONB. The proposal will set a
most difficult precedent if approved.
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):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Development Committee
11
23 August 2012
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 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).
Regional Policy
POLICY SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development
POLICY E6: Tourism
POLICY T1: Regional Transport Strategy Objectives and Outcomes
POLICY T8: Local Roads
POLICY T9: Walking, Cycling and other Non-Motorised Transport
POLICY ENV1: Green Infrastructure
POLICY ENV2: Landscape Conservation
POLICY ENV3: Biodiversity and Earth Heritage
POLICY ENV4: Agriculture, Land and Soils
POLICY ENV6: The Historic Environment
POLICY ENG1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance
POLICY ENG2: Renewable Energy Targets
Issues for Consideration
1. Planning Policy Context
2. Principle of the Development
3. Landscape and Visual Impacts
4. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
5. Impact on Designated Historic Assets;
6. Impact on Residential Amenity;
7. Impact on other Infrastructure Provision
8. Impact on Wildlife/Ecology
9. Impact on Aviation;
10. Impact on Highway Safety & Public Rights of Way;
11. Impact on Tourism & Other Sectors;
12. Grid Connection;
13. Benefits of the Proposed Development;
14. Overall Summary
APPRAISAL
Members will recall visiting the proposed site on 01 December 2011 and viewing it
from a number of significant local vantage points.
Development Committee
12
23 August 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. A Screening Opinion was produced at pre-application stage on 12 April 2011
which advised the applicant that the proposal was not considered to be EIA
development as the potential impacts could be properly and rigorously assessed
through the standard planning process. However, the applicant was advised of need
for the proposal to be supported by, amongst other things, appropriate
documentation in relation to landscape impact, heritage asset impacts and ecology.
A further Screening Opinion produced on 11 August 2011 reconfirmed that the
proposal was not EIA development. (The Committee will note that the Local Planning
Authority always has the opportunity to review the need or otherwise for an EIA
dependent upon any new evidence of significant impacts on the environment arising).
Whilst both Screening Opinions were undertaken under the 1999 EIA Regs, based
on the available evidence it is considered that the 2011 EIA Regs. do not give rise to
a different opinion in relation to the need or otherwise for EIA.
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) and at regional level, whilst it is a material consideration that the
Government has declared its intention to abolish such Regional Plans, the East of
England Plan (EEP) (adopted May 2008) currently remains part of the Development
Plan at the date of writing this report.
Local Policy
The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy EN
7 which states:
‘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 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.
Development Committee
13
23 August 2012
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’.
Regional Policy
The relevant Regional Policies are set out above. In general they are mainly directed
at the drafting of Local Development Documents such as the CS. Amongst other
things the EEP seeks that such documents help to meet obligations on carbon
emissions. The CS itself contains local targets for renewable energy provision for
developments above a set floor area or dwelling numbers (Policy EN 6). EEP Policy
ENG2 sets targets for on-shore renewable energy to meet 10% of the region’s
energy by 2010 and 17% by 2020 (subject to meeting international obligations to
protect wildlife including migratory birds). This reflects on-going national targets for
the provision of renewable energy (which can only be met by local delivery). They are
objectively assessed needs in the terms of paragraph 14 of the National Planning
Policy Framework. Whilst the regional targets themselves may disappear as and
when the Plan is revoked, the need to develop renewable energy will not disappear.
The evidence base that underpinned the EEP targets can remain relevant, as the
Government confirmed when it first proposed the abolition of regional plans in 2010.
EEP Policy ENV2 seeks amongst other things to protect and enhance the diversity
and local distinctiveness of countryside character areas (in this case North Norfolk).
EEP Policy ENV6 seeks amongst other things to protect, conserve and where
appropriate enhance the historic environment. These policies are reflected in the CS
and thus revocation of the regional strategy would not materially alter the
development plan in these respects. The CS is supported by a more detailed
analysis of landscape character.
National Policy
The Climate Change Act 2008 includes a legally binding reduction in carbon
emissions 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 recent National Policy Statement for
Energy (EN-1)(July 2011). 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. The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy
Infrastructure EN-3 (EN-3) is directed mainly at larger schemes of over 50MW, but is
also stated at paragraph 1.2.3 to be potentially material to other proposals.
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance including Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy,
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Planning
Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Although the thrust of
the previous policy in PPS guidance has been carried forward into the Framework,
the wording is more condensed. However, some of the supporting guidance has
been retained for the time being including the Practice Guidance to PPS22 –
Planning for Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
Development Committee
14
23 August 2012
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The definition
of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other current development plan
documents. It therefore here includes the East of England Plan (2008) until such time
as that Plan is formally withdrawn, as provided for in the Localism Act 2011. The CS
was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the
Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the
determination of this application.
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 colocating 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 smallscale 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
15
23 August 2012
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-ofdate, 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’.
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 sets out the guiding
principles in planning for renewable energy and the bigger picture facing the UK and
at paragraph 2.1 states:
‘Global climate change is a recognised phenomenon of international significance.
The continuing production of ‘greenhouse gases’, and carbon dioxide in particular, is
contributing to the increasing rate of climate warming. This runs counter to the aims
of sustainable development as the effects, including sea level rise and the increased
frequency of extreme weather events, have human, environmental and economic
costs which can be very great. Tackling climate change is a necessary condition for
sustainable development, so the UK has signed up to a number of international
agreements in an attempt to address this situation’.
Paragraph 2.5 goes on to state:
‘The successful introduction of renewables in all parts of England will involve the
installation of different kinds of schemes in different contexts, from rural areas to
densely populated areas, market towns to suburban streets. Every local authority has
something to offer in terms of renewable resources, and opportunities to encourage
more efficient use of existing energy. The Government expects each authority to
contribute to meeting the targets and reducing overall demand for energy’.
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Support in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon the applicant
demonstrating that there are no significant adverse effects (individually or
cumulatively) on the surrounding landscape and historical features; on residential
amenity or on highway safety and on the basis that there are no other significant
Development Plan policy conflicts or unless there are other material considerations
that would warrant a departure from Development Plan policies.
LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
When considering landscape and visual impact, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also
Development Committee
16
23 August 2012
advice within 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 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’.
The application site is located on a 24ha arable field at Pond Farm, Bodham which is
bounded by hedging to the west and east and a wooded area to the south. The site
lies at an elevation of 90m AOD which is one of the highest points in the District.
At present there are a number of vertical masts within relatively close proximity to the
application site including a 65m high lattice tower immediately to the west of the
application site known as Cock Point Radio Mast (located at 98m AOD) and a lattice
telecommunications mast at Camp Farm approximately 35m high to the north of the
application site.
The site lies within the Tributary Farmland character type as defined in North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (Supplementary Planning Document) (June
2009). This landscape type extends across the middle section of the District and is
characterised by an open landscape with long uninterrupted views comprised of
predominantly arable land-use. Prominent features of this mainly pastoral landscape
are cited as telecom towers, larger isolated farmsteads and houses and churches.
The overall condition of this Type is assessed as Fair to Good with a Moderate
strength of character.
Bodham lies within the sub-area defined as TF3 incorporating Hempstead, Aylmerton
& Wickmere. The landscape character of this area is evaluated as being in a Fair to
Moderate condition with a Moderate strength of character. This is because the
majority of the landscape has been affected by commercial agricultural activity over
the past 50 years resulting in the removal of field boundaries which defined the
underlying structure of a relatively old landscape, pre-dating the Enclosure
movement of the C18th & C19th. Where this has not occurred, the impression of an
older landscape is prevalent and the character is therefore much stronger. Outlying
hamlets and farmsteads around Bodham are defined as such an area.
Development Committee
17
23 August 2012
According to the LCA, landscape area TF3 is moderately sensitive, depending on the
location within the area and the type of development proposed. It indicates that
‘Some parts may be suitable for small scale wind turbine siting taking care not to
place them so prominently that they are apparent for miles (i.e. near the Cromer
ridge)’.
Table 5.2 of the LCA, indicates that the open character and uninterrupted views
within the tributary farmland character type would suggest that the siting of wind
turbines within the more rural locations would be inappropriate. In respect of skyline it
is considered that wind turbines (and telecom masts) could have severe impacts in
certain areas.
The applicants have submitted a number or reports and documents to support their
proposal including the further submission of documents to assess, amongst other
things, impacts on landscape character. Consultation replies dated 17 Oct 2011 and
06 June 2012 from the Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape) are
attached in full at Appendix 4.
The Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) undertaken by the Landscape
Partnership in May 2012 supersedes the LVIA carried out by Genatec dated July
2011 and seeks to address concerns raised by Officers in relation to the earlier
submission. These earlier concerns are summarised below:
Lack of consistency in assessment methodology
Lack of objective assessment
Lack of consistent reference to the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment (June 2009) SPD
Need for additional viewpoint modelling to demonstrate winter views
Additional viewpoints to demonstrate impact on the A148 and the AONB
boundary and existing landmark features.
The Landscape Officer considers that the Landscape Partnership submission largely
addresses these issues and is based on a structured and reasoned methodology that
is used consistently across the assessment. However, the Landscape Officer has
commented that ‘LVIA, by its very nature inevitably has a degree of subjectivity in
making the value judgements against the criteria that are set’ and consequently there
are some areas of the submission where the Landscape Officer is of the opinion that
impacts have been somewhat ‘under-rated’.
The submitted Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment prepared by The Landscape
Partnership concludes that the landscape has the capacity to accommodate this
development without significant detriment to its character, to designated features
within the landscape and without significant detrimental change to visual receptors in
the vicinity.
Having considered this, the Landscape Officer is of the view that ‘the existing vertical
masts, together with the undulating landform and vegetation, have been used in
excess to diminish the effect of this proposal’.
The Landscape Officer goes on to comment that ‘the frequency of views of the
turbine that would occur in both the local and wider landscape would have a lasting
impact on the receptor, be they walkers, car users, residents, tourists, cyclists etc
and would significantly alter their perception of the landscape’.
Development Committee
18
23 August 2012
‘In addition the large scale of the single turbine would dilute the impact of the
churches in the landscape. As is typical of Norfolk, the church towers act as focal
points and their inter-visibility is an important feature of the landscape providing
strong visual links between settlements throughout the countryside. They are historic
landmark features which punctuate the skyline and are in keeping with the scale of
other elements making up the built form in this intimate pastoral landscape’.
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.’
Weighing up these factors and having due regard to the LCA, the Landscape Officer
is of the opinion that ‘the proposal, by virtue of its scale and nature and subsequent
visual impact, would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding landscape type Tributary Farmland (TF3). The proposal is contrary to the assessment of TF3 within
this document which concludes that ‘some parts of TF3 may be appropriate for smallscale wind turbines, taking care not to place them so prominently that they can be
seen for miles (i.e. near the Cromer ridge)’. A key characteristic of the Tributary
Farmland landscape type is an ‘Open character with uninterrupted views’. The
condition of this character element is concluded to be Good and the Sensitivity to
change assessed as Moderate to High. The siting of wind turbines within the more
rural locations as being inappropriate is specifically stated. The prominent skyline is
highlighted as another key characteristic of this landscape type due to the domed
plateau and expanses of open landscape. Sensitivity to change within this
characteristic is considered to be High and developments which affect or impinge on
the open skyline should be avoided’.
For the reasons stated above, the Landscape Officer is of the opinion that ‘this
proposal cannot be considered to protect or enhance the defined landscape
character and it would therefore be contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN2: Protection
& Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character which states that proposals
should be informed by, and sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas identified
in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment’ and the Landscape Officer
has suggested that the scheme be refused.
OTHER LANDSCAPE/ARBORICULTURAL IMPACTS
Other landscape impacts relate to the transportation of turbine components to site
which will, in some instances necessitate works to existing trees and hedgerow
including, in some locations, the felling of a tree and significant removal of hedgerow
to enable larger transportation vehicles to reach the site with turbine components
onboard. The applicant has set out the proposed route for the turbine components
which would arrive at site from the west on the A148 turning right onto Selbrigg Road
at High Kelling, continuing through Lower Bodham, turning right onto New Road and
continuing up New Road to the site entrance.
Following a request from Officers, the applicant submitted a further report entitled
‘Arboricultural Implications Assessment’, carried out by A.T Coombes Associates,
10th April 2012. The submitted report is, in the opinion of the Landscape Officer,
actually a Programme for Tree Works and does not contain the tree categorisation
element of a full AIA which would have been useful.
However, the Landscape Officer is of the opinion that the information provided is
sufficient to enable an assessment to be made of the amount and extent of tree and
Development Committee
19
23 August 2012
hedge clearance that would be required to facilitate the specific vehicular access to
the site that would be required.
The report indicates that 40 trees and tree groups require some crown pruning work.
One oak (no. 33) is to be felled and approximately 45m of mature hedgerow would
have to be removed. None of the trees have protected status.
The Landscape Officer is of the view that the main detrimental impact would be the
hedge removal on the corner of Rectory Road with New Road, which is in close
proximity to the site and provides mature screening for local residents. Apart from
this aspect, the Landscape Officer is of the opinion that the pruned vegetation would
recover quickly and therefore concludes that the amount of required clearance would
not have a permanent detrimental visual impact on the rural lanes and wider
landscape along the specified route.
Landscape mitigation proposals include a substantial amount of hedge planting and
hedgerow tree planting which is considered to be appropriate but the Landscape
Officer has commented that the Committee should note that any effective screening
afforded by this planting would not be realised for many years. In this regard the
Landscape Officer considers that the detrimental aspects of the proposal in terms of
wider visual impact of the turbine in the landscape cannot necessarily be made
acceptable in planning terms through mitigation planting.
SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
It is evident from the number of representations received that the surrounding
landscape is attractive and highly valued by local residents as open countryside. It is
inevitable given the scale and location of the turbine that it would be a prominent
feature in the landscape. The smooth lines of the turbine and somewhat utilitarian
appearance would create a degree of harm in this essentially rural location with its
smaller scale and more traditional forms of development which rely to a large extent
on local materials that are more easily absorbed by the natural vegetation.
The key policy test within CS Policy EN 7 is whether the proposal would have
‘significant adverse effects’ whilst CS Policy EN 2 suggests that development
proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will
protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance, amongst other things, the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.
The Landscape Officer has raised concerns that the visual impact of this large scale
single turbine would be sufficiently adverse on the surrounding landscape and
affected designated heritage assets as to warrant refusal of the application.
Having considered the above issues carefully, Officers are of the opinion that the
proposed turbine would undoubtedly result in adverse impacts to the surrounding
landscape and, in some locations, would result in significant change to the character
of the landscape and the way in which it would be understood by different receptors.
Whether these impacts are ‘significantly adverse’ in interpreting CS Policy EN 7 is a
matter of planning judgement for the Committee in relation to weighing the identified
impacts against the benefits of the proposal (see Summary section).
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB)
The Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is approximately
2.4km (1.5 miles) to the north of the proposed turbine site. CS Policy EN 1 (Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & the Broads) states:
Development Committee
20
23 August 2012
‘The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast
AONB... and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted
where it;
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.
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.
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’.
In respect of national guidance, Paragraph 115 of the Framework states:
‘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’.
The proposed turbine would be visible from a number of locations north of the A148
and within the AONB (including between High Kelling and Bodham, at the junction of
the A1082 (Sheringham) with the A148 and also from the Roman Camp).
A number of representations have raised concern about the potential adverse impact
on the AONB and clearly it is important that the Committee affords appropriate
weight to the importance of protecting nationally designated landscapes which have
the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
In respect of assessing the impact of wind turbines on such landscapes, the
Committee may be aware of an appeal decision from 1995 relating to application ref:
01 930648, which was a proposal for four turbines on land at Pond Farm, Bodham.
These turbines were proposed to have a hub height of 42m and a height to blade tip
of 66m. In considering the impact of that proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, the Planning Inspector considered:
‘…although the turbines would be visible from certain vantage points on the southern
boundary of the AONB, views from within the AONB would be screened by the
woodland along the Cromer Ridge and I do not consider that the natural beauty of
the landscape of that area would be significantly harmed by the appeal proposal’.
The Committee may also be aware of a more recent decision to refuse a proposal
for four wind turbines between the villages of Ormesby St Margaret and Hemsby
(Great Yarmouth Borough Council). The proposal was refused, dismissed at appeal
and the decision defended in the High Court. In that case the proposed turbines were
Development Committee
21
23 August 2012
not sited in the Broads National Park but impacted upon them such that, amongst
other things, it was considered that the benefits of the proposed turbine scheme did
not outweigh the material harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Objectors have cited this case as a potential reason to refuse the proposed turbine at
Bodham.
Whilst the High Court decision is clearly an important case in illustrating balancing of
the weight to be given to protecting nationally designated assets such as the AONB
and The Broads National Park (and its setting) against the weight to be given to
supporting renewable energy proposals that help meet national climate change
targets, it is important to assess each case on its merits.
In this case, consultation was undertaken with the Norfolk Coast Partnership who
manage the Norfolk Coast AONB. In their consultation response, the Norfolk Coast
Partnership recognised that the turbine would be screened from many coastal areas
of the AONB [due in part to the effect of the Cromer Ridge] and, having taken
account of the submitted viewpoints, have not raised objections to the proposal (A
copy of their full response is attached at Appendix 13).
However, some objectors consider the impact upon the setting of the AONB to be
significantly detrimental to the special character of the AONB. Officers are of the view
that there can be no doubt that the turbine would be readily visible from within
sections of the AONB including some locations immediately north of the A148 and
the impact could, in those areas, be considered adverse. However the Norfolk Coast
Partnership considers that the proposal would not necessarily detract from the
special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB as a whole and the proposal would be
broadly compliant with the requirements of CS Policy EN 1. Under the circumstances
it is considered that refusal based on significant adverse impact on the AONB would
be difficult to substantiate.
IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also 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’.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which specifically addresses the need
for conserving and enhancing the historic environment at paragraphs 126 – 141.
Paragraph 132 states:
‘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
Development Committee
22
23 August 2012
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’.
Taking account of the above policy advice it is therefore a matter of planning
judgement for the Committee as to whether or not the proposed turbine would result
in harm/adverse impacts to designated heritage assets, either individually or
cumulatively. However, notwithstanding the adverse impact threshold within CS
Policy EN 8, the threshold test in CS Policy EN 7 (which is supported by the
Framework) is whether or not the proposed turbine would have significant adverse
impacts on heritage assets or, using the Framework terminology, whether the
‘proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of
a designated heritage asset’.
The fact that modern high structures such as a turbine might be visible in the same
view as a listed building or scheduled ancient monument or would be seen from,
towards or across a conservation area does not necessarily make them
unacceptable. In considering whether a proposed development would lead to
substantial or less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage
asset, paragraphs 133 and 134 of the Framework, put simply, require the harm to be
weighed against any public benefits – the greater the negative impact the greater the
benefit required to justify approval.
There are many designated heritage assets within 5 km of the application site
including 3 scheduled ancient monuments, 79 listed buildings, 6 conservation areas
and 3 registered parks and gardens. In particular these include:




Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe Hall) - Scheduled Ancient
Monument, Grade I listed building (Castle), Grade II listed building (Hall)
Barningham Hall – Grade I listed, Grade II* listed (adjacent buildings), Historic
Parks and Gardens registered Grade II
St. Mary’s - Barningham Winter Church – Grade II* listed
All Saints Church – Bodham – Grade II* listed
Development Committee
23
23 August 2012






St. Peters Church – North Barningham – Grade II* listed
St Mary’s Church Baconsthorpe – Grade II* listed
St Nicholas – Plumstead – Grade II* listed
St. Marys Church – Bessingham – Grade II* listed
St. Helen & All Saints Church – West Beckham – Unlisted
All Saints Church (Site Of) – West Beckham – Grade II listed
In considering the impact on heritage assets, a number of consultations were
undertaken including with English Heritage (EH), Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Services (HES) and with the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (CDLM). Copies of consultation replies are attached in full at Appendices
6, 10 and 13.
Initial consultation replies suggested that the applicants needed to submit further
information to better explain the impact on heritage assets. A Heritage Environment
Report – Addendum was submitted on 11 May 2012 and consultee replies are based
on both the original and further submitted information.
In respect of the proposed turbine site in relation to below ground archaeology, HES
have commented that ‘the proposed development lies within a number of linear
cropmarks visible on aerial photography. The exact nature of these cropmarks is not
known, but the likelihood that they comprise nationally important heritage assets that
would preclude development on this site is very small. On that basis, while a
programme of archaeological works will be necessary should planning permission be
granted, it can be secured by planning conditions, in accordance with paragraph 141
of the NPPF’.
In response to this it is considered that, subject to confirmation via a programme of
archaeological works, the siting of the proposed turbine would not be likely to impact
directly on any designated heritage assets with any potential impacts therefore likely
to be limited to the setting of heritage assets. The Framework 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 Framework 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 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.
Development Committee
24
23 August 2012
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 Framework.
Turning now to specific heritage assets:
Baconsthorpe Castle – EH consider it to be a highly significant archaeological site
and ruined manor house site within a setting that is quiet and rural in character and
which is popular with visitors and noted for its peaceful and tranquil setting. EH refer
to the definition of setting within the Framework which can be defined as ‘the
surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced’ and consider that the rural
location and landscape context must therefore be considered as a factor in the sites
significance and an important part of its setting. EH have raised concerns about the
location of the turbine in relation to Baconsthorpe Castle and consider that the
circular motion of the turbine coupled with the visibility of the turbine during visitors
journey around the site from a number of locations both within and outside of the
castle site will result in harm to the setting of Baconsthorpe Castle.
HES also identify that Baconsthorpe Castle sits within a valley that is very rural in
character, and its setting is very rural in nature. HES consider that the addition of a
turbine overlooking the castle from the east will alter this setting. While the effect of
the presence of the turbine will be masked from the castle by trees, HES consider
that the turbine will be very visible in three locations: by the entrance (overshadowing
the former pleasure gardens), along the north wall (looking east) and looking at the
castle from west of the site. HES consider that the impact of the turbine would be to
damage significantly the setting of the perimeter of the heritage asset, constituting a
change to the general character of the asset, and to reduce the prominence of the
castle in the landscape.
In considering the effect upon the setting and backcloth to Baconsthorpe Castle, the
CDLM is of the opinion that the proposed turbine would be so prominent that it would
dominate and ‘belittle’ the setting of a number of heritage assets (including
Baconsthorpe Castle) and their role in the landscape.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, there is consensus that the
turbine would have adverse impacts on Baconsthorpe Castle in various locations
around the castle site. However it is considered that, having regard to the guidance
within the Framework (paragraphs 133 and 134), there may be some difficulty for the
Committee in justifying refusal solely on the grounds of substantial harm to the
setting of Baconsthorpe Castle, particularly in view of the distance from the asset and
relatively temporary nature of the proposed wind turbine (25 years duration).
Ultimately it is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee to determine whether
the benefits of the proposal outweigh any identified impacts on this asset.
Barningham Hall – EH comment that ‘Images submitted in support of the application
suggest that the proposed turbine will be visible on the skyline in views from and
around the grade I listed Barningham Hall. The Hall's parkland setting is the product
of multiple phases of development, but it is perhaps the landscape design of
Humphry and John Adey Repton that has left the strongest mark on the immediate
surroundings of the building. Repton's own illustrations indicate how the main
southern approach to the building was adapted to create the current experience of
approaching the building. The west front of Barningham Hall is a powerful
architectural composition and although the formal gardens that may have been
Development Committee
25
23 August 2012
planted on the 17th century have been removed, the Reptons' avenue of trees
leading to the west entrance brings focus and formality. The grand entrance porch on
the west facade also commands views over the avenue’. EH are perhaps less clear
as to the stated impact on the setting of Barningham Hall and whilst they indicate
that, due to the motion of the turbine blades, the turbine will be more noticeable than
a static object of similar size and they consider it to be an alien and distracting
feature in the landscape, they also acknowledge that due to the scale and distance,
the turbine is unlikely to dominate.
HES comment that ‘the turbine will be visible from both Barningham Hall and
Barningham Park, including as one approaches the Hall from the south (a key view of
the Hall, illustrated by Repton). However, the turbine is not directly adjacent to the
house in this view, and hence while there will be harm to the setting of the Hall, it is
less than substantial. Similarly with the park, the main focus is on the east - west
avenue. The park itself was, in all probability, designed to be enjoyed at all points,
rather than as a series of key vistas. The presence of the avenue draws the eye
along an east-west axis. Hence while there will be harm to the setting of the park, it is
considered to be less than substantial’.
CDLM has ‘considered the impact of the propose development on the setting of
Barningham Hall and its grounds but consider that it is not substantial. This is
because of the undulating nature of the landscape and the grounds to the Hall and
the fact that views of the Hall from the proposed site of the turbine are not the key
consideration in this case. For this to be a major concern the turbine would need to
located to be in a ‘juxta-position’ between an obvious viewing point and the Hall or
seen prominently behind or in front of the Hall’.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, whilst there may be some
adverse impacts on Barningham Hall, these impacts are generally considered by
consultees to be less than substantial.
However the Committee will be aware, having visited the site, that the existing Cock
Point Radio mast is visible from within the registered historic parkland setting of
Barningham Hall and the presence of the mast undoubtedly has an adverse impact
on the setting of the parkland, which is generally unspoilt in character. Officers
consider that the proposed turbine would also be visible from within the registered
historic parkland setting, particularly as a result of the rotational movement of the
turbine and this harm/impact has to be taken into consideration.
The owners of Barningham Hall have expressed concern at the impact of the turbine,
particularly on the landscape setting of the hall, a landscape which was designed by
Humphrey and John Adey Repton in the early 19th century. The degree of
harm/impact that the turbine would have on the historic parkland setting is largely
dependent on the relationship between the receptor and how the introduction of a
modern vertical object such as a turbine would impact upon the way in which the
parkland and hall are viewed together. The degree of harm/impact will also be
dependent upon the time of year and whether the deciduous trees are in leaf.
Officers consider that it is when approaching Barningham Hall from the south via the
Matlaske approach that the impact of the turbine is likely to be at its greatest. The
initial sweep of the drive takes one away from the Hall and, where the land is at its
highest, the existing Cock Point mast is visible at the centre of the view above trees
within the parkland and beyond. At this point a glimpse view of the Hall is also
possible to the right through trees. Officers consider that the turbine would be less
prominent at this particular point until such time as the driveway bends round to the
house and the full ‘burst’ view of the Hall takes place. However, Officers consider that
Development Committee
26
23 August 2012
the sweep of the driveway steers the viewer to some extent away from the direction
of the proposed turbine and existing mast and the ‘burst’ view of the Hall is framed by
a mature pair of sycamore trees and a clump of trees a view which is understood to
have been planned by Repton.
Whilst Officers consider that a turbine would undoubtedly have an impact on the
historic parkland setting of Barningham Hall, and would be visible in various locations
within the park, given its distance from the historic asset and the wooded nature of
the landscape causing glimpsed views, refusal of the application solely on the
grounds of substantial harm to the Grade II registered parkland of Barningham Hall
could not be justified. Ultimately however it is a matter of planning judgment for the
Committee to determine whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh any identified
impacts on this asset.
St. Mary’s - Barningham Winter Church - EH comment that ‘the proposed turbine
will also be visible from the partially ruined church of St Mary, Barningham Winter.
This medieval building was largely disused by the 18th century, but formed part of
the Reptons consideration of the Barningham landscape design and was partly
rebuilt shortly after the period of their activity at the site. Submitted images suggest
that the proposed turbine will be visible on the horizon to the north of the church. In
some views of the building the structure itself will obscure the turbine, but in others it
will be flanked by it. The scale of the turbine is not sufficient to dominate the building,
but the motion of the blades will make it more noticeable than a static structure of a
similar size. The fact that the turbine will be visible through the preserved north door
of the former nave is particularly unfortunate. This church, preserved as a partial ruin,
was a conscious addition to the landscape and the doorway appears to have been
retained to create a view terminating at the horizon. The presence of the turbine in
that view will significantly change this view’.
HES have commented that ‘the main impact of the turbine on St Mary's Church,
Barningham Winter is illustrated in Photomontage No. 39. The view from the north
door of the church is a planned view, and one of the key views envisaged by
Humphrey Repton (evidenced by a number of illustrations drawn by Repton, and the
maintenance of the south porch drawing the viewer to the north door). Whilst the
presence of the turbine will harm this view, it is a partial view, away from the central
axis of the planned vista, in a portion of the view already compromised by a line of
telegraph poles, and so the impact on the setting is considered to be less than
substantial’.
CDLM has not commented specifically in respect of Barningham Winter church.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, whilst there may be some
adverse impacts on St. Marys Barningham Winter church, these are generally
considered by consultees to be less than substantial in terms of impact. Ultimately it
is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee to determine whether the benefits
of the proposal outweigh any identified impacts on this asset.
All Saints Church – Bodham – EH have commented that ‘the applicant has
submitted further images to illustrate the visual impact…on the parish church at
Bodham. It is perhaps more challenging to illustrate the impact on parish churches as
unlike designed landscapes or some 'polite' architecture they are not commonly
designed to be seen in formal, considered views. Their presence in the landscape
should be considered in the round and both from close and distant viewpoints. I am
therefore unsure that the information provided really does allow a full appreciation of
the turbine's visual impact on the significance of the setting. However, the images do
Development Committee
27
23 August 2012
give an indication of the likely scale of the turbine in relation to the church and
particularly to the presence of the tower in the landscape. It seems unlikely that the
turbine will dominate the building and wholly supplant it as a prominent landscape
feature, but it will appear as being close to the tower in views across open
countryside.
In the case of Bodham earlier images also suggest how the turbine will be visible
from the churchyards. This will have a disturbing effect on these peaceful historic
places. In both general landscape views and views from the churches, the images
suggest there will be a harmful impact on the qualities of the setting that contribute to
the churches' significance’.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the understanding of Officers that the reference by
EH to a ‘disturbing’ effect is in relation to the visible rotational movement of the
turbine blades and not in terms of noise impact on the church yard. Committee will
note that there are no associated adverse noise impacts at this distance from the
turbine.
HES have commented that ‘The view from within the churchyard of All Saint's Church
towards the turbine includes modern housing and telegraph poles. The addition of a
turbine to this view would not cause substantial harm to the setting of the church. As
with St. Peter's Church, the impact of the turbine on the setting of the church within
the wider landscape is more marked, and views of the church from the west and
north-west will be dominated by the turbine, thereby damaging the setting of the
church, and hence its significance. Whilst there is an existing telecommunications
mast close to the turbine, that is a stationary, latticework structure, and much less
likely to catch the eye’.
When considering the impact upon the backcloth to All Saints’ Church, Bodham
(when viewed from the west and Manor House, Bodham) the CDLM is of the opinion
that ‘the proposed turbine would be so prominent that it would dominate and ‘belittle’
the setting of heritage assets [including Bodham Church] and their role in the
landscape. The effect upon the ‘historic landscape’ is a further concern. Such is the
size and scale of the proposed turbine it would be entirely out of scale. At present the
landscape is punctuated by churches and castles and agricultural buildings. The
turbine would dominate the intimate and vernacular scale of built form in this
landscape’.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, whilst there would be some
adverse impacts on All Saints Church and there is conflicting opinion as to the
significance of that impact, on balance officers consider the harm to this asset to be
less than substantial, particularly given that the greatest visual impact is restricted to
a small number of locations. It is therefore a matter of planning judgment for the
Committee to determine whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh any identified
adverse impacts on this asset.
St. Peters Church – North Barningham – EH comment only to state that ‘it should
be noted that images provided indicate there will be general change to the landscape
settings of other historic parish churches in the area, particularly North Barningham
[and Bessingham]’.
HES comment that ‘the turbine is unlikely to be visible from the churchyard as the
church is largely surrounded by vegetation. However, the turbine will dominate the
view of the church from the south, as illustrated in Photomontage No. 46. The
significance of the church lies not only in its fabric and monuments, but also as a
potential marker for former settlement, either as the location of a deserted or shifted
Development Committee
28
23 August 2012
settlement, or as the focus of a dispersed settlement. Moving the focus of views such
as that illustrated in Photomontage No. 46 will therefore reduce the primacy of the
church in the landscape, thereby damaging its significance. In this instance, even at
the distance illustrated in Photomontage No. 46, the turbine will be more than twice
the height of the church tower. The size of the turbine, together with the motion of the
blades will dominate the scene, and significantly affect the setting of the church,
damaging its significance.
When considering the affect upon the setting of St Peter’s Church, North Barningham
(viewed from the south & south west along the lane running to Bessingham) the
CDLM is of the view that ‘the proposed turbine would be so prominent that it would
dominate and ‘belittle’ the setting of heritage assets [including St Peter’s Church] and
their role in the landscape. The effect upon the ‘historic landscape’ is a further
concern. Such is the size and scale of the proposed turbine it would be entirely out
of scale. At present the landscape is punctuated by churches and castles and
agricultural buildings. The turbine would dominate the intimate and vernacular scale
of built form in this landscape’.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, it is considered that the view
of St Peter’s church from the south east at certain locations along the approach road
to/from Bessingham would be dominated by the proposed turbine and this would
have an adverse impact upon the setting of the church (some consultees consider
this impact to be substantially harmful). However, it is necessary to consider the
setting of the church and the fact that elements of its setting may make a positive or
negative contribution to the significance of the asset. In this instance the existing tree
cover around the church and surrounding landscape already diminishes the sense of
height of the church from some directions and, although the turbine would be seen to
be much taller than the church, this has to be balanced against the limited number of
locations where the interrelation between the church and the turbine are visible.
Officers are therefore of the opinion that, whilst there would be some adverse
impacts on St Peter’s Church these impacts are considered to constitute less than
substantial harm. It is therefore a matter of planning judgment for the Committee to
determine whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm to the setting of
the church and its role in the wider landscape.
St. Marys Church – Bessingham - EH comment only to state that ‘it should be
noted that images provided indicate there will be general change to the landscape
settings of other historic parish churches in the area, particularly [North Barningham]
and Bessingham’.
HES and CDLM have made no specific comment in respect of this asset.
Officers are of the opinion that there would be some adverse impacts on Bessingham
Church although these impacts are considered to be less than substantial. It is
therefore a matter of planning judgment for the Committee to determine whether the
benefits of the proposal outweigh any identified impacts on this asset.
St Mary’s Church Baconsthorpe – EH have commented ;In the case of
Baconsthorpe [church] earlier images also suggest how the turbine will be visible
from the churchyards. This will have a disturbing effect on these peaceful historic
places. In both general landscape views and views from the churches, the images
suggest there will be a harmful impact on the qualities of the setting that contribute to
the churches' significance’.
Development Committee
29
23 August 2012
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the understanding of Officers that the reference by
EH to a ‘disturbing’ effect is in relation to the visible rotational movement of the
turbine blades and not in terms of noise impact on the church yard. Committee will
note that there are no associated adverse noise impacts at this distance from the
turbine.
HES and CDLM have made no specific comment in respect of this asset.
Officers are of the opinion that there would be some adverse impacts on
Baconsthorpe Church although these impacts are considered to be less than
substantial. It is therefore a matter of planning judgment for the Committee to
determine whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh any identified impacts on
this asset.
St. Helens & All Saints Church – West Beckham, All Saints Church (Site Of) –
West Beckham and St Nicholas – Plumstead – Officers are of the opinion that
there would be some adverse impacts on these assets although the impacts are
considered to be less than substantial. It is therefore a matter of planning judgment
for the Committee to determine whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh any
identified impacts on this asset.
Other Heritage Assets - Felbrigg Hall – Officers do not consider that the proposed
turbine would have any adverse impact on the setting of Felbrigg Hall. It is
considered that the proposed turbine would be barely perceptible given the
separation distance of 5km+ and the existence of significant tree cover around the
extent of the boundaries of that asset provide further screening such that clear views
of the turbine would be unlikely and certainly would not occur within the main axis of
views from the main building and grounds.
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
Having considered the advice from English Heritage, County Council Historic
Environment Services and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and
having taken account of other material considerations it is considered that the
proposal would result in adverse impacts to a number of designated historic assets,
some of which are of the highest designated category including Baconsthorpe Castle
and Barningham Hall. In considering impact, the Committee also needs to take into
consideration the cumulative impact on heritage assets
Whether or not the proposed turbine would result in substantial harm to the
significance of designated heritage assets, individually or cumulatively, as has been
suggested by some consultees, is certainly a matter to which the Committee will
need to give very careful consideration.
The key policy tests when considering whether proposed development would lead to
substantial or less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage
asset are set out within paragraphs 133 and 134 of the Framework which, put simply,
require the harm to be weighed against any public benefits – the greater the negative
impact the greater the benefit required to justify approval.
In summary it is considered that the proposal would undoubtedly result in harm to
designated heritage assets, including Baconsthorpe Castle, All Saints Church
Bodham, St Peters Church North Barningham and Barningham Hall. Individually this
harm may be less than substantial to the significance of these identified designated
heritage assets. However, cumulatively the impacts would be greater and it is a
Development Committee
30
23 August 2012
matter of planning judgement for the Committee to weigh the identified harm against
the public benefits of the proposal (see Summary section below).
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The turbine would be sited in a predominantly rural area. There are no properties
within 500m of the turbine but 17 properties within approximately 1km, two of which
are within the control of the applicant.
The closest residential properties are located immediately north of the turbine
including (as the crow flies):
‘The Pylons’ at approximately 550m;
‘Greenacres House’ at approximately 635m;
‘The Paddocks’ at approximately 640m;
‘Camp Farm House’ at approximately 640m;
1 and 2 Camp Farm at approximately 650m; and
‘Highland Farm’ at approximately 770m (under the control of the applicant).
To the east are properties including:
‘Beckham Palace’ at approximately 790m,
‘Red Barn Cottage’ at approximately 910m; and
‘Red Barn’ and ‘Blue Bell Barn’ at approximately 950m.
To the south are properties including:
‘Willow Glen’ at approximately 940m,
‘Upwood Cottage’ at approximately 970m; and
‘Upwood Lodge’ at approximately 980m.
To the west are properties including:
‘Pond Farm’ at approximately 670m (under the control of the applicant);
‘The Cottage’ at approximately 1,010m; and
‘Mill Pightle’ at approximately 1,030m.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY – VISUAL INTRUSION
At present there are a number of vertical masts within relatively close proximity to the
application site including a 65m high lattice tower immediately to the west of the
application site known as Cock Point Radio Mast (located at 98m AOD) and a lattice
telecommunications mast at Camp Farm approximately 35m high to the north of the
application site (located at approximately 94m AOD).
Notwithstanding the presence of the existing masts, the addition of a wind turbine
with a hub height of 60m and a height to blade tip of 86.5m would be clearly visible to
a number of immediate residents and its height would be likely to be ‘read’ against
the existing mast structures. Notwithstanding the fact that the Cock Point Radio Mast
sits on higher land at 98m AOD compared with 90m AOD for the proposed turbine,
residents to the east of the turbine including residents at ‘Beckham Palace’, ‘Red
Barn Cottage’, ‘Red Barn’ and ‘Blue Bell Barn’ would read the height of the proposed
turbine as being considerably taller than the existing Cock Point Radio Mast as a
result of perspective. In addition the prevailing winds would be likely to present a
significant proportion of the turbine blades to the closest residents to the north and
east along with the associated visual impact of rotating blades.
The closest residential property ‘The Pylons’ is a single storey building and has a
boundary of mature leylandii trees which would be likely to screen the majority of the
turbine from view. However the turbine would be clearly and fully visible from
windows in the south elevation of 1 and 2 Camp Farm and also from windows in the
Development Committee
31
23 August 2012
west elevation of ‘Red Barn Cottage’. Many of the other properties in the immediate
vicinity would also see the turbine but this view would, in many cases, be
interspersed by existing trees or would comprise a partial view of the turbine.
Whilst the turbine would be clearly visible to many local residents as a tall structure in
the landscape and could interrupt existing views, it is considered that the proposal
would not result in significant overbearing impacts, particularly given the general
distances from the turbine base to residential properties, the closest resident being
approximately 550m away.
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 not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable
Energy) but 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 Framework 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 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 continues to
provide guidance.
PPS22 confirmed at paragraph 22 that the ETSU-R-97 report – ‘The assessment and
rating of noise from windfarms’ ETSU for the DTI (1996) (ETSU) should be used to
assess and rate noise from wind energy development and this is repeated both at
paragraph 39 of the Technical Annex to the extant PPS22 Companion Guide and at
Paragraph 2.7.56 of the current National Policy Statement EN-3. Whilst 15 years old,
ETSU-R-97 nonetheless 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:
Development Committee
32
23 August 2012
o
o
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.
The applicant has submitted various reports in relation to noise including an
addendum report following discussions with the Environmental Protection Officer,
who had raised some initial concerns about the original noise report submission. A
copy of the Environmental Protection Officer comments are available at Appendix 5.
Whilst a number of residents have raised concerns about noise impacts and the
validity of using ETSU, together with concerns about its effectiveness as way of
minimising noise impacts in relation to larger wind turbines, 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. As such,
given that the Environmental Protection Officer has now confirmed, subject to the
imposition of conditions, that the proposal complies with the requirements of ETSU,
refusal on noise grounds would be very difficult to substantiate. Officers therefore
consider that, in light of compliance with ETSU and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered to comply 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
Guidance with the Practice Guidance to PPS22 – Planning for Renewable Energy
A Companion Guide to PPS22 states:
‘Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may
pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring
properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known
as ‘shadow flicker’. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a
narrow window opening. The seasonal duration of this effect can be calculated from
the geometry of the machine and the latitude of the site….Only properties within 130
degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes
in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side…. Shadow
flicker can be mitigated by siting wind turbines at sufficient distance from residences
likely to be affected. Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor
diameters of a turbine’.
The proposed Bodham turbine would have a maximum rotor diameter of 53m (based
on an Enercon E-53 turbine) and therefore, using the guidance within the PPS22
Companion Guide, only properties within 530m (10 x 53m) of the turbine and within
130 degrees either side of north would be likely to be affected. The closest property
is ‘The Pylons’ at approximately 550m due north and, even if the land did not feature
any existing trees or hedgerows, the turbine would be unlikely to result in adverse
impacts from shadow flicker due to the separation distance. In this case, ‘The Pylons’
has a southern boundary of mature leylandii trees which would be likely to screen the
majority of the turbine from view and therefore it would be the leylandii hedge rather
than the turbine blades which would be more likely to shade the property. Even if the
leylandii hedge were to be removed at some point in the future, it is not considered
that shadow flicker would occur given the maximum size of turbine proposed.
A Public Right of Way (Footpath No.9) runs to the east of the turbine and it is
therefore possible that small sections of this footpath could fall within the shadow
Development Committee
33
23 August 2012
flicker area of the turbine blades under certain conditions. However the footpath
contains a number of trees and hedges which could shadow the footpath at the same
time that shadow flicker could occur from the turbine. Given that shadow flicker
affecting the public right of way would occur infrequently and users could pass along
the footpath through the shadow flicker area relatively quickly, it is not considered
that the impact of shadow flicker on the public footpath would constitute sufficient
grounds for refusal.
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
Guidance with the Practice Guidance to PPS22 – Planning for Renewable Energy
A Companion Guide to PPS22 states:
‘Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions in two ways: by
blocking or deflecting line of sight radio or microwave links, or by the ‘scattering’ of
transmission signals.
There are a plethora of line of sight radio and microwave signals throughout England,
including radio and TV links to local transmitters (Rebroadcast Links or RBLs),
telecommunication links and police and emergency service links. Generally, turbine
siting can mitigate any potential impacts, as the separation distance required to avoid
problems is generally a matter of a few hundred metres. In some cases, it may be
possible to effectively re-route the signal around the development, at the developer’s
expense, to overcome the problem.
Scattering of signal mainly affects domestic TV and radio reception, and the general
public may be concerned that a wind farm will interfere with these services.
Experience has shown that when this occurs it is of a predictable nature and can
generally be alleviated by the installation or modification of a local repeater station or
cable connection’.
In considering the impact of the turbine of television reception, the BBC ‘Windfarm
Tool’ has been used. Using grid references TG139382 and TG140382, the windfarm
tool predicted that a turbine in either of these locations would not be likely to affect
any homes for whom there is no alternative off-air service but could affect between
754 and 826 homes for whom there may be an alternative off-air service. The
transmitters likely to be affected are: West Runton, Belmont CH5, Belmont and
Tacolneston. Clearly this is a rough estimate of impact and it is understood that the
Windfarm tool assessment of impact relates to the analogue signal only. 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.
Development Committee
34
23 August 2012
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 OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION
In respect of the impact of the proposed turbine on fixed link operators, the applicant
identified, via Ofcom, the operators within 500m of the proposed turbine as of 03
December 2009. The applicant has contacted those operators to identify whether
there would be likely to be any adverse impacts. Responses received at that time
suggest no significant impacts on operations including Orange Pcs, Norfolk
Constabulary (6 links), and MLL Telecom Ltd. In the case of Anglian Water, whilst
impacts have been identified, Anglian Water have confirmed that the impacts could
be mitigated by using the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), the cost of
mitigation being borne by the applicant.
In view of the passage of time, an update on the fixed link operators was requested
from Ofcom on 01 August 2012. The response indicates that the number of fixed
links has reduced from nine to seven compared with Dec 2009, although the
operators are broadly the same except for Orange PCs which has changed its name
to Everything Everywhere Ltd. Officers therefore consider that the impact on fixed
link operators is acceptable and, where impacts are likely to occur, can be suitably
mitigated.
The applicant has also submitted a report by the Joint Radio Company (JRC) dated
Feb 2011 in relation to the radio infrastructure of National Grid (Gas). The report
concluded that the ‘proposal [is] not predicted to reduce the level of availability of
National Grid Gas' radio infrastructure in the area below that required for this class of
service. It is considered that the influence of wind turbines on UHF telemetry and
microwave links is sufficiently well understood to have confidence in the predicted
effects’. Although the JRC document has been marked as confidential by the report’s
author and therefore has not been made available for public inspection which is
unfortunate, Officers nonetheless consider that the report sufficiently demonstrates
no significant adverse impacts on National Grid Gas radio infrastructure.
During the application determination period, further correspondence has been
received from Norfolk Constabulary who, it is understood currently own and manage
the Cock Point Radio Mast. Whilst Norfolk Constabulary had not previously raised
objections to the proposal, they have more recently indicated that they have been
approached by two organisations potentially wishing to share the Cock Point Radio
Mast for other services as it is one of the very few large masts remaining on the
North Norfolk coast. Norfolk Constabulary has indicated that one operator is wishing
to use the mast to provide Rural Broadband access in the 5Ghz spectrum (partially
under a rural broadband initiative) and other operator wishes to use the mast for long
haul microwave communications out to gas platforms off the coast (apparently to
avoid offshore wind farms which have affected some of the existing link corridors).
Norfolk Constabulary has indicated that the rural Broadband access would consist of
an omni-directional deployment to cover around the mast and would be detrimented
Development Committee
35
23 August 2012
by a large structure close by such as a wind turbine. The offshore links could also be
adversely affected depending upon the direction of the links in relation to the
proposed turbine. Norfolk Constabulary are therefore now opposed to the wind
turbine.
Officers consider that the Committee is entitled to afford some weight to the concerns
expressed by Norfolk Constabulary, although the concerns expressed relate to the
possible future use of the adjacent mast rather than the current use. There is no
certainty that the Cock Point Radio Mast would be used to provide rural broadband
services or long haul microwave communications but, based on the evidence
available, approval of the turbine is likely to diminish the range of alternative uses for
the mast in the future. The provision of rural broadband services is likely to become a
critical factor in, amongst other things, the facilitation of job creation in rural areas
and therefore careful consideration needs to be given by the Committee to potential
adverse impacts on provision of rural broadband services when weighing the harm
resulting from the proposed turbine against any public benefits.
IMPACT ON OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION – OVERALL
CONCLUSIONS
It is considered that the proposed turbine would not be likely to result in significant
adverse impacts on existing telecommunication links.
Whilst some concern has been raised about the potential adverse impact on Cock
Point Radio Mast for future alternative uses including rural broadband provision and
whilst Officers understand that discussions between the mast owners and interested
parties are, in the case of rural broadband provision, at a relatively advanced stage,
the provision of these services from the Cock Point mast is not necessarily
guaranteed nor is the mast safeguarded under Development Plan policies for such a
use. It is clearly a matter of planning judgement for the Committee as to what weight
to afford to this issue but there is a need, amongst other things, to balance those
impacts against the public benefits associated with the proposal.
IMPACT ON WILDLIFE/ECOLOGY
When considering the impact on wildlife/ecology, Committee are advised to take
account of advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also Policy
EN 9 (Biodiversity and Geology) which states:
‘All development proposals should:
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 Committee
36
23 August 2012
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 Framework) which specifically addresses the need
for conserving and enhancing the natural environment at paragraphs 109 – 125.
Paragraph 109 of the Framework 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.
In support of their proposal the applicants have submitted a number of ecology
reports including an extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, Bat Activity Survey, Great
Crested Newt Assessment and Ornithology Report.
Consultations were undertaken with statutory consultees and full copies are attached
at Appendix 12.
Natural England (NE) is generally satisfied with the ecological surveys and
assessment of impacts that has been undertaken for this proposal, particularly
concerning bats and birds. NE welcome the proposal for post-construction monitoring
as proposed in the Environmental Report and advise that this should be conditioned
if planning permission is granted. However, NE note that the surveys for great
crested newts used only a limited number of methods and were undertaken at suboptimal times of the year.
NE consider that the assessment of the potential landscape impacts of this
application upon the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
appears to be robust and does not raise any significant concerns. NE welcome
proposals in Appendix 3 - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment regarding
mitigation and environmental enhancement to the local landscape.
Development Committee
37
23 August 2012
The Landscape Officer comments of the 17 Oct 2011 are attached at Appendix 4. In
summary the Landscape Officer considers that the submitted Ecology report has
followed accepted methodologies and adequately considered all potential impacts on
local ecology that may be incurred as a result of this development. In this regard the
Landscape Officer considers that the Local Planning Authority has paid due regard to
its duties under the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 and this
element of the submitted application is therefore deemed to be compliant with Core
Strategy Policy EN9.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) were consulted on 11 August
2011 but no response has been received.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, in respect of impact on wildlife
and ecology it is considered that the proposal would accord with Development Plan
policy and the wider aims of the Framework.
IMPACT ON AVIATION
Consultations have been undertaken with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), National
Air Traffic Services (NATS En Route) and Norwich Airport. Subject to the imposition
of conditions, including the provision of aviation lighting, it is considered that the
proposed turbine would not give rise to safeguarding concerns nor would it cause
interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. 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 on the A148 turning right onto Selbrigg Road at
High Kelling, continuing through Lower Bodham, turning right onto New Road and
continuing up New Road to the site entrance. Having considered the proposed route,
subject to the imposition of conditions including conditions relating to construction
traffic management, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal.
The Highway Authority has indicated that if permission is granted then consideration
needs to be given to the fact that the requirement to facilitate free passage a long the
public highway would overrule any Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) protecting
overhanging branches. Committee will be aware that the Landscape Officer has
taken the advice of the Highway Authority into consideration, no trees to be pruned
are subject of TPO and the Landscape Officer is of the opinion that the pruned
vegetation will recover quickly and therefore concludes that the amount of required
clearance would not have a permanent detrimental visual impact on the rural lanes
and wider landscape along the specified route.
In order to ensure the turbines do not pose a distraction to highway users, the
associated road network was reviewed by the Highway Authority, with attention being
paid to the complexity of junctions, traffic flows and the possible presence of short
headways between vehicles. The Highway Authority has not raised any objection on
this point.
In respect of the impact of the proposed turbine on Public Rights of Way (PROW),
the closest footpath (Bodham Footpath No.9) runs to the east of the turbine
approximately 45 m away between ‘The Pylons’ and North Barningham. The
Ramblers Association have commented that ‘Although the blades of the turbines will
not be passing over the footpath, the path will be within the fall-over distance of 86m.
This must certainly give the public using the path some pause for thought especially
in high wind conditions. Even in benign conditions the presence of the tower and
Development Committee
38
23 August 2012
turbine will be quite overwhelming. One’s head would be well tilted back to look at the
top of the blades.’
Whilst the Committee will note the comments of the Ramblers Association, the
likelihood of the turbine falling over or a blade shearing off is understood to be very
low and, in any event, turbines have to conform to set performance standards to
cope with extremes of weather. In such extreme weather conditions it is not only
man-made objects that could be affected but also trees, many of which are large in
size and are sited along designated footpath routes. Whilst the safety of members of
the public is clearly paramount, Officers consider that refusal on grounds of the
overbearing impact of the turbine on the adjacent footpath No,9 or the potential for
turbine failure to affect the footpath could not be substantiated or justified. It is
understood that the footpath would remain open throughout the construction phase
unless of course health and safety requirements dictate otherwise and the proposal
would not therefore have a significant adverse impact on public rights of way.
In respect of matters relating to highway safety and public rights of way, 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. In addition it has been suggested that the addition of the turbine
in the landscape would significantly reduce the possibility of the area around the
North Norfolk coast being used by the Film and Television industry particularly for
historical works where an unspoilt landscape backcloth may be required. It has been
suggested that this could also have an adverse impact on the local economy.
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 or to prevent the film and
television industry choosing this location in the future would be very difficult to
substantiate without hard evidence. Officers have not been made aware of any
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. In
respect of the impact on the wider tourism offer and the image of North Norfolk as an
unspoilt area are difficult to gauge. In respect of the film and television industry,
clearly the addition of a turbine in the landscape could impact upon the authenticity of
recreating a landscape in past times but it is understood that, since the advent of
Computer Generated Imagery (CGI), such issues no longer present the same sort of
challenges. In considering the impact on tourism and the film and television industry,
without firm evidence to substantiate a significant adverse impact, officers would
advise against refusal on those grounds.
GRID CONNECTION
The applicants have indicated that the proposed turbine would be connected to the
electricity grid via an existing 11KV Overhead power line known as Back Barn which
runs from the West Beckham primary substation and which crosses the application
site approximately 100m from the base of the proposed turbine. The applicants have
been in discussion with the electricity network operator regarding the details of the
connection and it is understood that, subject to certain works being agreed with UK
Power Networks, there are no grid connection issues which would give rise
unacceptable adverse planning impacts.
Development Committee
39
23 August 2012
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 Framework 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 has
submitted a document titled Pond Farm Energy Production Report (17/07/2012
Revision), which has been forwarded to the Council’s Sustainability Team (See copy
at Appendix 14).
The Pond Farm Energy Production Report sets out the applicant’s understanding of
the likely electrical energy to be generated by a wind turbine of the height proposed.
The applicant has indicated that the proposed wind turbine site and its immediate
surroundings are one of the most elevated locations within North Norfolk. Its
elevation and coastal proximity make it most suitable for generating electricity from
the wind with a mean wind speed of 8.03 m/s at hub height (60m). The University of
East Anglia (UEA) Climatic Research Unit used the telecommunications mast
situated 700m north of the proposed wind turbine site to record wind data for over
two and a half years and based on that wind speed data the wind turbine
manufacturers have advised the applicant that the turbine would generate
approximately 2,900,593 kWh of electricity each year. To put that figure into context,
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) the
proposed wind turbine would generate enough electricity to supply approximately 665
average homes (or a significant proportion of all the housing stock within the
surrounding Parishes of Bodham, Baconsthorpe, Gresham, Matlaske and West
Beckham (707 houses)).
The Sustainability Team have considered the application in relation to CS Policy EN
7 and support the proposal, which will deliver a significant contribution to the supply
of renewable energy in the District (approximately 1.53% of all North Norfolk’s
domestic electricity demand). The Sustainability Team agree with the methodology
used to predict number of households that could be supplied by the turbine, but
would like to note that the electricity generated will be fed straight into the national
grid, rather than any local grid supply network.
OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Whilst the proposed turbine would be owned by the applicant (Genatec Ltd) and
would not therefore be classed as a Community owned proposal, the applicant has
indicated that, if planning permission is granted, financial contributions would be
made to local community groups throughout the 25 year lifetime of the development.
In February 2011, the trade body for renewable energy (RenewableUK) issued a
press release which set out details of the industry's Protocol on payments from wind
farms to community benefit funds. The Protocol specifies a £1,000 minimum payment
per year per megawatt of installed wind power during the lifetime of the wind farm.
In this case the applicant proposes by way of Unilateral Undertaking under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to provide a Heritage
Development Committee
40
23 August 2012
Asset fund of £75,000 which would enable the provision of £1,000 per annum for the
life (25 years) of the turbine to each of the following churches: Bodham Church,
Baconsthorpe Church and West Beckham Church. This would equate to £3,750 per
megawatt per annum using the RenewableUK protocol calculations.
In addition, the applicant proposes to provide a fund of £25,000 for Landscape and
Ecological Enhancement to enable the planting of 3.0 kilometres of new native
hedgerow at Pond Farm; the planting of a new 0.5 hectare woodland; and the
reinstatement of three ponds at Pond Farm. This would equate to £1,250 per
megawatt per annum using the RenewableUK protocol calculations.
OTHER ECONOMIC BENEFITS
The applicant has set out other economic benefits and these include:
Construction Phase Benefits - The applicant has indicated that the construction of
the proposed turbine would represent a large investment in the local area. The
construction cost of a wind project of the capacity proposed is approximately
£300,000. Of this sum, at least 50% (£150,000) would typically be spent in the
locality of the project, with contracts being placed with electrical and civil engineering
companies, as well as other businesses such as fencers, electricians, plant hire,
security contractors and hoteliers, together with those supplying hedgerow and tree
plants/planting for the proposed environmental enhancement projects.
Operational Phase Benefits – The applicant has indicated that once the wind turbine
starts to supply electricity into the local electricity network, the landowner directly
involved in the project would benefit from an income from electricity sales payments,
thus presenting a viable diversification opportunity and helping to maintain the
viability of a significant local business. The income generated by the proposed
business diversification can be expected to be recycled locally through the purchase
of new agricultural equipment, new infrastructure and other expenditures linked to
business development. When these landowner payments are combined with local
authority rates, community benefit payments and other on-going site maintenance
expenses, the applicant considers that this project would represent an important
long-term investment in the local area.
The applicant has also referred to a report on the economic benefits of on-farm wind
energy clusters (prepared by SAC Consulting in June 2010). Although this looked at
on-farm wind energy in Aberdeenshire, the applicant considers there is no material
difference to how this would apply in Norfolk, or anywhere else. A summary of its key
findings that are also relevant to this project include:
On farm wind power generation represents an important opportunity to support
rural incomes and local employment. These benefits are greatest where projects
are locally owned and managed;
Wind farms being developed by local farmers and landowners are far smaller
than those being developed by external developers;
Per MW of capacity developed farmer-owned projects are likely to have a lower
visual and environmental impact but greater local economic and employment
benefits;
Wind projects on farms also have the benefit of protecting employment in existing
farm businesses facing uncertainty over market returns and support payments;
Farm businesses are particularly effective at recycling income into the local
economy and thereby supporting local rural employment.
Development Committee
41
23 August 2012
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
It is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether or not there are
material considerations either in favour or against the proposal which would justify
approval or refusal or a departure from adopted Development Plan policies.
The proposed turbine would deliver renewable energy benefits through the
generation of renewable electricity, enough to provide the equivalent electricity for
665 average houses and which would make a valuable contribution towards meeting
the national legally binding reduction in carbon emissions of 80% by 2050 and the
30% national target for renewable electricity production by 2020. Officers considers
this benefit attracts significant weight in favour of the application.
In addition the proposal would also provide financial benefits for Bodham Church,
Baconsthorpe Church and West Beckham Church which would each receive £25,000
over the lifetime of the development (£1,000 each per annum). Officers consider that
this benefit would attract some weight, particularly as the money could be used by
the churches to help secure the future of the buildings in question, two of which are
Grade II* listed.
The proposal would include the provision of funds for landscape and ecological
enhancements on land around the application site. However, whilst the local
community may benefit to a lesser extent from the landscape and ecological
improvements Officers consider this benefit carries less weight, particularly as it
primarily involves enhancements to the applicants’ own land and which could
potentially be funded from other income streams or grants such as Environmental
Stewardship schemes. It is also considered unlikely that the stated enhancements
would mitigate against the wider visual impact of the turbine within the lifetime of the
development other than at locations close to the turbine such as next to proposed
hedgerows.
The other economic benefits during the construction and operational phase are less
precise and quantifiable, although there is a probability that some local trades may
benefit in relation to the construction phase. In respect of the circle of money
associated with the turbine, it is possible that locally owned businesses may
redistribute wealth locally and there is a possibility but no certainty that this may be
the case with this proposal given its local ownership. Officer consider that some,
although limited, weight could be given to the economic benefits of the proposal.
In reaching its decision the Committee must weigh the identified benefits of the
proposal against any identified harm associated with the proposed development.
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 60m and a
height to blade tip of 86.5m on land at Pond Farm Bodham which is located at
approximately 90m 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 heritage assets
and the wider landscape balanced against the benefits of the proposal.
Development Committee
42
23 August 2012
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, there is no doubt that a turbine of the size proposed
would have an adverse impact on the wider landscape. The smooth lines of the
turbine and somewhat utilitarian appearance would create a degree of harm in this
essentially rural location with its smaller scale and more traditional forms of
development which rely to a large extent on local materials and are more easily
absorbed by the natural vegetation.
The Landscape Officer has raised concerns that the visual impact of this large scale
single turbine would be sufficiently adverse on the surrounding landscape and
affected designated heritage assets to warrant refusal of the application.
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 undoubtedly
result in harm to the setting of historic assets, including Baconsthorpe Castle, All
Saints Church Bodham, St Peters Church North Barningham and Barningham Hall,
some of which are of the highest designated category.
Nonetheless whilst the impact on historic assets and the wider landscape is
considered to be adverse, Officers have doubts as to whether this is sufficiently
compelling in itself to constitute a significant adverse impact or, using the language
within the National Planning Policy Framework, whether the impacts would be
substantially harmful and it is therefore a matter of planning judgement for the
Committee in weighing the identified harm against the public benefits of the proposal
– the greater the negative impact the greater the benefit required to justify approval.
The applicants have indicated that a turbine of the size proposed would generate
enough electricity to supply approximately 665 average homes (or by comparison a
significant proportion of all the housing stock within the surrounding Parishes of
Bodham, Baconsthorpe, Gresham, Matlaske and West Beckham). This equates to
approximately 1.53% of all North Norfolk’s domestic electricity demand.
Other benefits include a proposed Heritage Asset fund of £75,000 which would
enable the provision of £1,000 per annum for the life (25 years) of the turbine to each
of the following churches: Bodham Church, Baconsthorpe Church and West
Beckham Church. This would equate to £3,750 per megawatt per annum using the
RenewableUK protocol calculations.
Whilst clearly there are benefits associated with the Bodham turbine to which
significant weight can be attached, ultimately it is a matter of planning judgement as
to whether these benefits outweigh the identified harm to heritage assets and the
wider landscape.
In making its judgement the Committee is advised to consider carefully other relevant
planning case law, particularly those cases where LPA decisions to refuse have been
overturned by the Planning Inspectors on the basis that the benefits of renewable
energy outweigh the harm to historic assets or the wider landscape. Such examples
include the recent joint appeal decision in the Borough of King’s Lynn and West
Norfolk in relation to appeal ref: APP/V2635/A/11/2154590 Land (known as the
Chiplow site) between Bagthorpe, Barmer and Syderstone, Main Road, Bagthorpe,
Development Committee
43
23 August 2012
King’s Lynn, Norfolk for 5 wind turbines each with a maximum height to blade tip
height of 100m, and appeal ref: APP/V2635/A/11/2158966 Land (known as the
Jack’s Lane site) at Barwick Hall Farm, Barwick Road, Stanhoe, King’s Lynn, Norfolk
for 6 wind turbines each with maximum height to blade tip of 126.5m.
Other relevant cases include the joint appeal decision affecting Bedford Borough and
East Northamptonshire District Councils in relation to appeal ref:
APP/K0235/A/11/2160077 at Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, Chelveston
Airfield, Chelveston for, amongst other things, 4 wind turbines each with a maximum
height to blade tip height of 125m, and Appeal ref: APP/G2815/A/11/2160078 at
Chelveston Renewable Energy Park, Chelveston Airfield, Chelveston for, amongst
other things, 5 wind turbines each with a maximum height to blade tip height of
125m.
Copies of these appeals are attached at Appendices 15 and 16 respectively . The
list of relevant appeal cases is not intended to be exhaustive but is intended to give
examples of the decision making process in weighing the benefits against the
impacts of the proposal.
In most of those cases, the turbines were considerably larger than that proposed at
Bodham (100m+ in height) and in most cases there were more than one turbine
which often meant that the renewable energy generation benefits in terms of
electricity generation were considerably greater.
In the case of Bodham, the proposed turbine would be sited within a prominent
location and in a landscape setting which has previously been identified as being
sensitive to change from large scale wind farm development and which also includes
a number of heritage assets, some of which are of the highest designated category.
Furthermore, the proposed turbine is relatively small compared to national schemes
and the amount of electricity generation is also relatively small such that, on balance,
Officers consider the electricity generation benefits would be outweighed by the
identified harm to the wider landscape and a number of heritage assets.
In particular Officers consider that views of the turbine in the wider landscape and
especially those views set against the scale and context of designated historic assets
would result in significant change to the character and scale of the landscape and the
way in which it would be understood by different receptors and the way in which
historic assets would be understood within their setting.
In particular this adverse/harmful impact is evidenced in views of All Saints Church,
Bodham from locations between High Kelling and Bodham on the A148, from certain
locations at Baconsthorpe Castle, in wider landscape views south of St Peters
Church North Barningham and, to some extent, on the parkland setting of
Barningham Hall.
The cumulative effect of these impacts on heritage assets and impacts on the wider
landscape are such that, notwithstanding the benefits that can be attributed to the
turbine including the proposed heritage asset fund and landscape enhancements, the
benefits of the scheme do not, in the opinion of Officers outweigh the identified harm
and there are no other identified material considerations which would justify a
departure from Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
44
23 August 2012
RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL
The proposed turbine would be sited within a prominent location and in a
landscape setting which has previously been identified as being sensitive to
change from large scale wind farm development and which also includes a
number of heritage assets, some of which are of the highest designated
category. The proposed turbine would be relatively small compared to national
schemes and the amount of electricity generation is also relatively small such
that, on balance, it is considered that the electricity generation benefits would
be outweighed by the identified harm to the wider landscape and a number of
heritage assets.
In particular it is considered that views of the turbine in the wider landscape
and especially those views set against the scale of designated historic assets
would result in significant change to the character and scale of the landscape
and the way in which it would be understood by different receptors and the
way in which historic assets would be understood within their setting.
In particular these adverse/harmful impacts are evidenced in views of All
Saints Church, Bodham from locations between High Kelling and Bodham on
the A148, from certain locations at Baconsthorpe Castle, in wider landscape
views south of St Peters Church North Barningham and, to some extent, on the
setting of Barningham Hall.
The cumulative effect of these impacts on heritage assets and impacts on the
wider landscape is such that, notwithstanding the benefits that can be
attributed to the turbine including the renewable energy benefits, proposed
heritage asset fund and landscape enhancements, it is considered that the
benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the identified harm and there are no
other identified material considerations in support of the proposal which would
justify a departure from Development Plan policies.
4.
BRININGHAM - PF/12/0165 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 91/0344 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
occupancy restriction; Miresfield, Melton Road for Mr D Barkway
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 April 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19900413 PO - One dwelling with garage
Approved 27/09/1990
PLA/19910344
PF - Construct Bungalow and Garage. Residential Retirement
Accommodation for Applicant
Approved 21/01/1992
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking to remove Condition 2 of planning permission reference: 91/0344 to permit
occupation without complying with the agricultural occupancy restriction.
Development Committee
45
23 August 2012
The condition states that "The occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be
limited to a person employed or last employed, before retirement, locally full time in
agriculture, or in forestry, and a dependent of such a person residing with him or her,
including a widow or widower of such a person".
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wright having regard to the following planning issue:
The application of Policy HO6. (Removal of agricultural, etc, occupancy conditions).
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. We do not feel this should be removed as it would form a precedent for further
building on the adjoining vacant field.
2. This is on the edge of the village envelope
3. No one would ever have got this permission without the agricultural occupancy,
when he already lived in the village.
4. We do not feel he has tried very hard to sell it. No signs have been up. There are
people in agriculture who are interested in it.
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 reuse 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 6: Removal of agricultural, forestry and essential worker occupancy
conditions (specifies the criteria that must be met for the removal of agricultural,
forestry and essential worker occupancy conditions).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Compliance with Policy HO6.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where there is a general
presumption against permanent residential development. However, dwellings subject
to an agricultural occupancy restriction may be permitted.
In this case the dwelling on the application site was approved with an agricultural
occupancy restriction under application reference 91/0344. The applicants are now
Development Committee
46
23 August 2012
seeking to remove that condition. Policy HO6 regarding the removal of agricultural,
forestry and other occupancy conditions, is therefore applicable. There are three
criteria within that policy with which the applicants have to be able to demonstrate
compliance, as follows:
1. The dwelling has been occupied in accordance with the occupancy condition for a
minimum of 12 years.
2. There is no long term need for the dwelling on the particular holding on which the
dwelling is situated, nor in the surrounding area.
3. The dwelling has been made available to one or more Registered Social Landlords
operating locally in terms which would allow it to be occupied as an affordable
dwelling and that option has been rejected.
In relation to the above the agent has confirmed compliance with the first criterion as
the applicants built the property themselves in 1992 and have occupied it since that
date.
With regard to the second criterion a marketing exercise is required in order to
demonstrate whether there is a long term need for the restriction to remain in place.
Applicants are advised to contact the Local Planning Authority prior to making a
planning application to agree the price the property will marketed at, how long the
marketing period will be and how it will be advertised. Following an informal
consultation with the District Council's Estates and Valuation Officer, prior to the
submission of this application, the market value of the property was agreed at a price
in the region of £245,000. It was also agreed that the marketing period would be for 6
months, and that it should be marketed in publications that target an agricultural
audience.
The agent has provided evidence that the property was advertised in local and
specialist publications on a regular basis over a period of 6 to 7 months for £245,000.
The agent has advised that twenty three enquiries were received. However ten of the
twenty three did not follow up their initial enquiries, a further ten were unable to
satisfy the occupancy condition or did not understand it, five were residing in areas
outside the locality and could not therefore comply with the condition, and of the
three enquiries who appeared to meet the condition none wished to proceed.
In relation to the third criterion the agent has provided evidence that Victory Housing
Trust have been contacted and have declined interest in the property.
Therefore, based on the information submitted with the application all three criteria of
Policy HO6 have been satisfied. It has therefore been satisfactorily demonstrated
that there is no longer a need for the occupancy condition to remain on the dwelling.
The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
Development Committee
47
23 August 2012
5.
HOLT - PF/12/0667 - Change of use of ground floor from A1 (retail) to a mixed
use of A1 (retail)/tattoo studio; 20 High Street for The Tonsorial Artist
- Target Date: 10 August 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Town Centre
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of the ground floor from an existing hairdresser A1 use to a
mixed use of A1 Hairdresser and tattoo studio.
The existing hairdressing salon is located at the front on the shop unit. The proposed
tattoo studio would be located to the rear of the hairdressing area and access would
be the through this hairdressing salon.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker having regard to the following planning issue:
Appropriateness of use within the core retail area
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection subject to no external signage.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection on the following grounds:
Holt is a Georgian historic town and the tattoo parlour would be completely out of
keeping with its ambience and would likely attract highly undesirable elements into
the town.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - There are no adverse concerns in relation to this proposal
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
48
23 August 2012
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the change of use
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Impact on neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
The site lies in the town centre of Holt in the designated primary shopping area
where Policy SS5 states that "the role of town centres as a focus for a broad range of
shopping, commercial, cultural and other uses will be supported." A tattoo studio is
considered to be an appropriate town centre use. The principle of the proposed
mixed use is therefore acceptable. No retail use would be lost and the development
is therefore acceptable in the designated Primary Shopping Area (Policy EC5).
The site lies in the designated Conservation Area, but the proposal involves no
external alterations and no advertisements which require consent. As such the
proposed change of use of the rear area of the building is considered to have no
adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
The Town Council have confirmed no objection subject to no external signage. The
applicant has indicated that additional lettering on the existing sign would be added
to advertise the tattoo studio. The existing sign would be amended to read 'Barber
shop and tattooing' or similar and the two existing small oval signs would be
amended to include wording along the lines of 'tattooing by appointment only'. By
virtue of the size of the existing signage and the non-illumination, the changes to the
existing signage would not require the benefit of advertisement consent. In any case
the changes the applicant has indicated that would be made to the existing signage
would be appropriate for the building and the Conservation Area.
In respect of neighbouring amenity of nearby residential properties, it is considered
that the use of the rear of the existing hairdressers for a tattoo studio would not result
in any adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of those dwellings. This view is
shared by the Council's Environmental Health Officer who confirms that there are no
adverse concerns and no objection in this respect. The proposal is therefore
considered to comply with policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
The mixed use of the building for both A1 retail, in this case hairdresser, and the
tattoo studio to the rear of the property is therefore considered to comply with the
Development Plan and is therefore considered appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
Development Committee
49
23 August 2012
6.
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 July 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Principal Route
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/12/0037 ENQ - Formation of visitors car park - 24/04/2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the creation of a public car park for up to four vehicles within Bretts (Lings)
Wood, in order to serve the Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT) Reserve, with access via an
existing forest track with the entrance off the A148 being upgraded to Norfolk County
Council Highways standards.
An amended plan has been received indicating a 5 metre wide steel hinged overhead
barrier, set some 14 metres back from the edge of the carriageway with a steel
barrier gate to the back edge of the visibility splay. Both structures would be painted
olive green. To the north of the car park would be a further gate which would be kept
locked during normal visitor use so as to prevent vehicular access further into the
wood.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Green in respect of the following planning issue:
Highway safety.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application
REPRESENTATIONS
An e-mail has been received from NWT clarifying the situation regarding the closure
of the outer gate. This states that "the outer gate will be locked at night time between
5.00 pm and 9.00 am if we encounter antisocial problems over night. We had not
intended to enforce this on a regular basis since our small car park at the nearby
Thursford Wood further up the same road does not have any restriction re opening
times and we have not encountered any problems at this site regarding overnight
issues. If enforced on a regular basis this would prevent evening access to the wood
by normal visitors, a time when people may often wish to visit. However if it is felt that
this is a necessary constraint we have a system in place regarding regular closure
overnight (the site already has in place 2 volunteer wardens), but we would prefer to
retain the flexibility and instigate a process of locking/unlocking to curtail any
overnight antisocial behaviour if the need arises. The infrastructure will be there in
place to provide us with the ability to deal with this issue."
A letter has been received from solicitors acting on behalf of the underlying freehold
owner of the land attached to which is a letter to the NWT, which raise a number of
concerns. The letter to the Local Planning Authority points to the fact that the owner
has sporting rights over Lings Wood which he periodically exercises, which poses a
very real threat to public safety. Also that the wood is a beautiful spot and carving a
Development Committee
50
23 August 2012
car park out of it would ruin what is otherwise attractive woodland. The letter also
raises issues regarding the presence of a car parking creating security risk to the
owner's property which adjoins the site. The letter to the NWT raises concerns in
respect of the terms of the lease and the fact that it is considered public access to the
woods is not in accordance with the user clause of the lease.
In addition a letter has also been received directly from the owner of the land which
points to the fact that when he was granted planning permission for his property it
was on the basis that the entrance be understated. The letter goes on to suggest that
the entrance to the car park would not be understated and if permission is granted
would become a stop for fly tipping and use a lavatory. The letter stresses that it is
important to keep this beautiful area unspoiled.
A further three letters of objection have been received which raise the following
concerns (summarised):1. This is an outstanding natural beauty spot and joy to drive past every day.
2. The car park will be used for people to go to the toilet and dump waste.
3. The car park will be used by teenagers, turning this beautiful wood into an
unsightly and possible crime ridden area.
4. There would be a real risk of fire through the irresponsible actions of teenagers
drinking and smoking.
5. There would be an adverse impact on wildlife.
6. This is a very dangerous stretch of road which has been subject to many
accidents and deaths.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions.
Police Service Architectural Liaison Officer - 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
Members will be updated orally.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 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).
Development Committee
51
23 August 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Landscape impact.
3. Impact on wildlife.
4. Impact on the residential amenities on neighbouring property.
5. Highway safety.
6. Crime and disorder.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated in the Countryside policy area as defined by the adopted Core
Strategy wherein the provision of a car park for visitors to the NWT Reserve would
accord with Policy SS2, which encourages recreation and tourism. Also relevant are
Core Strategy Policies EN4, EN9 and CT5.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality be suitably for
the context within which it is set and retains existing important landscaping and
natural features. In addition the policy requires the creation of safe environments
addressing crime prevention and community safety and to ensure that any car
parking is discreet and accessible. A further requirement is that proposals should not
have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
Policy EN9 states that development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect
adverse effect to nationally designated sites or other designated areas, including
Local Nature Reserves, or to protected species will not be permitted. As far as
highway safety is concern Policy CT5 requires that the proposal is capable of being
served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or
character of the locality. Whilst new direct access proposals onto Principal Routes
will not be permitted unless the type of development requires a Principal Route
location.
At the present time the existing access onto the A148 serves as an entrance to Lings
Wood for timber lorries and machinery during forestry operations. In addition visitors
to the NWT Reserve park at the roadside entrance, which is considered by the NWT
to be unsatisfactory and potentially unsafe. They therefore consider that the creation
of a small car park for up to 4 vehicles set some 40 metres back into the woods from
the A148, which would be accessed via the existing entrance and forest road, would
improve the situation for those visiting the wood.
In terms of the landscape impact, due of the dense tree cover and distance back
from the A148 it is not considered that the car park itself would be discernible from
the public highway. In respect of the access, although the visibility splay would be
upgraded to Norfolk County Council standards, being finished in bitumen macadam,
the rest of the access driveway, which currently has a hoggin finish, would be
redressed with a granite topping. As such, with the exception of formalising the
access, overall the appearance would remain similar to that which exists, and once
established would naturalise and blend with the forest surroundings. However in
order to retain a degree of security within the site it is the intention of the NWT to
introduce a steel barrier gate at the entrance which would be painted olive green with
a further barrier with overhead gantry, so as to prevent access by larger vehicles, set
back some 14 metres within the trees. Overall it is considered that the impact of the
development on the wider landscape would be minimal and would not significantly
detract from its character. Given the limited intrusion into the woods, with the car park
itself being finished with a Geotextile membrane it is not considered that there would
be any significant adverse effect on trees within the site or wildlife interests, a view
confirmed by the Council’s Landscape Officer.
Development Committee
52
23 August 2012
As far as the impact on the residential amenities of the owners of the neighbouring
property to the east (who are also the freehold owners of Lings Wood) is concerned,
the boundary of this property would be some 160 metres from the car park through
dense woodland, whilst the dwelling would still be some 400 metres away. Given that
there is already access to the wood and that visitors currently park at the entrance it
is not considered that the proposed car park would have any significantly adverse
impact on residential amenity or security of that property. In respect of the other
issues raised such as shooting rights, this is a civil matter between the parties
involved in the lease and not a concern for the Local Planning Authority.
.
As far as the access on the A148 is concerned and the issue of highway safety, the
Highway Authority has confirmed that a new car park accessed directly from a
corridor of movement would normally be against their adopted policy. However in this
particular case, given the existence of the access and the fact that cars currently park
on the verge adjacent to the highway in order to access the wood, the Highway
Authority considers that the creation of a small car park with turning facilities would
not intensify the use of the access. However it has indicated that in accordance with
the submitted plan it would wish to see the access for the first 4 metres back from the
edge of the carriageway improved in accordance with highway standards.
With regard to local concerns in respect of crime and disorder the comments of the
Police Architectural Liaison Officer are awaited.
It is therefore considered that the creation of car park for four vehicles would facilitate
public access to the NWT Reserve without significantly affecting the landscape
character of the area or highway safety. As such the scheme is considered to be
acceptable and would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7.
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0429 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 10/0639 to permit extension of opening hours to 12.00 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays (excluding religious bank holidays); Zahras, 8A Station
Approach for Mr M Miah
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 June 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0639 PF - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A5 (hot food take-away)
Approved 17/09/2010
PF/10/1151 PF - Installation of extraction system
Approved 04/05/2011
Development Committee
53
23 August 2012
PF/11/0753 PF - Erection of A1 (retail) unit, A5 (hot food take-away) unit, 2 B1
(offices) and 4 residential flats (Adjacent site)
Approved 08/09/2011
PF/11/0892 PF - Variation of condition 3 of permission reference 10/0639 to permit
extension of opening hours to 12.00 midnight on Fridays & Saturdays (excluding
religious holidays)
Refused 09/09/2011
THE APPLICATION
Is for the variation of an existing condition on the site restricting hours of opening to
11pm daily.
In September 2010 planning permission was granted for a change of use to hot food
take away (PF/10/0639) subject to the opening hours being restricted to 12:00 noon
to 11.00pm on any day.
The current application seeks a variation of that condition to allow an extension in the
opening hours on Friday and Saturday evenings until 12:00 midnight, excluding
religious bank holidays.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Smith and Hannah having regard to the following
planning issue:
Impact on neighbouring amenity.
TOWN COUNCIL
Strongly object due to concerns of noise and anti-social behaviour in this residential
area.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection on the following grounds:
Late night noise pollution and antisocial behaviour in this residential area.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - I have assessed the noise report provided by the applicant,
and from this information related to the noise from the extraction system, I would
have no objections to the extension of hours being granted for these premises.
There are no Environmental Protection complaints for these premises at this time.
Furthermore I have also spoken with the Police and they have advised that they have
no objections to the increase in hours to midnight at these premises, and they are not
aware of any current anti-social behaviour issues caused by people using this takeaway.
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 Crime and Disorder issues are considered as part of the Appraisal section
below.
Development Committee
54
23 August 2012
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Noise impact from extraction system
3. Impact on neighbouring amenity from noise and disturbance
4. Anti-social behaviour
APPRAISAL
A similar application for these extended opening hours was submitted and refused
under delegated powers in 2011 (PF/11/0892). This application did not include any
noise assessment. It was refused for the following reason: 'The applicant has failed
to provide a night time noise report to demonstrate that the development would not
give rise to adverse impacts in terms of increased noise, disturbance and anti-social
behaviour to nearby residential properties. Furthermore the Local Planning Authority
is of the opinion that the applicant has provided insufficient justification to
demonstrate the wider social and economic needs for the development which would
outweigh any noise/disturbance issues.'
The current application seeks the same extension of opening hours but includes a
noise report assessing the impacts on the surrounding residential area.
An existing take-away premises next door is unrestricted in opening hours. However
permission has recently been granted for a mixed use of flats and offices with a hot
food take-away next door (to the west) under permission PF/11/0753. A condition
restricting the opening of that hot food take-away to 11pm daily was imposed.
The site is located within the development boundary for Sheringham as defined by
the North Norfolk Core Strategy in an area identified as town centre, but outside the
areas designated Primary Shopping Area and Primary Retail Frontage. On the basis
that Policy SS5 of the Core Strategy supports a broad range of uses including
shopping, commercial and cultural uses, the existing use of the premises as an A5
(hot food take away) is considered acceptable in terms of policy.
When considering the increased opening times, Policies EN4 and EN13 are relevant.
These require that development proposals should not have a significantly detrimental
effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and that proposals should
minimise and where possible reduce all emissions and other forms of pollution,
including light and noise pollution. Policy EN13 also states that 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 from the extraction system, Environmental Health has confirmed
that based on the submitted noise assessment, it has no objection to the increased
Development Committee
55
23 August 2012
opening hours. It is not therefore considered that the increase in opening hours and
therefore the use of that extraction system for that extended period would result in
any detriment to the amenities of those nearby dwellings in terms of noise.
The proposed increase in hours of opening would increase the number of people
visiting the site late at night and could result in increased disturbance to local
residents. However, the site is located near to the existing car park and station and
is close to a busy road junction. Furthermore the majority of nearby residential
dwellings are on streets to the rear of the site. This coupled with the fact that the
Council's Environmental Health Team raises no objection to the increased opening
hours and that there are currently no noise complaint issues resulting from the takeaway, leads to the conclusion that an increase in opening times by one hour on
Fridays and Saturdays is unlikely to be significantly detrimental in terms of noise and
disturbance to occupiers of those dwellings. However, as the majority of other hot
food take-aways in Sheringham are restricted to 11pm, and since this could set a
precedent and there is the potential for increased noise and disturbance, it is
considered that a temporary permission for one year should be granted to enable the
impacts of the increased opening to be assessed over that period through the
monitoring of any noise complaints.
In respect of anti-social behaviour, Class A5 take away uses have the potential to
allow patrons to congregate outside whilst waiting for food to be cooked. The
proposed extension to the opening hours of the late night take-away could potentially
attract anti-social behaviour and associated general disorder. However the Police
(via the Environmental Health Officer) have confirmed that there is no evidence of a
history of crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour linked with the use of this premises
as a take-away. As such it is not considered that a refusal on the basis of anti-social
behaviour would be justified.
In the absence of objection from the Police or Environmental Health in respect of
noise or anti-social behaviour, a temporary permission for one year is recommended
to enable the increase in opening of one extra hour on Friday and Saturday nights
(opening until 12am) to be trialled. This would enable Environmental Health to
monitor any noise or disturbance issues as a result of the late night opening.
The temporary permission as proposed is considered to accord with Development
Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Temporary approval for 12 months.
8.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0623 - Retention of lighting column; Walkway,
Outer Harbour, Beach Road for Wells Harbour Commissioners
Minor Development
- Target Date: 25 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Development Committee
56
23 August 2012
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090581 PF - Construction of concrete platform to facilitate landing of access
jetty
Approved 19/08/2009
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the erection of a lighting column located along the walkway at
the access/egress of the outer harbour pontoons.
The column measures 6m in height, has a small three-bladed 300 watt wind turbine
at the top, two 60 watt solar panels further down and a 20 watt LED bulb in the light
fitting at approximately 5m from the ground level. The column has a slender design,
of a metal construction with a white painted finish.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No comment
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - no objection to the retention of
this lighting.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Visual impact
Development Committee
57
23 August 2012
APPRAISAL
The lighting column to be retained is positioned on the sea wall walkway and
adjacent to the outer harbour pontoons and an access jetty to the east which was
approved in 2009. To the north east is the existing lifeboat house and to the west the
public car park and shop/cafe and caravan site.
The lighting column is visible from the car park to the west above the sea wall and
from the walkway in both directions. As the landscape is very flat and open there is
also the possibility of long distance views of it from the Quay to the south east.
The site is located in the Countryside policy area and area of Undeveloped Coast
which is permissive of the principle of development which requires a coastal location
and which would not be significantly detrimental to the open coastal character.
The site is also located within the designated AONB which is permissive of
development where it is appropriate to the economic, social and wellbeing of the area
or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area and does not detract
from the special qualities of the AONB.
Whilst the lighting column, by virtue of its 6m height, would be visible to the wider
area, the slim design, and white colour finish of the column ensures that the column
largely blends into the background when viewed from long distance and in its
immediate context it is read against the commercial outer harbour pontoon area. As
such, whilst the lighting column by virtue of its height may have a slight negative
impact on the AONB, it is not considered to be of sufficient significance to detract
from the special qualities of the AONB nor of the open coastal character of the area.
This view is shared by the Council's Landscape Officer who confirms there is no
landscape objection to the retention of the column.
Accordingly it is considered that the proposal does not significantly harm the special
qualities of the AONB or open coastal character of the area and it therefore complies
with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
9.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0681 - Erection of 24 dwellings (of which 50% affordable
dwellings) and associated garages, carports, boundary wall and fences and
creation of 2 accesses; Land west of Langham Road for Hillside Residential
Ltd
Recommended by the Head of Development Management as this is a major
development on a site allocated for housing in the Development Plan.
Development Committee
58
23 August 2012
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/0478 - Erection of two 18m high wind turbines (height to
hub); Old Manor Farm, Long Common for Mr J McLeod
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Recommended by the Head of Development Management in view of the extent of
public interest in the development and the need to view the proposal from a number
of public vantage points.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
10.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
April to June 2012, covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal
outcomes. Figures are also included for land charge searches.
Table 1A (Appendix 17) sets out performance for processing planning applications
for the first quarter of 2012/13.
Three major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 115 minor
applications and 210 ‘other’ applications, in all a total of some 328 applications. In
terms of speed of determination, figures for minor and ‘other’ decisions were slightly
lower than those for the year 2011/12, and performance therefore was significantly
below the levels achieved in the previous two financial years.
Table 1B indicates workload for the service and shows that a total of 334 applications
were submitted, only 9 more than the number determined. The service could
therefore be said to be keeping pace with incoming work in terms of applications.
Pre-application and ‘Do I need planning permission?” enquiries fell sharply during the
quarter, following the introduction of charges at the beginning of May. The impact of
this change will need to be monitored during the year to gauge the extent to which
previous higher levels of engagement are restored as applicants and agents become
used to the new system; the impact of charges on fee income will also be monitored.
Applications to discharge conditions were close to levels in the previous quarter, as
were Duty Officer enquiries, although Officers experienced heavy pressure at times
with agents using the Duty Officer system instead of submitting formal enquiries as a
means of avoiding pre-application charges.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarter saw a slightly higher percentage
delegated when compared with the previous year as a whole, indicating that this
system appears to be working satisfactorily.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of planning appeal decisions. Three appeals
were allowed, including the offshore wind farm cable route proposal between
Weybourne and Great Ryburgh, together with two others which had been
recommended for approval.
In terms of Land Charge searches, Table 3 indicates that both in terms of official and
personal searches, the quarter showed a modest increase when compared with
figures for 2010/11 as a whole.
Development Committee
59
23 August 2012
In summary, although application numbers fell during the quarter when compared
with figures for 2011/12 as a whole, the service just managed to keep pace in terms
of managing the workload, but without improving performance. A small number of
highly labour-intensive proposals (including supermarket, wind turbine and other
infrastructure proposals) continue to absorb substantial amounts of Officer and
Committee time. The year-out student, Gillian Lipinski, will be leaving at the end of
September to resume her studies and a replacement student, Jodie Young, has been
appointed with a view to starting work shortly afterwards.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Development Management, ext 6135)
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/11/0334 - Installation of 15m wind turbine; Church Farm, Church
Road for N J Alexander
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/12/0664 - Installation of solar panels to club house and shop;
Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for Castaways Holiday Park
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - NP/12/0738 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Field Barn, Wells Road, West Barsham for Keith Farm
Partnership
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
BARTON TURF - PF/12/0687 - Erection of attached double garage; Aurora,
Smallburgh Road for Mr H McGill
(Householder application)
BINHAM - NMA1/11/0465 - Non-material amendment request for revised
guttering and installation of larch boarding; 2 The Common, Cockthorpe for Mr
C Dugdale
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0594 - Erection of first floor rear extension and construction
of pitched roof to flat roofed extension; 42 Morston Road for Mr & Mrs A Gillings
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0634 - Erection of detached garage/carport; Orchard House,
Samphire Close, New Road for Novus Homes
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/11/0933 - Non-material amendment request for revised
siting, re-configuration of solar panels and omission of window in garage wall;
Puddleduck House, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs R Jones
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0517 - Removal of Condition 1 of planning
permission reference: E6705 to permit occupation without complying with
agricultural restriction; Rectory Hill Cottage, Holt Road for Mr C Lacoste
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
60
23 August 2012
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0600 - Erection of wrought iron gates and brick
piers; Umgeni, Coast Road for Mrs R Barker
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/0632 - Erection of single-storey rear
extension; Romney Cottage, The Street, Little London, Corpusty for Ms L
Lambert
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/12/0659 - Erection of toilet/shower block; Oak Farm,
Barningham Road for Mr K Fisher
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/12/0558 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Tizzit, 4
School Road for Mrs A Argent
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0549 - Change of use from D1 (Doctors' Surgery) to B2
(Glass Manufacturing) with ancillary retail shop, cafe and installation of flue;
The Fakenham Medical Centre, Greenway Lane for Langham Glass Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0630 - Erection of conservatory and boundary wall; 58
Queens Road for Mr Crane
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0678 - Erection of rear extension; 2 Rowan Way for Mr &
Mrs Jonas
(Householder application)
FELBRIGG - NMA1/09/0637 - Non-material request to increase length of
proposed extension and revised door and window layout; Sycamore House,
Metton Road for Mr G Bryant
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FELBRIGG - NMA1/12/0427 - Non-material amendment request for revised finish
to rear gable; 8 The Green for Ms King
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FELMINGHAM - NMA1/11/0300 - Non-material amendment request for revised
rear window and installation of additional roof light; Grooms Cottage, Hyltons
Crossways, Suffield Road for Mr L Whiting-Smith
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FULMODESTON - PF/12/0557 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission
ref: 10/1109 to require dwellings to be constructed in compliance with Passiv
Homes Standards; Land at Hindolveston Road for Broadland Housing
Association Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/12/0639 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 5A
Church View, Stibbard Road for Mr & Mrs Martin
(Householder application)
Development Committee
61
23 August 2012
GUNTHORPE - PF/12/0601 - Retrospective application for the re-location of
access gates and re-building of brick piers; Church House, Gunthorpe Road,
Bale for Mr & Mrs M Moore
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - LA/12/0602 - Retrospective application for the re-building of gate
piers, demolition of chimney, installation of underfloor heating and dry lining of
north wall; Church House, Gunthorpe Road, Bale for Mr & Mrs M Moore
(Listed Building Alterations)
HICKLING - PF/12/0590 - Installation of air source heat pump; Land between
Golden Gables and Harrow Weald, Staithe Road for Mr T Newman
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0651 - Erection of rear extension; Bryre Cottage, Warren
Road for Mr Meeds
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - NMA1/11/1044 - Non-material amendment request for increase
in width of link extension and garage and revised door and window
arrangements; Braemar, 51 Pineheath Road for Mr & Mrs B Leech
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/12/0663 - Erection of single-storey extension; Foxburrow
Farm, Binham Road for Mr & Mrs P Wordingham
(Householder application)
HOLKHAM - PF/12/0625 - Change of use from D1 (community hall) to A1 (retail);
The Reading Rooms, Park Road for Holkham Estate
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/12/0343 - Non material amendment to request installation of two
rooflights in rear and side extension; El Coqui, 3 Beresford Road for Ms A
Hemmings
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOVETON - PF/12/0515 - Conversion of single-storey dwelling to three selfcontained supported living units and erection of outbuilding to provide
office/storage and formation of vehicular access; The Gables, Church Road for
Keys Hill Park Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - NMA1/12/0119 - Non-material amendment request for change of roof
material; Tarn Hows, Tunstead Road for Mr J Osburne
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
KELLING - PF/12/0650 - Change of use from scrubland to garden, formation of
access and drive and erection of cart shed garage; Pudding Lane Cottage,
Pudding Lane, Weybourne Road for Mr Randell
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/12/0618 - Installation of toilet unit; Langham Airfield Dome
Trainer, Cockthorpe Road for North Norfolk Historic Buildings Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
62
23 August 2012
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/0585 - Erection of replacement garage/storage
building; Barn 1 Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road for Mr & Mrs J Barnes
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0500 - Construction of front extension and terrace and
widening of access; The Royal Hotel, 30 Paston Road for Mr A Fotis
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0587 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 24
Long Barrow Drive for Mr & Mrs Loose
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0575 - Erection of rear single-storey extension; Sally
Beans House, Cromer Road for Ms Bradley & Ms Hopkins
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0642 - Conversion of outbuilding to ancillary storage
space; School Barn, Church Street for Mr Burns
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0717 - Erection of front porch; 38 Bulls Row, Northrepps
for Mr & Mrs Kirk
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0527 - Conversion of C2 (care home) to 5 C3 residential
dwellings; 14 High Street for Mrs C M Sewell
(Full Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/0521 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Aquarius, Bridge Road for Mr B Standen
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/0673 - Erection of single-storey
extension/conservatory; 10 Vicarage Close for Mr M Hughes
(Householder application)
rear
ROUGHTON - PF/12/0613 - Installation of 6 rooflights; Cart Lodge Barn, Back
Lane for Mr & Mrs P Robinson
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - LA/12/0614 - Installation of 6 rooflights; Cart Lodge Barn, Back
Lane for Mr & Mrs P Robinson
(Listed Building Alterations)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0679 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0179 to permit installation of roof terrace windows, balcony,
additional roof light, canopy and solar panels; Fakenham Driving, Range And
Golf Centre, Burnham Market Road for Ms P Coad
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0547 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 03/1393 to permit full residential occupation; Oak Barn, Stalham
Road for Miss W Hale
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
63
23 August 2012
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0638 - Erection of first floor side extension; 3 Seaview
Crescent for Mr & Mrs Gilley
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/12/0367 - Non-material amendment request for revised
door and window arrangements to conservatory; 2 Morris Street for Mr S Watts
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SOUTHREPPS - NMA1/12/0007 - Non-material amendment request for revised
finish to front gable of proposed extension; Ben Hur, Warren Road for Mr J
Ellison
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
STALHAM - AN/12/0369 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; Tesco
Stores Limited, Old Market Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
STALHAM - PF/12/0520 - Erection of sunroom extension; Barn 1 West End Farm,
Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr M Mayes
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/12/0579 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref:
11/0518 to permit installation of additional first floor side window; 25 St Marys
Road for Mr W Porter
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/12/0644 - Change of use of barn to residential dwelling;
Applegate Bros, Yarmouth Road, The Green for Applegate Bros
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - LA/12/0665 - Removal of front door and installation of window,
installation of damp proof course re-instatement of rear door; Stone Cottage,
The Street for Mrs S Hynd
(Listed Building Alterations)
TUNSTEAD - PF/12/0528 - Continued siting of wind monitoring mast; Land off
Church Street, Sco Ruston for Airvolution Energy Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/12/0675 - Construction of front porch and rear garden room
extensions; repairs and alterations; 16 The Hill for Mrs E Boleat
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0596 - Erection of first floor front extension,
formation of enclosed porch, replacement front bay window and installation of
ground floor side window; Boxwood, Northfield Lane for Mr R Ayres
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0599 - Erection of single-storey extension; 46
Waveney Close for Mr & Mrs Marshall
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/12/0626 - Change of use from residential to a mixed use of
residential/A1 (retail art gallery); Gasche's, The Street for Mrs K Price
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
64
23 August 2012
WITTON - LA/11/1489 - Installation of replacement gable wall; Dairy Farm, The
Street, Ridlington for Mr & Mrs J Grier
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/12/0574 - Alterations to attached barn to provide ancillary
habitable accommodation; Point House, Mill Common Road, Ridlington for Mrs
F Wolstenholme
(Householder application)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PO/12/0546 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land
adjacent Astley, Coast Road for Mr T Baker
(Outline Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/12/0081 - Non-material amendment request for retention of
existing rear fenestration and installation of balconies; Anglia Court Hotel, 5
Runton Road for Abbey Mill Estates LLP
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0472 - Erection of one and a half-storey side and
single-storey rear extensions; Deeside, The Street for Mr D Simpson
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0407 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and
detached garage; Land to rear of 7 Crow Road for Mr & Mrs Whittingham
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/0589 - Installation of render to front, rear and side walls;
Marsh Cottage, Coast Road for Mr Dawson
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - NMA1/11/0733 - Non-material amendment request for
installation of roof to light to side elevation; Ben Hur, Warren Road for Mr J
Ellison
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0160 - Retention of balcony and installation of screening;
31 Beeston Road for Mr H Ahrens
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
THURSFORD - PF/11/1434 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
garden/amenity land; Land adjacent Bell Cottage, 3 Gunthorpe Road for Mrs B
Bullard
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
65
23 August 2012
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BACTON - PF/11/1000 - Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use
of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for
Castaways Holiday Park
BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
CROMER - PF/11/0460 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Land at Cadogan
Road for Mr Roberts
CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/0270 - Erection of four-bay garage; Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mr Barnes
SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre
galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, Waxham for ES Renewables Ltd
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0160 - Retention of balcony and installation of screening;
31 Beeston Road for Mr H Ahrens
SHERINGHAM - ENF/10/0221 - Erection of a Balcony; 31 Beeston Road
WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash
Tree Farm, Well Street for Mrs C Leggett
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
LITTLE SNORING - PO/11/0826 - Erection of 2 detached two-storey dwellings;
Land at The Old Dairy, The Pastures for Mrs R Fittall
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1238 - Construction of new roof to provide habitable
accommodation in roofspace; 15 St Austins Grove for Mr Welch
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
66
23 August 2012