OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 23 JANUARY 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/012/0945 - Erection of A1 (retail) store (5,574 sqm
gross floor area, 3,623 sqm net sales area), new access onto A149 Cromer
Road, petrol filling station and ancillary development including 412 space car
park, service yard and landscaping; Land at Former Marrick’s Wire Ropes
Premises, Cromer Road, North Walsham for Scott Properties Ltd
Background
This application was considered by the Development Committee on 21 March 2013,
copies of the 21 March 2013 Committee Report, Appendices and Minutes of that
meeting are attached at Appendix 1. At that meeting Members resolved that:
‘…in the event that Paston College Lawns site is not considered to be available
in sequential terms and that appropriate mitigation has been provided to offset
the identified significant adverse impacts on the town centre, the Head of
Development Management be authorised to approve this application subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions including those set out by consultees
and subject to completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure an agreed
package of mitigation and subject to a Section 278 Agreement to secure
required off-site improvement works’.
In terms of this resolution, there are therefore two key elements which need further
consideration before a decision notice approving the proposed development could be
issued, these being:
(i)
The availability of the Paston College Lawn site with reference to the
sequential test and;
(ii)
Whether an appropriate mitigation package could be secured by means of a
Section 106 agreement, which along with appropriate conditions, would
adequately address the identified impact of this proposal on the viability and
vitality of North Walsham town centre.
This report addresses these two issues.
1.
The availability of the Paston College Lawn site
A letter dated 28 March 2013 was received from Paston College‟s Principal Kevin
Grieve which states that Paston Sixth Form College have no intentions of selling
their Lawns site as it forms a ‘…key component of the College where approximately
70% of our specialist courses and services are delivered’. Officers consider that the
letter from Mr Grieve is clear evidence that the Paston College site can no longer be
considered to be available in sequential terms and the Marrick‟s site, as the next
sequentially available site could be approved so long as appropriate mitigation has
Development Committee
1
23 January 2014
been provided to offset the identified significant adverse impacts on North Walsham
town centre.
The issue of the sequential test has therefore been resolved.
2
Mitigation Package
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The report to the 21 March
2013 Development Committee is attached at Appendix 1 and this sets out the
national and local Policies relevant to the determination of this application.
Given that it was previously agreed by Committee that all other planning matters are
sufficiently addressed or are capable of being addressed by way of imposition of
planning conditions, the acceptability of the proposal therefore hinges on whether an
acceptable package of mitigation can be secured to offset the identified significant
adverse impacts on North Walsham town centre.
Context
The legislation providing local planning authorities with the power to enter into legal
(Section 106) agreements with applicants (often referred to as planning obligations),
so as to regulate the use and development of land which might involve payment of a
financial contribution for off-site works, is set out in the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (paragraph 122) and restated in the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) published on 27 March 2012. The guidance indicates that
planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
1. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
2. Directly related to the development, and
3. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
It is important to recognise that it is the applicant‟s responsibility to ensure that the
harmful effects of the proposal are appropriately mitigated.
Negotiations
Following consideration of the application by the Development Committee on 21
March 2013 and recognising the Committee‟s wish to approve the store proposal
subject to an appropriate package of mitigation being secured, extensive negotiations
have taken place with the applicants, over the scale of the anticipated impact on the
town centre and therefore the size of any package of mitigation.
Unfortunately Officers have been unable to reach agreement with the applicants, who
have now submitted a „full and final offer‟ that they wish to be referred back to
Committee for final determination of this application.
The apparent inability to reach agreement stems from a difference in opinion over the
impact the proposed store will have on the viability and vitality of the town centre.
This matter was covered in detail in the report to Development Committee on 21
March 2013 (Appendix 1).
In considering mitigation measures, the applicant has sought to compare the impact
of the Marrick‟s proposal with the impacts attributed to the Waitrose store in North
Development Committee
2
23 January 2014
Walsham and the proposed supermarket at the Thaxter‟s site in Holt. The applicant is
of the opinion that he should pay very little by way of mitigation, particularly as the
degree of impact is, in his opinion, comparable at around 20% to impacts attributed to
the Waitrose store and the Thaxter‟s proposal at Holt.
In simple percentage terms the figures for impact on the respective town centres
associated with the stores highlighted by the applicant appear broadly similar (25.3%
impact from the proposed Marrick‟s store compared with 21.7% for the Waitrose
store in North Walsham and 20% for the Thaxter‟s store in Holt). However, the
monetary value of the impact figures is somewhat less comparable, approx. £11.15m
impact on the town centre from the proposed Marrick‟s store compared with approx.
£9.47m impact on the town centre from the Waitrose store and approx. £2.7m impact
on Holt town centre from the Thaxter‟s proposal.
In addition, the Committee should bear in mind that the impact of the proposed store
on North Walsham town centre would be additional to any impact from the Waitrose
store. The cumulative impact of the recently opened Waitrose North Walsham store
and the proposed 3,623sqm store at the Marrick‟s site would be approximately
£20.62m in 2016 and this would equate to an impact of around 47% on North
Walsham town centre as a whole. The Council‟s appointed retail consultant
considers this to amount to a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of
North Walsham town centre.
Summary of impact assessments
Holt
North Walsham
Thaxters of Holt
Waitrose
PF/12/0929
PF/12/0310 & PF/12/0309
Gross floor area =1,500m2
Net sales area = 1,014m2
90% convenience (805m2)
10% comparison (90m2)
90 Parking spaces
20%
Gross floor area 2,885m2
Net sales area 1,830m2
1,592m2 convenience
goods
238m2 comparison goods
Existing building –
application to vary
conditions (previously DIY
store)
154 parking spaces
21.7%
North Walsham
Marrick Wire Ropes
Premises
PF/12/0945
Gross floor area 5,574m2
Net sales area 3,623 m2
Petrol filling station
2,536m2 convenience
goods
1,087m2 comparison
goods
412 parking spaces
Cumulative impact on
town centre of Waitrose
store and the proposed
store would equate to a
loss of £20.62m in 2016 =
impact of 47% on town
centre.
Assessment of store by
itself 25.3%, but cannot
ignore the cumulative
impact.
The applicant remains of the opinion that our retail consultant‟s assessment of impact
is inaccurate and makes reference to anecdotal evidence suggesting that the actual
Development Committee
3
23 January 2014
impact of Waitrose store (after a years‟ trading) is less than previously predicted, and
also the impact on the Sainsbury‟s store within North Walsham is less than previously
predicted.
In an attempt to resolve this fundamental difference the Council has suggested to
the applicant that an updated retail assessment be submitted, based on an agreed
methodology, to provide accurate evidential data (including further household survey
work). The applicant has declined to do this, and has requested that the application
be referred back to Committee for determination.
The applicant has also made comparison with the Waitrose site. However the
Committee will recall that, in considering the proposals at the former Focus store on
Cromer Road, North Walsham (ref: PF/12/0310 & PF/12/0309) it was considered
that, whilst the proposal would result in adverse impacts on North Walsham Town
Centre, these impacts were not considered to amount to significant adverse impacts
and hence there was no justification in planning terms to require impact mitigation
measures. Furthermore the Committee recognised that approval of the Waitrose
proposal would bring back into use a significant vacant commercial building and
would support the creation of at least 150 new jobs within a relatively short timescale
and would deliver wider economic benefits for North Walsham and the surrounding
area. As outlined above, as this is the second retail proposal in North Walsham, it is
important that the cumulative impact of these proposals is taken into account.
In assessing the scale of the mitigation package
In order for a mitigation package to be considered acceptable, the package must be
considered of an appropriate scale to address the identified harmful effects of the
proposal. Our independent retail assessment concludes that with the cumulative
impact being in the region of 47%, there would be a significant adverse impact on the
vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre. Consideration therefore needs to
be given to the outcomes the proposed mitigation package may achieve in terms of
improvements to the vitality and viability of the North Walsham town centre, and not
just to the monetary value of the package.
In this respect Officers consider that the underlying aim of any mitigation package
should be such that it acts as an impetus to attract additional investment and
encourage alternative uses in the town centre to enable North Walsham to adapt its
role in light of the changing retail environment with a likely move to a more serviceled economy.
Officers have sought to propose a package of mitigation which seeks to strike an
appropriate balance between the Development Committee‟s wish to approve the
proposal for the new store whilst seeking to minimise the impact of the store on
established levels of trade within the town centre through supporting the town centre
to adjust to the new trading environment which would existing following the opening
of the store.
Whilst recognising that it is the applicant‟s responsibility to ensure that the harmful
effects of the proposal are appropriately mitigated, in order to assist the applicant,
Officers have given consideration to the scale of mitigation package that officers
would consider to be appropriate to address the harmful effects of the proposal. This
resulted in a package with a monetary value of £1,395,000 initially being proposed by
Officers, however this was reduced to £750,000 and put to the developer as a
compromise position by the Council.
Development Committee
4
23 January 2014
Current Proposal
The original mitigation package submitted with the application (Appendix 8 to original
committee report – included in Appendix 1 attached to this paper) had a monetary
value of £150,000. This has now been increased to the current mitigation package
which has a monetary value of £485,000 and includes:
1. £100,000 towards free short-stay car parking;
2. £70,000 for provision of street lighting and street furniture within the town centre;
3. £30,000 funding for the Town Team to spend on North Walsham events to help
promote the town
4. £100,000 towards a pedestrian audit and any associated works;
5. £50,000 funding for a Rates holiday for businesses in the town centre;
6. £25,000 funding towards a Pop-up shop;
7. £50,000 funding towards a Hopper Bus;
8. £10,000 towards North Walsham in Bloom
9. £50,000 towards Redecoration of shop fronts to improve the appearance of the
town and to enhance shop fronts
Appendix 2 – contains a table showing the difference between the applicant’s
current proposal and the officers’ suggested compromise package.
It is also critical to look at each element of the proposal to assess whether each
element complies with the CIL tests (outlined below) and to have an understanding
as to how each would mitigate the harmful impact of the proposal. An overall view
can then be reached as to whether or not this package meets Test 1 of the CIL
regulations. This matter has been the subject of discussion with the applicants and
Appendix 2 provides a summary of the applicant‟s view and that of your officers.
In addition to this, whilst Officers recognise that the package of mitigation contains
some good proposals which would go some way to addressing the impact of the
store on the town centre, Officers have some concern that the mitigation package
includes elements which would not meet all of the following tests:
1. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
2. Directly related to the development; and
3. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”
In particular, Officers have concerns that the mitigation offered in relation to a
„Hopper Bus‟ and „North Walsham in Bloom‟ would not accord with guidance and
therefore the NPPF compliant elements of the applicant‟s offer would amount to
£425,000, after discounting those elements.
Officers also consider that the other elements of the applicant‟s package of mitigation
still fall short of what is required in terms of scale to mitigate the significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposed development. However it is evident from
subsequent exchanges of correspondence that negotiations have reached their
conclusion and that the mitigation package now proposed represents the applicant‟s
full and final offer.
Consultations
North Walsham Town Council and the Chamber of Commerce have been asked for
their views on this current proposal. At the time of going to print on this report, these
Development Committee
5
23 January 2014
consultations were outstanding, and therefore the Committee will be updated at the
meeting.
The Council‟s appointed retail consultant is of the opinion that, given the clear
difference between the respective positions of the applicant and the Council
regarding what is considered to be an appropriate level of impact mitigation and on
the basis that receipt of a substantially improved offer from the applicant now seems
unlikely, the matter should be referred back to the Development Committee for
consideration on the basis that appropriate mitigation has not been provided to offset
the identified significant adverse impacts on North Walsham town centre as a whole.
Other Relevant Material Considerations
Given the current economic climate, supporting job creation and new business
growth has become a top political priority at both national and local level.
Nonetheless, careful consideration would need to be given if the Development
Committee is minded to approve proposals which would have a significant adverse
impact on the vitality and viability of the District‟s largest town.
In Officers‟ view given the lack of appropriate mitigation, the creation of 250 full and
part time jobs at the Marrick‟s store would have to be balanced against the potential
loss of jobs likely within the town centre as a whole and in those supporting
businesses and also the harmful physical effects that would result through lack of
investment in the town centre and the harm this would cause to the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
Conditions
The resolution of 21 March 2013 was, “to approve this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including those set out by consultees”. This
refers primarily to comments made by the Town Council in response to the original
consultation with regard to the imposition of conditions to control the provision of free
standing units eg travel agents, dry cleaners within the proposed store which would
particularly undermine the vitality of the town centre.
Notwithstanding the Officers recommendation to refuse, should the Committee be
minded to approve the application, it is considered that conditions should be imposed
that restrict the floor space dedicated to the split between convenience and
comparison goods, (as specified in the application), and to prevent the introduction of
separate independent third parties retail stores. However it is not considered
reasonable to restrict the range of convenience/comparison goods to be sold within
the store itself or the provision of an in-store café.
In addition to this, as a full application, the statutory time limit for commencement of
the development is five years. The Committee may wish to consider whether it would
be appropriate to consider reducing this to three years, given the assessed impact on
the town centre and the absence of a specified operator. It is also considered that an
unimplemented permission may deter future investment within the town centre to the
further detriment to the town centre.
S106 Agreement
Members should be aware that payment of the financial contributions referred in the
mitigation package will be received, at the earliest on commencement of the
Development Committee
6
23 January 2014
development, and more likely prior to first occupation/use of the new store and petrol
station.
Officers attending Committee will be in a position to offer more detailed advice on the
conditions and the heads of terms for any S106 obligation, should Members require
it.
Making the decision
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined
in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The report to the 21 March 2013 Development Committee is attached at
Appendix 1 and this sets out the national and local Policies relevant to the
determination of this application.
Given that all other planning matters are sufficiently addressed or are capable of
being addressed by way of the imposition of planning conditions, the acceptability of
the proposal therefore hinges on whether a sufficient package of mitigation can be
secured to offset the identified significant adverse impacts on North Walsham town
centre.
As stated in the report to Development Committee on 21 March 2013, in respect of
the proposed development and the possible requirement to enter into a S106
Obligation, whilst the Council‟s appointed retail consultant has suggested that the
level of significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability is „likely to be
incapable of being mitigated by town centre improvements or other measures‟ he
nonetheless accepts „that this is ultimately a matter for the Council to determine. It
has been stated in a number of cases (notably in Cala Homes (South) Ltd v
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Winchester City
2011) that the weight to be attached to a material consideration is a matter for the
decision maker.
The Development Committee therefore has two possible options:
Option A
If the Committee accepts the applicant‟s package of mitigation and concludes a s106
obligation to secure them, to grant permission, a decision to approve this application
contrary to the recommendation of officers would have to be in accordance with
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (be in accordance
with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise) and the
reasons for that decision would have to be articulated in the minutes of the meeting
to minimise the possible risk of a legal challenge.
Option B
If the Committee refuses the application on the basis that the proposed mitigation
package is insufficient, this may result in an appeal against that refusal. In that event
the question of what package of mitigation might meet the tests of CIL Regulation
122 and be sufficient to address the identified adverse impact of the proposal on the
town centre would fall to the Inspector to determine.
Development Committee
7
23 January 2014
Conclusions
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The report to the 21 March
2013 Development Committee is attached at Appendix 1 and this sets out the
national and local Policies relevant to the determination of this application.
Given that it was previously agreed by Committee that all other planning matters are
sufficiently addressed or are capable of being addressed by way of imposition of
planning conditions, the acceptability of the proposal therefore hinges on whether a
acceptable package of mitigation can be secured to offset the identified significant
adverse impacts on North Walsham town centre
In this respect Officers consider that the underlying aim of any mitigation package,
should be such that it acts as an impetus to attract additional investment and
encourage alternative uses to North Walsham to adapt its role in light of the changing
retail environment.
In order for a mitigation package to be considered acceptable, the package must be
considered to be of an appropriate scale to address the identified harmful effects of
the proposal. The independent retail assessment concludes that with the cumulative
impact of the approved and trading Waitrose store and the proposed Marricks store
being in the region of 47%, there would be a significant adverse impact on the vitality
and viability of North Walsham town centre. Consideration therefore needs to be
given to the outcomes the proposed mitigation package may achieve in terms of
improvements to the vitality and viability of the North Walsham town centre, and not
just to the monetary value of the package
Officers are of the opinion that planning permission should only be granted if the
Committee are reasonably confident that the proposed package of mitigation put
forward by the applicant is appropriate to offset the likely significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposed Marrick‟s store. Failure to secure appropriate
mitigation will not only likely lead to serious long-term harm to the vitality and viability
of North Walsham town centre but also result in harm to the character and
appearance of the North Walsham Conservation Area.
The Committee is therefore recommended to refuse the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal for the following reason:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
SS 5 – Economy
EC 5 – Location of retail and commercial leisure development
In addition the Council has taken full account of guidance set out within the National
Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).
The proposal involves the erection of an A1 (retail) store with a gross floor area of
5,574 sqm and a net sales area of 3,623 sqm (comprising 2,536 square metres for
Development Committee
8
23 January 2014
the sale of convenience goods and 1,087 square metres for the sale of comparison
goods). The store would be sited in an out-of-centre location.
The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre
and the applicant has failed to put forward a package of mitigation which would
properly mitigate the identified significant impacts.
Having considered all of the available evidence, it is considered that there are no
material considerations sufficient to justify the clear departure from Development
Plan policy or evidence to justify the acceptability of the harm to the vitality and
viability of North Walsham town centre that would result from the proposal.
(Source: Nicola Baker, Head of Planning, ext 6135)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1205 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include splay bay window, insertion of dormer
windows and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay Cottage, The Quay for
Mr & Mrs K Bertram
- Target Date: 03 January 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Flood Zone 2
Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
13/0753 HOU - Erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions with partial
undercroft - Withdrawn by Applicant 23/07/2013
PF/13/0937 HOU - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to single-storey
element to include rooflights and bay window, insertion of dormer windows, rooflights
and window to existing two-storey wing
Refused 27/09/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two storey extension having a total floor area of some 82 sq.
metres, which would accommodate a sitting room at ground floor with bedroom,
bathroom / dressing room above. The extension would be constructed of a mix of flint
with red brick dressing under a pitched clay pantile roof which would present a gable
to the north, front, elevation and half hipped roof to the south, rear elevation which
would have a glazed apex. To the front elevation there would be double patio doors
at ground floor level flanked by flint dressings, which would lead out onto decked
Development Committee
9
23 January 2014
area with glazed balustrade, whilst at first floor level there would be a recessed
glazed screen with glazed Juliette balcony. To the rear elevation there would be
double patio doors at ground floor level leading onto the decked area. Whilst the west
elevation would have further ground floor openings serving the sitting room with three
small square first floor windows, two of which would serve the bedroom and the other
the bathroom/dressing room. The external timber joinery would be of a natural finish.
Other works would include increasing the width of the dining hall by 1 metre, which
would involve the introduction of a new roof with a slightly shallower pitch so as not to
increase the overall height. In addition, a splay bay would replace an existing picture
window to the front elevation, and on the rear garden elevation a high level roof light
is proposed.
As far as the two storey east wing is concerned, it is proposed to convert the roof
space to habitable accommodation which would involve the introduction of two
dormer windows to the front (north elevation), a two light window to the western
facing gable and a high level roof light to the rear elevation which would be in the lee
of the roof behind the neighbouring property. In addition, a further eight over eight
sash window is proposed at first floor level to the front elevation.
Amended plans have been received which result in the ridge height of the proposed
two storey extension being reduced by a further 225 millimetres. In addition, the area
of glazing to the north elevation of the extension has been simplified and reduced in
area by 2.75 sq. metres.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting to seek amendments to the proposal.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of visual impact on the surrounding area.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. The alteration is not in keeping with the lovely quayside setting that is a nationally
renowned beauty spot.
2. The raised two storey glass addition is inappropriate and will dominate and spoil
the aspect when approaching Blakeney from the coastal path.
3. The area has a balanced look at the present time and the proposal is too
dominant and rather shouts out how wealthy the owners must be.
4. The proposed structure would conflict and contrast with The Pastures
development which won an architectural award for its traditional and sensitive
design in a modern context.
5. Some of the dwellings in The Pastures were designed specifically to afford views
over the marshes to Blakeney Point, having living accommodation upstairs.
6. The large windows on the two storey extension are not in harmony with the
historic appearance of Blakeney Quay and the listed buildings thereon.
7. Our house is an upside down house with the living area at first floor which gives
us and our neighbours unique views over the salt marshes and sea beyond. The
proposed extension would take away this view, our privacy and our enjoyment of
coming to this lovely village.
8. It would be entirely out of keeping with the neighbouring properties, several of
which are listed, and detrimental to the Conservation area and the surrounding
part of the village.
Development Committee
10
23 January 2014
9. The modern design of the extension - the large gable, huge area of glass on the
north elevation fronting the Quay, urban-style glass-surrounded deck and first
floor balcony - would look utterly alien in the context of the old buildings which
make up the Quay area.
10. The land rises to the south from the Quay and the proposed extension, being
considerably higher than the surrounding properties, would be very visible
indeed.
11. During the evening the light from the large windows of the extension, and indeed
any lighting outside on the „deck‟, would be very evident to those walking along
the Quay, especially compared with the gentle level of lighting glimpsed from the
existing properties.
12. Whilst a number of large modern houses have been constructed elsewhere in
Blakeney, this is one part of the village where the buildings are still of traditional
local materials and of „ordinary‟ scale. We believe that the introduction of one
building of large modern appearance into this area is likely to destroy its historic
feel.
13. There is still a reference in the Application to cedar being one of the roofing
materials. This would be completely inappropriate and we request that it is not
permitted.
14. No information has been given regarding the design of the proposed bay window
or the dormer windows on the existing two-storey part of property, but we think it
important that in this prominent location on the Quay careful consideration should
be given to the design and materials of these new elements.
15. The application does not give any indication as to how the proposals would relate
to the properties surrounding Quay Cottage, other than the assertion made by the
applicant‟s agent that the proposed extension would blend in with the prevailing
architectural character (for which no evidence has been provided).
16. We do feel that our property would be overlooked; however our main concern is
that at night the lights shining out from inside Quay Cottage through the new
south-facing rooflights and the high glazed apex to the „gablet‟ would be highly
detrimental to the dark night skies which are such an important part of Blakeney.
17. During the summer the proposed Velux window to the „dining hall‟ would reflect
the sun into our living room window.
18. The proposal does not comply with the Blakeney Village Design Statement
Section 3.1 Guidelines Protecting Blakeney views which states that "views from
all parts of the village of the marshes, the harbour, the shingle spit and open sea
should be jealously guarded and protected from the intrusion of new
development".
19. Would set a precedent for future building in Blakeney.
20. Loss of amenity and light to properties to the rear.
21. The design, style and materials are out of keeping with the properties prominent
setting and resemble a ski chalet.
22. The glazing to the north elevation would adversely affect the dark night sky.
23. The two storey extension is unnecessarily raised.
24. Unauthorised works have been undertaken to the garage part of the building
which is listed grade II, resulting in disturbance of a bat roost.
25. Throughout the three planning applications planning /conservation officers have
seemed determined to gain approval and justify pre-application advice.
26. The plans are not of a standard to allow the general public to be able to appraise
them with confidence.
27. The presence of a large tree in the vicinity has been ignored.
28. To have any roof higher than the existing single storey sitting room would
completely spoil the character of the area.
29. The roof of the two storey extension is ugly when viewed from the west and
would look between if the hipped continued up to the ridge.
Development Committee
11
23 January 2014
30. The proposed rooflights will compromise the privacy of the occupants of
dwellings to the south.
31. The proposal goes against the National Planning Policy Framework.
32. The applicant has failed repeatedly to show accurate profiles elevations to allow
the proposals to be easily understood, to enable full, open and transparent
consideration of the proposals.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Raises
no objection and makes the following comments.
The site in question occupies a prominent position just off The Quay within the heart
of the Blakeney Conservation Area. It is a location which is defined largely by the
three linear ranges (Quay Barn, The Lookout & Blakeney Hotel barn) which stand
gable end-onto the road and which provide longstanding enclosure and rhythm to the
street scene. These former maritime structures, along with their connecting frontage
walls, are all Grade II Listed Buildings and are separated by important open spaces
between. As a result, the location is considered to be a particularly sensitive one
which demands our full attention.
At the same time, however, the host property is actually something of a hybrid and
features a series of rather disparate elements. This is most noticeably illustrated by
the existing living room extension which is a rather lifeless affair and which adds little
to the overall site. With this part of the building also set some way back from The
Quay, and therefore not impinging upon the open space, there can be no objections
to the principle of some form of new build in this area.
In terms of the revised scheme submitted, the plans still essentially provide for a twostorey cross wing which would be built through the end of the existing living room. At
some 7.7m above ground level, it would still obviously be higher than this particular
part of the building. However, because this differential would now only be 1.3m, and
because the new build would actually be 2m lower than the main Quay Cottage, it is
not considered to be out of scale with its environs.
Design-wise, the un-annotated sketch plans submitted still do not help gain a true
feel for the proposed development. However, from what can be determined, the new
build should present an elegantly proportioned gable facing The Quay. This
potentially offers an attractive mix of a solid battered flint base at lower level and a
more contemporary glazed screen/apex at first floor level. The former should help
„ground‟ the new build on the site whilst the latter should actually enliven this part of
the site and add some much needed visual interest. Crucial to the success of this,
however, is ensuring that the glazing is set deep within its masonry reveals to create
meaningful shadow lines and depth – the latest plans successfully provide for this.
Elsewhere, the minimalist balcony should wrap successfully around the corner of the
extension and link creatively through the curtilage wall. Rather less successful would
be the rather unbalanced roofscape with its high level gablet facing south. However,
with this seemingly necessary to reduce the impact of the development, it is not
something that can be challenged (particularly as there would only be fleeting and
angled views of these side elevations). Therefore, with compatible materials, this
element of the scheme should take its place comfortably on site without any
detriment to the existing heritage assets.
Development Committee
12
23 January 2014
Of the other elements of the application: The addition of the bay window in lieu of the existing ill-proportioned picture
window is very much to be welcomed in principle. However, as the plans stay
quiet on materials and detailing, this would need to be conditioned if the
application were to be approved.
Similarly, the work within the listed part of the building also raises no obvious
concerns. This said, it would be helpful to know exactly how the access is to be
configured out of the garage into the utility room – there hardly seems space to fit
a stair in between the two doors.
The ramp is now considered to be acceptable with it being tucked in behind by
the continuation of the flint plinth.
In summary, the proposed development, and in particular the two-storey extension,
would undoubtedly still constitute a significant intervention into the existing built
environment. However, with compatible materials, Conservation & Design are still of
the opinion that the new build would actually help to enliven the existing property by
adding visual interest. With it also having been lowered by a metre, we can now be
even more confident that it would not harm the listed building (both directly and in
terms of its setting), or the appearance and character of the wider Blakeney
Conservation Area. In the event of an approval being issued, conditions covering the
bricks, tiles, flintwork, mortar mix, joinery (i.e. the glazed screen, doors and bay
window) and the balconies are all requested.
English Heritage – Raise no objection in principle to the two storey extension which
they consider would not have an adverse impact on the setting of Quay House, whilst
its scale, form and orientation would be similar to that seen in the surrounding
Conservation Area. However, in order to strike a balance between the contemporary
design and that of other traditional buildings in the area they suggest that the extent
of glazing to the north elevation be reduced. They suggest that consideration be
given to the enlarged bay window being reduced in size and fitted with traditional
casements and that the extent of glazing to the gable also be reduced, perhaps by
not glazing the apex and reducing the door widths.
Whilst in respect of the proposed two dormer windows and window to the two storey
range they consider that these would not detract from Quay House or the wider
Conservation Area.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Development Committee
13
23 January 2014
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
The Blakeney Village Design Statement which was published in 1998 and has been
adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is also a material
consideration.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Impact on Heritage Assets.
4. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
5. Flood risk.
6. Trees.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred by Members at the meeting on 19 December 2013 in
order to allow officers time to seek a further reduction in the height of the two storey
extension together with fenestrational changes/clarification in respect of the north
elevation of the extension.
Members will recall that a similar proposal, planning reference 13/0937 was
considered by Committee on 26 September 2013 when it was resolved to refuse the
application on the following grounds. The proposed two storey extension, by virtue of
its scale, massing and overall appearance would not be compatible with the host
building and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Blakeney Conservation Area or setting of the adjoining listed building.
The site is situated within the Development boundary for Blakeney as defined by the
North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy in an area designated as
residential. In addition, the site is within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and the Blakeney Conservation Area, whilst part of the northern wing
of the property is listed Grade II.
In principle an extension in the manner proposed is considered to be acceptable in
this location subject to compliance with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN8.
Policy EN1 states that development will be permitted where it does not detract from
the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals, including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in
this case the Blakeney Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings and their
settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that would have an
adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
Development Committee
14
23 January 2014
Whilst the scheme as envisaged would involve a number of elements the alterations
to the dining hall could be implemented without the benefit of planning permission as
the works would not increase the height of the roof and would be Permitted
Development under the Town and County Planning, (General Permitted
Development) Order 2008. Similarly the velux rooflight to the rear elevation and first
floor window to the north elevation of the two storey element would also not require
consent. As such consideration can only be given to the two storey extension, the
splay bay to the front of the dining hall and the two dormer windows to the north
elevation of the two storey wing.
In respect of the splay bay and dormer windows these do not raise any particular
concerns, with representation from local residents being primarily concerned with the
appearance and impact of the proposed two storey extension.
As far as the two storey extension is concerned, compared to the previously refused
scheme the ridge height would be 1 metre lower, resulting in an overall height of 7.7
metres from the existing ground level to the frontage of the site. This reduction has
been achieved by lowering the floor level of the sitting room and also a slight
reduction in ceiling heights. In addition, the cedar boarding to the south and west
elevations has been deleted and replaced with flint with red brick dressings.
In terms of the impact on the extension on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
as this is primarily a landscape designation consideration needs to be given as to
how the proposal would impact on the surrounding landscape. Although Quay
Cottage, is visible from Blakeney quay and the Blakeney Marsh National Nature
Reserve beyond, the frontage to the site is defined by a substantial flint wall some
1.8 metres in height, which substantially screens the property from view. Whilst the
introduction of a two storey element would undoubtedly increase the impact of the
existing property when viewed from the north, this would be seen in the context of
surrounding properties fronting the quay and against the backdrop of properties at
The Pastures and would not it is considered adversely affect the special landscape
qualities of the area.
In respect of the impact on the heritage assets, the form and character of Blakeney is
that of a close knit linear form being concentrated on High Street and West Street,
which consists of small, two storey cottages of flint with red brick dressings under
clay pantile roofs. Whilst properties fronting the quay form a slightly looser form of
development and range in scale from The Blakeney Hotel, a large two and half storey
property on the corner of High Street to more modest two storey properties at the
western end of the quay. However one of the main characteristics of properties
fronting the quay is that a number have north facing gables abutting the highway
whilst others are set back some considerable distance thereby creating gaps in the
development and providing the feeling of space. In addition, as with other areas of
Blakeney a number of properties are listed buildings, including Quay House a Grade
II* building which joins the application site to the east, plus The Lookout which joins
the application site to the north, which is listed Grade II, as is the frontage wall to the
site and the majority of other walls fronting the quay which are primarily of flint.
At the present time Quay Cottage, which is “T” shape in form, consists of two distinct
elements. The east wing dating from the 18th Century is two storey and constructed
of flint and red brick with timber sash windows and physically joins and was clearly
once part of Quay House. Joining this to the west is a single storey central core off
which there is a western wing, most probably dating from the 1960‟s, part of which
would be incorporated within the proposed two storey element. A further single storey
wing projects in a northerly direction, part of which dates from the 1960s, with the
Development Committee
15
23 January 2014
remaining element, which forms an open fronted garage, being listed Grade II, the
same as The Lookout to which it is physically attached. When viewed from the quay
the two storey wing is not readily visible, being masked by the single storey elements
which give the property both an understated appearance and neutral impact on the
setting of the Conservation Area. Inevitably the introduction of a two storey element,
the ridge height of which would be some 1.3 metres higher than the existing single
storey element, would increase the prominence of the property in the street scene.
However the introduction of north facing gable, which would have a total height of 7.7
metres, including a 800 millimetres flint plinth, and a width of 6 metres would, it is
considered, reflect the form and character of other properties in the immediate
vicinity of the site. Furthermore, it would create a stopped end to the existing single
storey element, and would balance with the larger two and a half storey wing to the
eastern side of the property which abuts Quay House. In terms of its elevational
treatment, although more contemporary, with the proposed use of substantial areas
of glazing to the north elevation, it is considered that this mixed with the palette of
material consisting of flint with red brick dressing and the joinery of natural timber
with the roof finished in clay pantiles would be in keeping with the local vernacular.
It is therefore considered that overall the scale, massing and detailing of the
extension as proposed would contribute to the overall character and appearance of
this part of the Blakeney Conservation Area, preserving its appearance and would
not have a significantly harmful effect on the heritage assets. This view has been
substantiated by the Council‟s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who
considered that whilst the two-storey extension, would undoubtedly constitute a
significant intervention into the existing built environment the scheme would be
compatible with the form and character of this part of the Blakeney Conservation
Area, and would not result in any harm being caused to the listed building both
directly or in terms of its setting.
It terms of the impact of the development on neighbouring properties, those dwellings
most affected by the development would be to The Pastures immediately to the south
of the site, which are two storey properties, having first floor reception rooms facing
north towards the quay. The southern boundary of Quay Cottage and these
properties is formed by a substantial flint wall some 3.0 metres in height which is
topped with planting and other vegetation and forms a fairly dense barrier.
As outlined above the proposed rooflights to the dining hall and two and half storey
element do not require formal consent. Therefore the only elements over which the
Local Planning Authority has any control and which could affect the amenities of
neighbouring properties are the two storey extension and the front dormers. In
respect of the extension the only windows to the southern elevation would be patio
doors at ground floor and glazing to the apex of the gablet which would serve the
bathroom / dressing room and would be above eye level. Whilst the extension itself
which is north of The Pastures and some 14 metres from the boundary at its closest
point would not result in loss of light or overbearing impact. However it is accepted
that the occupiers of a number of properties at The Pastures could lose their view
towards the quay, however this is not a consideration that the Local Planning
Authority can take into account.
However the Blakeney Village Design Statement Section 3.1 - Guidelines for
Protecting Blakeney views, states that “views from all parts of the village of the
marshes, the harbour, the shingle spit and the open sea should be jealously guarded
and protected from the intrusion of by new development.” Whilst Officers concur with
this statement, it is considered that the prime intention is to protect important views
from public vantage points and not to safeguard views from individual properties.
Development Committee
16
23 January 2014
In terms of the impact on other properties in the vicinity of the site the only other
potential for overlooking would be from the proposed dormer windows which would
look towards the frontage garden area of Quay House. However given that this is
communal parking area serving four flats within Quay House, this would not in itself
result in significant amenity issues.
As far flood risk is concerned, although the site is identified as being with Flood Risk
Zone 2, the applicants' agent has indicated that the site is 900mm higher than the
ground level at the edge of the flood zone. In addition, the extension is raised slightly
to take it further away from flood levels. It is therefore considered that given that the
proposed extension would not significantly increase the residential capacity of the
property, that refusal on flood risk grounds could not be justified.
In summary, it is considered that the proposals would not have a significantly harmful
impact on the Blakeney Conservation Area or the setting of listed properties in the
vicinity of the site in terms of its scale, massing or overall appearance. In addition,
they would not result in overlooking or overbearing of neighbouring properties. In
terms of flood risk this is also considered to be acceptable and the development
would not increase the risk to life.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to approve subject to
no new material considerations being raised following re-consultation and readvertisement of the amended plans and appropriate conditions.
3.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/1226 - Conversion of barn to two holiday
units; Barn at Saxthorpe Hall, Aylsham Road, Saxthorpe for Mr W Alefounder
Minor Development
- Target Date: 06 January 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a barn to two three-bed holiday units, which would involve
the raising of the roof to allow insertion of a first floor.
As part of the scheme it is intended that the existing steel and tin roof would be
replaced with clay pantiles. The southern elevation wall would be re-built.
Amended plan received showing proposed area for parking and garden.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor J Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issues:
Development Committee
17
23 January 2014
Design not in keeping with Saxthorpe Hall.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object as they believe the proposed design does not reflect the character of
Saxthorpe Hall. The Council have no objection to the proposal of using the barn for
holiday lets.
REPRESENTATIONS
None.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - The access would need to provide an improved width to
cater for two way movements associated with the vehicular use from multiple units,
this requires widening and surfacing to provide an access measuring 4.5m in width
for 5m as measured back form the carriageway.
Visibility from the site access is currently restricted by the frontage hedgerow, this
needs to be improved and maintained to provide acceptable levels of visibility.
The parking provision of 2 spaces not detailed on the plans is insufficient and does
not accord with the adopted standards.
Recommends conditions and informative notes.
Environment Agency - The site lies in a non sewer area and we accept that
connection to a main foul water sewer would be difficult and uneconomic. Connection
to a septic tank is a less favoured solution and the applicant has not provided any
evidence to demonstrate why they have not considered a private treatment plant. As
the site is not in a source protection zone it may be that the risk can be managed
through the permitting regime.
Recommends advice to applicant.
Building Control - As part of the Building Regulations application we will need full
details of the proposed septic tank prior to installation to confirm it is an adequate
size to serve the occupancy of the new dwelling, that it is correctly positioned and
that any tail drains are correctly positioned. Additionally, a percolation test may be
required to confirm the adequacy of the ground conditions and to determine the size
and extent of any drainage fields. In principle, there is no obvious reason that can be
seen from the plans submitted why a septic tank would not be suitable.
Landscape - The above application is supported by a protected species survey
prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology Ltd. The survey was prepared by Suitably
Qualified Ecologists and in accordance with recognised best practice guidelines. The
survey involved a physical inspection of the building proposed for conversion looking
for signs and evidence of use by protected species; principally bats, barn owls and
nesting birds. Although the survey was carried out at a sub-optimal time of year to
identify maternity colonies of bats, it would still be possible to identify other bat
activity and use and identify the need for further survey work. The results and
conclusions of the survey are deemed sound.
The existing barn although mainly built of soft red brick has metal roof stanchions,
much block work and a profiled tin roof. The survey indicated that the building
provided little opportunities for roosting bats and no evidence of bats or bat activity
was found. Although the surrounding environment provides optimal habitat for bats,
Development Committee
18
23 January 2014
the building itself does not. The survey notes that the adjacent hall has a brown
long-eared bat roost in the roof. The survey concluded that the impact of the
proposed conversion on bats would be neutral.
The survey did find evidence of a wren‟s nest within the building, therefore the
potential for nesting birds will need to be taken into consideration as part of the
conversion works.
Based on the information contained in the report, the Landscape section consider
that an offence under the Habitats Regulations is unlikely to occur as a result of the
development. However, due to the transient and dynamic nature of bats the Survey
makes recommendations to alert construction workers of their potential presence. In
addition, due to the potential for nesting birds to be present, further mitigation is
suggested to commence works outside of the bird breeding season. It is suggested
that recommended mitigation measures are included as condition of planning if
granted. The following condition is suggested:
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with
the protected species mitigation measures outlined in section 6 of report of the
protected species survey prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology Ltd, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Environmental Health - Recommends informative note.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & 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 EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy EC 9: Retaining an adequate supply and mix of tourist accommodation
(specifies criteria to prevent loss of facilities).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
19
23 January 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Design and impact on Saxthorpe Hall
Highways and parking issues
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within an area of designated Countryside. The conversion of barns for
holiday use are considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
relevant Core Strategy policies.
The building is considered to be soundly built, suitable for the proposed conversion
without substantial re-building or extension and appropriate in scale and nature for
the location. It is also considered that the proposed alterations would enhance the
character of the building.
Design
The proposed amendments to the barn are considered to be acceptable in respect of
design and materials.
The existing barn does not compliment Saxthorpe Hall visually and the proposed reroofing from tin/steel roof to clay pantiles is considered to be a significant
improvement. It is considered that the use of oak and soft wood joinery would
improve the appearance of the building.
Whilst the use of so much glazing to the front elevation and the size of the rooflights
are considered to be unfortunate, given the visual improvements that are being
proposed to the barn, it is not considered these are reasons for refusal in this
instance.
It is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.
As such, the design of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and
compliant with the aims of Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Highways and parking issues
In the absence of Highway objections and subject to the imposition of conditions
recommended by County Council Highway, it is considered that the proposed use of
the building would be in accordance with adopted Development Plan policies.
Amended plan received showing the area for parking.
In summary, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission
is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by
Development Committee
20
23 January 2014
Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the
application (drawings indicating the elevations and floor plans) and the
amended plans (location and site plans) received by the Local Planning
Authority in December 2013 and does not include the installation of any Air
Source Heat Pumps.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The building subject to this permission shall be used for holiday
accommodation purposes only and shall not be used as the sole or main
residence of the occupiers.
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt and because the barn is located in an area
designated as Countryside in the North Norfolk Core Strategy where the Local
Planning Authority would not normally permit permanent residential
accommodation, in accordance with Policies SS 2, EC 10 and EC 2 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
The holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall be made available for
commercial holiday letting for at least 140 days a year and no individual let
shall exceed 31 days.
Reason:
To ensure that the accommodation is restricted to holiday use only and not
used as permanent residential accommodation in accordance with Policy EC 9
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5
A register of lettings, occupation and advertising shall be maintained at all
times and shall be made available for inspection to the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the accommodation is restricted to holiday use only and not
used as permanent residential accommodation in accordance with Policy EC 9
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other
alteration to the holiday units hereby permitted (including the insertion or any
further windows or rooflights) shall take place unless planning permission has
been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and
the visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
21
23 January 2014
7
Bricks to be used on the proposed development shall match those of the
existing building, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge
satisfactorily with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Prior to their installation, details and the location of the proposed Solar PV
panels be used on the southern elevation of the holiday units hereby
permitted, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full accordance with
the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
9
Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the vehicular access
shall be widened to a minimum width of 4.5 metres in accordance with the
Norfolk County Council residential access construction specification for the first
5 metres as measured back from the near channel edge of the adjacent
carriageway. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage from the
site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge
from or onto the highway.
Reason:
In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement, in accordance with
Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10
Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any
Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gates, bollard, chain or
other means of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access
unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11
Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted a 2.0 metres wide
parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent
highway carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site‟s roadside
frontage. The parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained free from
any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway
carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
22
23 January 2014
12
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted sufficient
space shall be provided within the site to enable 4 standard size family cars to
park, turn and re-enter the highway in a forward gear. This area shall be
levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with a detailed scheme submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with
the Highway Authority and retained thereafter available for that specific use.
Reason:
In the interests of satisfactory development and highway safety, in accordance
with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance
with the protected species mitigation measures outlined in section 6 of the
report of the protected species survey prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology Ltd
and dated October 2013, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the impact of the development on protected species is
appropriately mitigated in accordance with Policy EN 9 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
14
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the
building subject to this permission shall not be occupied until the measures
identified in the Sustainable Construction Checklist submitted with the planning
application have been implemented:
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4.
HOLT - PF/13/1542 - Erection of first floor extension to provide two residential
flats; Lion House Court, off High Street for Bakers & Larners of Holt
Minor Development
- Target Date: 18 February 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of the upper floor of a vacant retail unit and the erection of first
floor accommodation above the former display and sales area to provide two one
bedroom flats. One flat would have a floor area of 51 sq. metres and the other 35 sq.
metres.
Access to the larger flat would be via a new ground floor entrance door in the existing
west facing flint gable of the two storey element of the retail premises whilst the
Development Committee
23
23 January 2014
smaller flat would be served via a new entrance doorway to the existing flat roofed
extension at the southern end of the building.
The upper floor would be constructed of red facing bricks to match existing with the
roof being of salvaged clay pantiles with the overall ridge height being the same as
the existing two storey element at the north end of the site.
A bin storage area would be provided adjacent to the entrance of each flat which
would be screened by a 1.2 metre high timber fence.
No vehicular parking provision would be provided.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Managing director of applicant company is a Member of the Council.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments awaited.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Cromer - Comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Comments awaited.
Environmental Health - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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 9: Holt (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 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
24
23 January 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development
2. Scale and design
3. Impact on the adjacent listed building and Conservation Area
4. Residential amenity
5. Impact on the highway and parking provision
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Holt Town Centre and designated primary shopping
area as defined by the Core Strategy and is also within the Holt Conservation Area,
where Core Strategy Policies SS 5, EN 4 and EN 8 are particularly relevant.
Policy SS 5 states that in town centre locations residential proposals will be
permitted, where they do not result in the loss of shops or other main town centre
uses located within a defined Primary Shopping Area. Proposals should also have
regard to the integration of public transport in town centres and seek to provide
pedestrian friendly environments.
Policies EN 4 and EN 8 require that all development will be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness and that design which fails to have regard to
local context and does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of an
area will not be accepted. In addition proposals should not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings
should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Given that there are no shops or other significant town centre uses being lost, the
principle of new residential development is considered to be acceptable in this
location under Policy SS5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, subject to
satisfactory compliance with other relevant Development Plan policies.
As far as the scale and design of the proposed first floor extension it is considered
that this would be broadly in keeping with the form and character of this part of Holt
with its close knit development. Whilst elevationally the new three light windows to
the front, west facing elevation, would give a balanced appearance with the existing
ground floor shop windows to the former display and sales area.
In respect of the impact on the adjacent listed building, and wider Conservation Area
given that the site is within a semi enclosed courtyard with view from High Street
being very limited it is not considered that the proposal would resulting any harm to
the significance of the designated assets.
Further comments regarding design and visual appearance/impact of the proposal in
the Conservation Area are awaited from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Officer.
In respect of residential amenity issues, the close relationship between the proposed
dwellings would replicate other similar situations within the town and whilst there is a
lack of outside amenity space, given the small scale of the dwellings this in itself is
not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
With regard to neighbouring amenity, although the adjoining property to the east has
a number of rooflights to its western roof slope given the height of this building these
would be above the ridge height of the proposed extension and would not result in a
loss of light to these properties. Similarly it is not considered that there would be any
amenity issues in terms of overlooking or loss of light to the residential property to the
Development Committee
25
23 January 2014
rear of 22 High Street to the south. Whilst the west facing windows to the proposed
first floor extension would look towards the existing commercial premises to the west.
The proposed flats would therefore not result in any significantly issues.
In respect of the highway impact of the proposal, there is an existing access to the
site onto High Street and this has formerly been used for the loading/unloading for
the retail use. The scheme proposed would not provide on-site parking and as such
the access is not intended for vehicular use.
In respect of parking provision, although the proposal would not provide for any
vehicular parking, the minimum requirement being a total of 3 spaces (1.5 per
dwelling), Policy CT 6 allows for a reduction is the standard parking requirements in
town centres where there are sufficient local services, where there is access to
acceptable levels of public transport or where within a Conservation Areas the
proposal would result in an improved building design which enhances the character
of the built environment. In this case, whilst it is accepted that at the present time
there is an under-provision of car parking within Holt, it is well served by public
transport and local services. In addition it is considered that the development would
enhance this part of the town centre. As such it is considered that the lack of car
parking would provide insufficient grounds to justify refusal of the application.
At the time of writing this report, the comments of the Highway Authority are awaited
in respect of the access and lack of parking provision.
In summary, subject to no objection from outstanding consultees the proposal is
considered to be acceptable and would not to conflict significantly with the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegate to the Head of Planning to approve, subject to no objections upon
the expiry of the site notice/press advertisement, no objection from
outstanding consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
5.
KNAPTON - PO/13/1310 - Erection of eight dwellings; Land off School Close for
Victory Housing Trust
Major Development
- Target Date: 11 February 2014
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
C Road
B Road
Countryside
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19990036 PF
Change of use of land to informal recreation area and formation of car parking area
Approved 03/03/1999
Development Committee
26
23 January 2014
THE APPLICATION
This is an outline planning application for residential development of 8 affordable
dwellings on land currently laid to grass and used as an informal recreation area at
the edge of the village of Knapton on the corner of the B1145 and Hall Lane. All
matters are reserved.
The indicative plan shows the 8 dwellings to the western end of the site served by a
new access road off School Close. The Design and Access Statement indicates that
the area to the west of the site will be gifted to the Parish Council for potential
housing development and or open space. Three dwellings have been indicated on
this area of land, but do not form part of the application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning due to outstanding highway issues.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection on the following grounds (summarised)
1. Local residents have expressed their objection at pre-application meetings with the
developer
2. There are other areas in the village which would be better for development that
would have less impact than this site
3. There is an outstanding village green application for this site and planning
permission should not be granted whilst this is in progress.
4. There are a lack of amenities around the village to justify the need for further
housing i.e no shops, school, pub, bus service, mains sewerage, GP surgery.
5. There are empty Victory Housing houses in the village that they have been unable
to occupy. The housing need in the village is therefore questionable.
6. The development would be out of character with the village.
7. The road system around the site is already struggling to cope with the existing
number of cars.
8. The site is on a busy junction with no safe pedestrian pathways.
9. If permission is granted the Hawthorn Hedge along the north boundary should be
retained and the housing should be sympathetically design and should be bungalows
in keeping with the existing stock.
10.Most of the surrounding villages have better and more suitable amenities and
communications that Knapton.
11. The development would interrupt and disrupt the amenity of the area resulting in
a significant loss of public open space.
12. Would result in a loss of recreation and open space to the public.
13. The site has not been allocated for development, is a greenfield site, and is
prejudicial to future opportunities for genuine sustainable development in the future.
14. It has not been proven that there is a housing need for these new builds.
15. The applicant has failed to identify other sites within the parish and therefore
demonstrate that this is the best option.
16. Six two-bed bungalows would be more appropriate.
17. Without detail the impact on the landscape character and AONB cannot be
assessed.
18. The applicant has not fedback the outcome of their public consultation.
19.The impact on the character and form of the village cannot be assessed without
full details.
20. If houses are proposed they would have a detrimental impact on adjacent
bungalows.
Development Committee
27
23 January 2014
21. The re-location of the village hall car parking a further distance from the village
hall is unacceptable.
22. Would not want to see the loss of the millennium garden
23. If have to lose some of the field then it should only be for bungalows at the top of
the field by the water tower and the rest should be kept as a village green.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Object with the following comments:
As discussed with the applicant's agent during pre-application discussions, it would
be the view of the County Council that Knapton cannot be considered to be a
sustainable location suitable for any residential development. There are no local
facilities, primary school or employment opportunities and limited public transport.
Knapton is served by Mundesley Primary School, which is approximately 1.25 miles
away, with no safe available walking route. If there is a genuine need for local
housing in Knapton, for the reasons stated above it is the County Council view that
they should be provided in a neighbouring parish that has appropriate facilities to
support the occupants of these houses, such as Mundesley. Therefore, in relation to
highways issues only, notice is hereby given that Norfolk County Council
recommends that permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development does not adequately provide off-site facilities for
pedestrians / cyclists / people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or
others with mobility difficulties) to link with existing provision and / or local services.
2. The proposal is remote from local service centre provision conflicting with the
aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to
encourage walking, cycling, use of public transport and reduce the reliance on the
private car as represented in national and local policy. Contrary to the National
Planning Policy Framework and Policy 5 of Norfolk‟s 3rd Local Transport Plan,
entitled Connecting Norfolk.
The Highway authority have further advised, following discussion around the
sustainability of the site that, notwithstanding their advice relating to the sustainability
of the location, if residential development is permitted in Knapton, the County Council
would have to fund transport for children going to Mundesley Primary School, as
there is no safe walking route between the two villages. As a consequence, even if
you (the LPA) accept the principle of development in Knapton, I would still
recommend this application be refused permission for the reason given in my
response (cond 1)
If the development was to be granted permission contrary to my recommendation, I
would also comment that the access should be a dropped kerb footpath crossing with
visibility splays measuring 2.4 x 33m in both directions; a continuous footpath should
be provided on the north side of School Close and west side of Hall Lane; Hall Lane
and School Close should be widened to a minimum width of 4.8m, if these roads do
not currently meet this requirement; The existing unmarked bus stops on Mundesley
Road, adjacent to the site, should be improved in accordance with the requirements
of the Disability Discrimination Act and a footpath link to them created either through
the site or around the site boundary.
Strategic Housing - The proposal on behalf of Victory Housing Trust is to provide 8
dwellings on the land retained by this Council specifically for the purpose of providing
affordable housing. This will represent the final build out of the housing land following
on from the previous two phases of development.
The Housing Strategy team have been involved in the consultation exercise and
driving this project forward to meet the needs of local households.
Development Committee
28
23 January 2014
Thorough public consultation was undertaken and a proportion of the site is to be
made available to the Parish Council which they hope at some time in the future may
facilitate the provision of a new village hall for the benefit of the local community.
The site is a natural infill plot to the adjoining residential development and is ideally
suitable for an exceptions housing scheme.
The Council‟s housing waiting list shows that there are 100 households on the
waiting list with a local connection to Knapton or the adjoining parishes. This
illustrates that there is a substantial housing need and demand for affordable
housing in the village from local households.
This site is subject to a village green application which is currently under
consideration by the County Council.
In conclusion, Housing Strategy supports this application as the demonstrable
demand indicates the need for new affordable housing in Knapton.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The Conservation,
Design and Landscape Section are extremely disappointed in the unimaginative
design and layout for the proposed housing scheme and the complete disregard the
scheme has for the existing natural features of the site and the importance of the site
within the village as an amenity feature.
The content of the Ecological Survey and report is noted and it is accepted that many
of the ecological/landscaping features are relatively new and establishing. However,
it is not accepted that the loss of the trees, hedging and community
wildlife/millennium garden can be compensated for through future planting within
private gardens (over which no control can be maintained). No consideration has
been given to utilising or enhancing the existing natural features within the scheme,
such as some of the hedgerows or young trees.
The suggested layout would isolate the existing pond and does not provide for any
future maintenance or offer any ecological improvements, and it is unclear under
whose ownership the pond would be and any future responsibility. Furthermore the
proposals include an area of „open space‟ which has been given little thought over its
future use or maintenance and which does not replace the loss of the existing
amenity area or the millennium garden.
The site is prominently located on the main road between Mundesley and North
Walsham and would benefit from a well thought-out scheme. The layout and design
should take into consideration the edge of village location and reflect style and
density of the existing village housing.
Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy seeks to retain existing important landscaping and
natural features and make efficient use of the land while respecting the density,
character, landscape and biodiversity of the surrounding area. Although the proposal
is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved, it is questionable that the
submitted scheme adheres to the policy requirements of EN4.
CDL are concerned about the loss of the existing village amenity space and consider
that the proposals fall short of the policy requirements with respect to layout and
design. However, if outline planning approval was granted, the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Section would recommend that this should only be on the basis that
future approval would be required for all matters including layout and should not be
based on the layout submitted.
Development Committee
29
23 January 2014
Norfolk Fire & Rescue - require a fire hydrant to be secured by condition
Historic Environment Service - multi-period cropmarks and artefacts of Roman and
medieval date have previously been recorded in this area and as such there is some
potential that buried archaeological remains will be present at the site and their
significance could be affected by the proposal. If permission is granted a condition is
requested for a programme of archaeological work.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy 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 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Affordable Housing in the Countryside
2. Impact on the wider landscape and setting of the AONB
3. Other matters
Development Committee
30
23 January 2014
APPRAISAL
Principle
The site lies within the Countryside Policy Area. Policy SS1 restricts development in
the Countryside to particular types to support the rural economy, meet affordable
housing needs and provide renewable energy. The proposal consists of 8 affordable
dwellings, being promoted as a rural exception site under Policy HO3, the site being
well related to an existing group of more than 10 dwellings. Strategic Housing have
confirmed that there is a local affordable housing need in the parish/adjacent
parishes and that this proposal has been designed to specifically address that local
need. The principle of the development is therefore acceptable.
A village Green application has been submitted to County Council to designate the
site as a village green. This is not material to the determination of the planning
application. Should the Village Green application be successful, it becomes illegal to
place any structures on the land and so would mean that the planning permission
could not be implemented. Granting planning permission on the land would not
affect the decision making process for the village green application.
Access
The access is not for consideration under this outline application, however to assess
whether the principle of developing the site is acceptable regard has to be had to
ensure safe access to and from the site and the immediate road network.
The Highway Authority oppose the principle of development on this site on
sustainability grounds since the site is remote from local health, education,
employment and shopping facilities and the highway network lacks footway provision.
However, despite the Highway Authority's objection on the sustainability of the
location and the inadequate footway link to the primary school in Mundesley, the
proposal complies with policy HO3 which is permissive of affordable housing
schemes in these less sustainable, rural locations. The need for affordable housing
across the district including in those rural areas such as Knapton outweighs the lack
of general sustainability of the location.
The Committee will note the comments of the Highway Authority who, in the event of
permission being granted, would seek a scheme which included footpaths along the
site frontage of Hall Lane and School Close, a visibility splay onto School close,
upgrading of the existing bus stop on the northern boundary of the site and the
widening of Hall Close and School Road to 4.8m. As access is not a matter for
consideration, these would need to be included in any detailed application at
reserved matters stage.
Landscape
Committee will note the comments of the Landscape Officer who considers that more
consideration (compared to the indicative layout) needs to be had to the existing
landscape features, pond and proposed open space. However, given that the site is
well related to the village, the loss of part of this green space as proposed would not
be significantly adverse to the character of the village and an appropriate scheme
could be designed to ensure it did not detract from the wider landscape character or
the setting of the AONB. As all matters are reserved, detailed landscaping would be
considered at reserved matters stage.
Other matters
The layout, scale and appearance of the proposal are all reserved for consideration,
however given that the site has no obvious constraints it is considered that 8
dwellings could be accommodated on the site without detriment to the amenities of
Development Committee
31
23 January 2014
adjacent dwellings and with regard to the scale, form and appearance of the
surrounding development.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including
standard time limit for outline applications; compliance with Code level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes; a programme of archaeological work; provision
of a fire hydrant; a scheme to secure the affordable housing in perpetuity and
conditions/informative notes to advise what is required in terms of works to
the highway; and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head
of Planning.
6.
NORTH WALSHAM - PM/13/1326 - Erection of dwelling and detached double
garage; 45 Happisburgh Road for Mrs Y Bullimore
Minor Development
- Target Date: 01 January 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Reserved Matters
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080830 PO - Erection of eight two-storey dwellings
Approved 08/10/2008
PO/10/0871 PO - Erection of one dwelling
Approved 08/11/2010
PF/12/1258 PF - Erection of eight two-storey dwellings and construction of access
road
Withdrawn by Applicant 19/12/2012
PF/13/1021 PF - Erection of 8 two-storey dwellings
Refused 12/11/2013
THE APPLICATION
This is a reserved matters application for the erection of a dwelling and a double
garage; for consideration are the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The
application proposes to erect a two storey, 4 bedroomed dwelling, with the fourth
bedroom and a shower room to be accommodated within the roof space. 3 flat roof
dormer windows are proposed to the front (south western) roof slope with a single
casement window proposed to the south eastern gable end to serve this roof space
accommodation.
There would be a two storey, stepped in, rear projecting gable element that would
extend over part of the rear elevation with a conservatory alongside. Two windows at
first floor would face the front garden of No.45 one of which would serve a dressing
room and the other a bedroom. In addition to the window at second floor level four
further windows are proposed to the south eastern gable end. Two at first floor and
two at ground floor to serve a bedroom, en-suite, dining room and utility. Two
windows are also proposed to the south eastern elevation of the rear projection. One
at first floor and one the ground floor to serve a bedroom and kitchen.
A pitched roof double garage is also proposed to the rear of the plot to be accessed
via a private driveway running along the south eastern boundary of the site.
Development Committee
32
23 January 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Uprichard with regard to the following planning matters: design,
impact on neighbouring properties, form and character of the area, highway safety
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects - The Town Council recommend a site visit due to concerns about the
position of the build in relation to the road and request it is called into Committee.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters of objection received on the following grounds:
3 storey house is wholly inappropriate
access onto Happisburgh Road is inappropriate/unsafe opposite Randell Close
driveway width of 2.5m is inadequate for a refuse vehicle or fire engine
refuse lorry would have to park on Happisburgh Road and obstruct traffic
the plan does not show visibility splay
the site layout plan is incorrect in that it illustrates 'access road for proposed
development by others' which can only refer to application ref 13/1021, land to
the rear of 45 to 55 Happisburgh Road. This has been refused and is not
therefore an access road for anything at present
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection
Landscape Officer: Further to my previous memorandum dated 18th December 2013
you brought to my attention the addition of a garage to the rear of the proposed
dwelling which would require an extension of the driveway and the removal of several
trees along the eastern boundary (which were to be retained on the Outline approval
ref. 10/0871).
Having considered the plans further, whilst it is regrettable that the trees will be
removed it would not be reasonable for the Authority to request their retention given
the approved development that is proposed within this general location (both on the
site and to the east).
Individually the trees do not have significant value, although they do form an
attractive group typical of boundary planting within larger gardens. On a wider scale
the trees do not have a significant landscape value which would merit protection
through a Preservation Order.
A number of trees will be retained on the Happisburgh Road boundary which are
supplemented by shrub planting, therefore the view into the site from the west and
south will be relatively unchanged. Due to the proposed new access drive and
removal of the trees in the south-east corner of the site, there will be the loss of some
vegetative cover in this part of the site. However, this part of the site and view from
the Happisburgh Road will be significantly altered regardless due to the approved
access drive for both this development and the approved development to the rear.
This will open up the view into the rear of the properties along Happisburgh Road
and the loss of the trees will be evident however, the impact is not sufficient to justify
refusal of the Reserved Matters application.
In addition to the visual impact aspects of the proposals, it is unlikely that the trees
could be adequately protected and maintained in the long term given the close
proximity of the proposed driveways and dwellings to the trees.
Development Committee
33
23 January 2014
In light of the above comments I would therefore recommend that should the
Reserved Matters application be approved that a condition is applied requiring the
submission of an updated Arboricultural Method Statement with tree protection
measures. This condition would effectively update Condition 5 of the Outline
approval for tree protection.
In addition to the above, I would recommend placing condition L03 to secure the
suggested landscaping treatments indicated on the submitted plan, this would
include the retention of the beech hedge and the addition of new hedging around the
proposed rear garden.
Building Control Manager: No objection - The requirements of the regulations in
respect of fire service vehicles can easily be achieved by a vehicle parking on the
highway in front of the dwelling.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Neighbour impact
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is a sub-division of the garden of No.45 Happisburgh Road which lies within
a designated residential area where Policy SS3 permits appropriate residential
development. The principle of this proposal is therefore acceptable under policy SS3
and has been established by the grant of outline consent under application reference
10/0871.
Development Committee
34
23 January 2014
A two storey dwelling with accommodation in the roof space is proposed. The main
ridge line would be approximately 8.5m high with a footprint of approximately
110sqm. No.45 is a two storey dwelling with a footprint of approximately 112sqm.
The dwelling to the south east of the site is a chalet type bungalow with a footprint of
approximately 210sqm. The proposed dwelling would be positioned forward of its
immediate neighbours, however this is not considered to be out of character in the
street scene as other dwellings are positioned at similar distances from the road
frontage, which in this instance would be approximately 18m from the road.
The proposed position of the dwelling on the site is considered acceptable in terms of
any impacts on neighbours amenities, in particular the relationship between the
proposed dwelling and No.45. Two first floor windows would face the front garden of
No.45, one of which would serve a dressing room. It is considered that this would not
introduce any significantly detrimental loss of privacy. At the rear there would be
some overlooking of the proposed dwellings rear garden by the first floor windows of
No.45; window to window distances meet the guidance provided by the Design
Guide. A second floor window proposed to the south eastern elevation and those at
first floor are not considered to introduce any significant detriment to the neighbour to
the south east due to the separation distance (8m window to boundary) and that any
overlooking would be of the already public front garden of this neighbour. It is
recommended that any approval should require details to be agreed in respect of the
south eastern boundary treatment.
The dormer windows proposed to the front roofslope raise no concerns, giving views
mainly of the front garden of the proposed dwelling and would serve a shower room,
hallway and fourth bedroom.
Two letters of objection have been received from residents of St. Benets Avenue,
mainly concerned with highway safety. The Highway Authority has no objection to the
proposal subject to the imposition of some standard conditions. Furthermore the
access was considered at outline stage. In respect of concern raised regarding fire
service access the Building Control Officer has been consulted and advised that the
proposal meets requirements.
The application also includes the erection of a pitched roof double garage, in
materials to match the proposed dwelling. It is considered that this element of the
proposal would not introduce any significant detrimental impacts on the amenities of
any neighbouring dwellings. (NB the application has been readvertised to include the
double garage in the description of the development. The site notice will expire 27
January 2014)
The proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to
(i) No new material issues being raised following expiry of the public consultation
period after re-advertisement of the revised description
(ii) To include the specific conditions listed below:
1 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the
approved plan in accordance with the highway specification (Dwg. No. TRAD 5). In
addition arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and
Development Committee
35
23 January 2014
disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway
carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material
or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a visibility splay
measuring 2.4m x 59m shall be provided to the north western side of the access
where it meets the highway and such splays shall thereafter be maintained at all
times free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adjacent
highway carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
access and on-site car parking and turning areas shall be laid out and demarcated in
accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for that specific
use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
4 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted any access
gate(s), bollard, chain or other means of obstruction shall be hung to open inwards,
set back, and thereafter retained a minimum distance of 5 metres from the near
channel edge of the adjacent carriageway.
Reason:
To enable vehicles to safely draw off the highway before the gate(s) or obstruction is
opened, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(iii) And all other conditions considered to appropriate by the Head of Planning,
including those of the Landscape Officer.
7.
RUNTON - PF/13/1177 - Continued use of land as garden/storage and retention
of vehicular access, gates and fencing and the excavation of soil; Land
adjacent Sunray, Thains Lane, East Runton for Mr S Withers
Minor Development
- Target Date: 19 December 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
Development Committee
36
23 January 2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the continued use of the land as a garden and storage area and the retention
of vehicular access, gates and fencing. The land has also been excavated to allow
the vehicular access.
The gates are approximately 2.5m wide by 2.3m high.
The applicant has confirmed that the use of the land is for personal use only with no
commercial or business use.
Amended plans have been received to indicate the removal of the sections of fencing
above the gates and grade the sections of fencing on either side of the gates at an
angle down to the gates and to introduce planting to the banks.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Eales having regard to the following planning issues:
The design of the development.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to this application in its present form. It is out of keeping with the
pathway/quiet country lane. Normal fencing and a gate would suffice.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 representations have been received, comprising 3 objections and 1 support.
Objections (summarised)
This is a new access. Access should be erased and land returned to condition it
was prior to this unauthorised development;
Not required. Blight on the landscape. More modest intervention proposed.
Proposed that existing bank and rustic gates appropriate to area would be
appropriate to the area if required. Incompatible with proportions of bank, soft
landscape adjacent and North Norfolk Coast;
Ruined quiet, enclosed atmosphere of lane which only accesses two cottages
and provides a path through an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
Planning Policy in this location is for no further development that would lead to
increased traffic exiting onto the A149 Coast Road;
This application provides parking bays for two cars and a boat which would
breach policy;
No objection to principle of garden or amenity use for the land nor some sort of
discreet access off Thains Lane (preferably pedestrian). However, lane is an
ancient track providing link between East and West Runton and is ingrained
within the landscape.
Support (summarised)
Removal of hedging and erection of fence set back from roadway would help to
alleviate problems with delivery and emergency vehicles negotiating the lane and
getting access to property;
Building of sandbag wall prevents bank washing away.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - I am able to comment that in relation to highways
issues only, as this proposal is not for an access onto the adopted highway and does
not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic, that Norfolk County
Council does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.
Development Committee
37
23 January 2014
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Response to original
plans: The Conservation, Design and Landscape Section are extremely concerned
about the impact the erected fence and vehicular access has on the character of
Thains Lane and the Coastal Towns and Villages Landscape Character Type (as
defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary
Planning Document, (LCA) June 2009).
Thains Lane is an attractive sunken lane that is historically associated with the East
Runton settlement. Although the lane appears somewhat overgrown it has a
distinctive character reinforced with species associated with the heaths and
commons of the area. The site is part of a wider heath/open space that is associated
with the local landscape character.
The construction of the new vehicular access has resulted in a significant amount of
earth movement and the breaching of the bank on one side of the lane. In order to
retain the sides of the bank, sandbags have been used which are a highly
inappropriate material resulting the appearance of a „Second World War bunker‟.
These have been erected in such a way as to leave limited scope to introduce
planting to screen them. The sandbags detract from the setting of the lane and do
nothing to reinforce or enhance the character of the lane.
Furthermore, the addition of the 2.3m high gates topped with a further 1.7m of close
boarded timber fencing results in an overbearing 4m high boundary feature which is
at odds with natural character of the lane.
Further concerns arise over the enclosure of the site and the change of use to
storage. The small areas of heath and open space between the settlements on the
coastal strip are extremely important for the landscape character of the Coastal
Towns and Villages Landscape Character Type (LCA, 2009). Although the site is
relatively small, enclosing the land contributes to the gradual degradation of the
landscape character. The submitted plans indicate the potential future erection of a
garden or boat store however no details have been given at present. If planning
permission were granted it would be recommended that permitted development
rights with respect to the erection of structures should be removed, yet this is likely to
lead to a further application to erect such a structure. Given the recommendations in
the Landscape Character Assessment and the retention of open spaces, any
sizeable structures would be objected to which may limit the intended usability of the
site.
The current appearance of the site/lane is regrettable yet in certain respects
unavoidable. However, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Section considers
that some minor alterations to the existing fencing together with the addition of some
planting could secure improvements to reduce the overall impact to a near
acceptable level at Thains Lane. It is considered that by removing the section of
fencing above the gates and grading the adjacent fencing at an angle down to the
gates would reduce the overbearing nature of the access and allow light into Thains
Lane which is more akin to the natural light levels. In addition, planting ivy and
bramble on the banks above the sandbags will in time screen the bags as the plants
establish (this is likely to be the only species able to establish on the steep banks and
trail down the sandbags).
Subject to the above alterations and comments, Conservation, Design and
Landscape would not object to the application.
Development Committee
38
23 January 2014
(Conservation, Design and Landscape will be re-consulted once the amended plans
have been received. Members will be updated verbally.)
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
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 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Design
3. Impact on the Lane, Undeveloped Coast and adjacent Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
4. Highway Issues
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
In terms of Policy SS2, the proposed development does not strictly fall under one of
the activities permitted. The applicant has stated, however, that the land was used by
the previous owners of the adjacent property as garden. As such, it is considered that
the use is acceptable in this instance.
Design
The applicant has made the changes mentioned above to improve the scheme,
including the removal of the fencing above the access gates. The applicant has also
agreed to grade the fencing down to the gates.
Development Committee
39
23 January 2014
It is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
Having regard to the amendments that have been made to the scheme, Officers
consider that the development is now compliant with Policy EN 4 of the adopted Core
Strategy.
Impact on the Lane, Undeveloped Coast and adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty
Given the size of the site and given that it is fairly well-screened, it is not considered
that the scheme as amended would have a significant detrimental impact on the rural
character and appearance of the wider landscape, Undeveloped Coast or adjacent
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Highway Issues
In the absence of Highway objections, it is not considered that the application could
be refused on Highway Safety grounds.
On the basis of the amended proposals the development would accord with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions listed below:
1
Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision, the works shall be completed in
strict accordance with the amended plans, received by the Local Planning
Authority on 8 January 2014
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by
Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The land in question hereby approved shall be used as domestic garden area
only and shall not be used for any commercial or business use whatsoever.
Reason:
The building lies within an area of designated Countryside, where the Local
Planning Authority wishes to retain control of the use of the building in
accordance with Policies SS 2 and CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
3
Notwithstanding details indicated on the originally submitted BLOCK PLAN
and the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting
that Order with or without modification) no garden shed, greenhouse,
summerhouse, garage or similar domestic outbuilding or additional means of
enclosure shall be erected within the area of land subject to this permission
unless planning permission has been first granted by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
In order to safeguard the character of the countryside in accordance with
Policy EN 2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
40
23 January 2014
8.
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1101 - Erection of first and second floor side extension
with rear balcony above first floor extension and installation of two dormer
windows; Westcliffe House, 17 Victoria Street for Mr & Mrs Kirkham
- Target Date: 08 November 2013
Case Officer: Miss E Reed
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20081500 PF - Erection of single-storey extension with balcony above
Approved 22/12/2008
PLA/19860807 PF - Formation of small flat
Approved 04/07/1986
THE APPLICATION
The amended plans seek to provide a first and second floor side extension and a first
floor rear extension with a balcony above. The proposal also seeks to install two
dormer windows on the east elevation and other fenestration changes. The original
plans included a front first floor balcony but this has now been withdrawn.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Smith having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Design and Impact on the Conservation Area
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds that it is a major alteration with the visual aspect creating
overlooking and out of keeping with immediate dwellings.
REPRESENTATIONS
17 letters of objection have been received in total for both the original and amended
plans.
Comments on original plans:
Loss of privacy as a result of the rear balcony
Detrimental impact on the Conservation Area
Out of keeping in terms of scale and style
Will overlook kitchen window and bathroom roof light of 17 West Cliff
Will reduce the daylight into the communal garden
The plans are poorly defined and not a true representation of the impact on
the adjoining properties
The plans are inaccurate with a great deal of ambiguity
The front balcony will impact on the privacy of 15 Victoria Street
Will alter an attractive street scene and an iconic public view
Will provoke complex private property rights
Issues of overlooking, access over the garden, drainage, overuse of
communal garden
No balustrade is shown on the plans for the front balcony
Will set a precedent for overriding the aims of objectives of the Conservation
Area policy
The porthole to be removed and replaced with French doors on the south
elevation is an iconic view
Development Committee
41
23 January 2014
Following re-advertisement of amended plans, the following comments were
received:
The proposal is still inappropriate within a Conservation Area and excessively
large and thus oppressive, overbearing and visually intrusive.
Constitutes an invasion of privacy for 5 households by blocking sunlight and
daylight into the communal rear garden area.
The two buildings will merge instead of having unique identities.
The skyline views of the street will be detrimentally impacted upon
Will dominate the smaller and original adjacent flint cottages
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design Officer:
The site lies within the heart of the designated Sheringham Conservation Area.
Westcliffe House by virtue of its age, form, detailing and materials makes a significant
contribution to the prevailing character of the area. The building also holds a
prominent position within the public domain, fronting directly onto the promenade.
In regards to the proposal, the building has already been altered with the addition of a
rear extension, a large dormer window and numerous areas of hard cement render.
With this in mind the building is not sacrosanct to further change or adaptation.
The principle of extending the rear hip and reforming a gable end to fill the void
between the building and neighbouring dwelling raises no heritage course for
concern.
The long window proposed on the south elevation will be a bold addition and will
stand out as a contemporary addition, however there is no overriding cause for
concern; it sits relatively comfortably within the space.
In the event of the application being approved the following conditions should be
attached:Prior to their use on site, details of the brick and tiles shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA, the works shall then be carried out in strict
accordance with the approved plans.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Committee
42
23 January 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Impact on neighbour amenities
APPRAISAL
This proposal seeks to provide a first and second floor side extension with a first floor
rear extension with a balcony above. The proposal also seeks to install two dormer
windows on the east elevation. Amended plans were submitted with changes in
designs, the most notable being the omission of a front balcony and retention of an,
albeit larger, porthole window on the east elevation.
The site is located within the Sheringham Settlement Boundary, where this form of
development could be acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant
Development Plan policies. The site also lies within the Sheringham Conservation
Area, where proposals should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
the area.
The dwelling is a three storey building that is currently split into two flats, but will be
reverting back to one dwelling. The south elevation faces onto Victoria Street with the
east elevation facing the promenade. There is a communal garden to the rear that is
shared by approximately six properties.
The proposal would see the existing dwelling extended westwards by approximately
1.3m and infill the gap between the host dwelling and the neighbouring 15 Victoria
Street. It is also being extended by approximately 2.3m to the rear. The rear
extension would be placed above an existing lean to extension. The balcony would
then be placed above this rear extension.
The materials proposed are painted render (colour of which is yet to be agreed) with
clay pantiles and a flat roof. These are considered to be acceptable and in keeping
with the surrounding area.
On the plans it is indicated that several existing windows are being changed from
PVCu to powder coated aluminium. This is considered to be an improvement to the
existing dwelling and the streetscape.
It is not considered that the scale of the proposed extension would dominate the
original building, nor harm its architectural character. Although the dwelling is an
important building within the streetscene, it is considered that the proposals would not
be significantly detrimental to the building or the wider area. The proposal is
considered to be acceptable and compliant with the aims of Policy EN8 which aims to
preserve and enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
In terms of overlooking and impact on neighbouring amenity, there are several new
windows being proposed, as well as a balcony to the rear. However, it should be
noted that due to the nature of these properties and that they share a communal
garden, they already share a close relationship with one another.
The two new dormer windows, enlarged porthole and existing window being changed
to a door to provide access to the existing balcony on the east elevation are not
considered to lead to any significant issues of overlooking due to them facing the
promenade and not directly any neighbouring dwellings.
On the south elevation there is a large window proposed in the side extension as well
as a roof light. It is considered that as the large window will serve the staircase, as
well as complying with the Basic Amenity Criteria, that these are acceptable.
Development Committee
43
23 January 2014
On the north elevation, a window serving a bedroom in the first floor rear extension
and a window serving a bedroom on the second floor are proposed. Although these
will look over the communal garden, as the host dwelling is set back from the main
communal area, it is considered that these are unlikely to cause significantly
additional detrimental issues of overlooking.
On the west elevation a window is proposed to be lengthened. In order for this
window to be considered acceptable, and to prevent access onto the flat roof above
the porch, this window should be unopenable. With regard to overlooking, as this
window already exists and does not look directly at any other window, it is considered
acceptable. There are also double doors proposed on the west elevation in order to
gain access to the rear balcony. These are also considered to be acceptable.
Although the proposed rear balcony will look over the communal garden, it is
considered that as the host dwelling is set back within the communal garden, this is
unlikely to cause significantly detrimental issues of overlooking.
The development is considered acceptable and accords with adopted Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including,
unopenable window on the west elevation, and render colour and bricks and
tiles to be submitted and agreed.
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.
BRISTON – PF/13/1539 – Erection of eighteen dwellings; land at Church Street
for Victory Housing Trust
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the local Member regarding density of development.
CROMER – PF/13/0979 – Erection of two three storey dwellings and one two
storey dwelling on land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills for PP3
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to allow the Committee to see the site in
context, due to the unusual characteristics of the site, in order to expedite the
processing of the application .
FAKENHAM – PO/13/1380 - Erection of three dwellings; Beech House, Hayes
Lane for Mr and Mrs R Gordon
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
1) Effects on the character and appearance of a Conservation Area
2) Issues relating to highway safety
Development Committee
44
23 January 2014
HOLT – PO/13/1306 - Residential and employment (A3,A4,B1,B2,B8,C1,C2,D1
and D2 Class Uses) development including provision of public open space,
roundabout and vehicular link road; land at Heath Farm, Hempstead Road for
Brown Brothers and Bullen Investments Ltd
Reason:
At the request of the Head of Planning in order to expedite the processing of the
application and to enable Members to appreciate fully this major development
proposal, in particular access issues.
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
October to December 2013, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 3) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the third quarter of 2013/14.
Sixteen major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 132 minor
applications and 186 other applications, a total of 312 applications, an increase of 21
compared with the previous quarter.
Members will recall from the discussion at the January 2013 Development
Committee meeting the strenuous efforts being made to determine planning
applications more quickly in the light of the possibility of „special measures‟ sanctions
being introduced by the Government under its open „Planning Performance and
Planning Guarantee‟ proposals, which were the subject of consultation at the end of
2012.
The most recent quarter saw 13 of the 16 major applications determined within the
13 week statutory deadline, ie 81.25%. The cumulative figure for 2013/14 is 75.00%
comfortably above the 30% figures mooted for special measures in the consultation
paper.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance increased by some 19.54% to 54.55%
over the previous quarter, as against the Council‟s target of 72%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance increased by 19.96% to
72.28%, again below the Council‟s target of 80%.
Although performance continued to remain below the Council‟s targets over the
quarter, the total number of applications determined increased by 21. Members will
appreciate that performance has improved significantly compared to the previous
quarter.
Development Committee
45
23 January 2014
Pre-application enquiries decreased during the quarter, as did Discharge of Condition
applications, „Do I Need Planning Permission” and Duty Officer Enquiries. However,
this quarter included the Christmas holiday period.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went up to 93.67%, and
remains above the Council‟s target.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 6
decisions were made, 5 dismissed and 1 allowed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 611 were submitted and handled during
the quarter, a reduction of 32 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the third quarter of the year has seen a significant improvement in
performance, as the Service begins to see the benefits of the investment the Council
has made with the additional temporary planning officer posts. As the experience of
these new temporary staff grows the service will continue to be better placed to move
closer to achieving the Council‟s performance targets across all of the application
types.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager, ext 6149)
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/1313 - Erection of single-storey side and front
extensions; 75 Abbey Park, Beeston Regis for Mrs J Westerman
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/13/1376 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Kirkby Cottage,
Langham Road for Mr & Mrs Pepper
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1257 - Erection of replacement storage building; C B S
Chase, Blakeney Point, The Quay for Mr S Chase
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1298 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
enlargement of front dormer window and installation of rear dormer window;
Creek Lodge, 6A The Quay for Messrs Cottee and Urquhart
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - NMA2/12/0681 - Non material amendment request to permit one
double carport to plots 21 and 24; Land at Langham Road, Blakeney, Norfolk for
Hill Residential
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BODHAM - PF/13/1345 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and conversion
of outbuilding to habitable accommodation; Next To Street Farm, The Street for
Mr and Mrs Brand
(Householder application)
Development Committee
46
23 January 2014
BODHAM - NMA1/13/0960 - Non material amendment request to permit repositioning of solar panels, reduction to two, re-positioning and change of
colour to inverter station structures and change of design and materials to
substation structure.; Land at Pond Farm, Bodham for Genatec Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRININGHAM - PF/13/1157 - Erection of first floor rear extension and twostorey/single-storey rear extension and formation of vehicular access; Meadow
View, Burgh Stubbs, Melton Road for Mr & Mrs R Kelly
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PO/13/1300 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage; 6
Thornton Close for Mr and Mrs S Hudson
(Outline Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/13/1383 - Removal of Condition 6 of planning permission ref:
12/0449 to delete Code Level 3 requirement.; The Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs
M Daniels
(Full Planning Permission)
BRUMSTEAD - PF/13/1194 - Construction of biomass anaerobic digester plant
and silage clamp; Land at Home Farm, Common Road, Brunstead for J E & E M
E Ames
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/13/1336 - Application of render to gable end walls; The Rose
House, Limes Road for Mrs A Filgate
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1321 - Retention of pedestrian access and
installation of gate; Rocket House, High Street for Mr R Goodson
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/1322 - Formation of pedestrian access (retention)
and installation of gate; Rocket House, High Street for Mr R Goodson
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - AI/13/0968 - Installation of replacement illuminated signs; 11 New
Street for JTP Amusements
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/13/1078 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Adjacent to Pantiles,
The Croft for Mrs J Boocock
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST BECKHAM - NMA1/13/0772 - Non material amendment request to permit
revisions to alignment of access tracks, positions and appearance of electricity
infrastructure, panel arrangement, security fence design and change of capacity
of solar farm; Land at Hall Farm, East Beckham for TGC Renewables Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/1357 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 05/0234 to permit permanent residential occupation; Cedar Lodge,
Drabbs Lane for Mr J Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
47
23 January 2014
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/1074 - Change of use from agricultural buildings to B1
(office/light industrial); Manor Farm, The Street, Calthorpe for Calthorpe Farm
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1351 - Relaxation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference; 13/0957 to allow construction of the dwellings without complying
with Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Land adjacent 1 Howland
Close, Fakenham for JP Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1352 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front and
side facing dormer windows; 2 Fisher Road for Mr & Mrs D Futter
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1247 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Plot 1,
Abbeyfield, 134 Norwich Road for GCMD Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/13/1344 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension to
provide annexe; The Cottage, Aylsham Road for Mr and Mrs Woolston
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - LA/13/1282 - Removal of internal stud walls (retrospective)
and installation of replacement windows and dry lining to external walls;
Phillipos Farm, The Street, Barney for Mr D Astley
(Listed Building Alterations)
GIMINGHAM - NMA2/12/1363 - Non material amendment request to raise ridge
and eaves height; Hall Farm, Hall Road for Mr N Rose
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0780 - Variation of Conditions 1, 5, 7 and 8 of planning
permission ref: 10/1103 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Barn at Hall
Farm, Hall Road, Gimingham for Mr M Mayes
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/1353 - Erection of front porch; South View, Church Street
for Mr D Coleman
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/13/1287 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension; 12 Horns
Row for Mrs C Mahon
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/1355 - Eection of bus shelter; Land at Cromer Road, High
Kelling for High Kelling Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/13/1281 - Demolition of two-storey dwelling and erection of
boat store with ancillary accommodation above; Field Farm House, Blakeney
Road for Mr & Mrs Hunt
(Householder application)
Development Committee
48
23 January 2014
HOLT - PF/13/1312 - Change of use from D1 (non-residential institution) to
residential dwelling; 41 Bull Street for New Wine Church
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/13/1151 - Installation of advertisements; 24 High Street for Dragon
Hall Enterprises Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/13/1188 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission reference
13/0355 to permit retention of former existing cricket pavilion; Greshams
School, Cromer Road for Gresham's School
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/13/1098 - Change of use from launderette to A1 (retail); 24 High Street
for Dragon Hall Enterprises Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - AN/13/1099 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; 24 High Street
for Dragon Hall Enterprises Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HOLT - AN/13/1367 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 34 High Street
for Webb Jewellers
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HOLT - PF/13/1332 - Erection of front porch/conservatory; 1 Lodge Close for Mr
J Laird
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/13/0909 - External alterations to include a partially enclosed balcony
and the erection of a side extension; Sponge Rise, 39A Hempstead Road for
Sponge Cakes Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - NMA1/13/0096 - Non material amendment request to permit revised
window and door arrangements to north, south and west elevations.;
Hawthorns, Tunstead Road, Hoveton for Mr B Wells
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOVETON - PF/13/1260 - Replacement side extension and detached double
garage; Westbury Travers, Tunstead Road for Mr J Eastman
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/13/1451 - Erection of two-storey extension to annexe and singlestorey link extension; Lakeys House, The Street for Mr A Chapman
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/13/1001 - Change of use of agricultural land to car park and
formation of access drive; Pheasant Hotel, Weybourne Road for Pheasant Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - PF/13/1002 - Retention of mobile home and re-siting of static caravan
for use as staff accommodation; Pheasant Hotel, Weybourne Road for Pheasant
Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
49
23 January 2014
KNAPTON - PF/13/1416 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Sunnydene,
The Street for Mr Aldridge and Mrs Settle
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/13/1108 - Variation of Conditions 16 and 17 of planning
permission reference: 06/0770 to permit installation of alternative surface water
drainage scheme; The Langham, North Street, Langham for Avada Langham Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/13/1289 - Demolition of sheltered housing units and erection of
sixteen dwellings; Land at School Close for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/13/1271 - Erection of replacement garage and
erection of first floor side extension.; 1 Kitchener Road for Mr M Broughton
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/1229 - Formation of balcony; 5 Paston Road for Mrs M
Turner
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/0360 - Erection of attached two-storey dwelling and
formation of improved visibility splay at the junction of Gordon Terrace and
Knapton Road; 1 Gordon Terrace for Mr Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1068 - Erection of single-storey side extension with
accommodation in roof space; 37 Yarmouth Road for Mr R Mace
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0883 - Change of use of ground floor from A1 (retail)
to D1 (day centre) and part first floor to ancillary office; 7 St Nicholas Court,
Vicarage Street for FitzRoy
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/1320 - Continued use of former grain store for storage of
aircraft; Northrepps Aerodrome, North Walsham Road for Mr C Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
PASTON - PF/13/1242 - Conversion of garage/workshop to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Sundial Cottage, Chapel Road for Mr & Mrs J Manricks
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/13/0412 - Erection of lifeguard unit and access stairs; Land
off Beach Road, Sea Palling for Royal National Lifeboat Institution
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1293 - Erection of first floor and two storey rear
extension, and construction of a balcony to the rear; 7A Holt Road for Mr M
Haywood
(Householder application)
Development Committee
50
23 January 2014
SHERINGHAM - HN/13/1403 - Notification of intention to erect a rear extension
which would project from the original rear wall by 4.65m and would have a
maximum height of 3.9m and eaves height of 2.15m; 3 New Street for Mr P
Kitchen
(Householder Prior Notification)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1420 - Erection of replacement garage; 10 St Austins
Grove for Ms J Guise
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1331 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Williams
Place, Morley Road North for Mr & Mrs S Wells
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/13/1325 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 00/1623 to permit continued residential occupation; Stackyard Barn,
Cross Road for Mrs M Fearn
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0663 - Formation of vehicular access; 26 Chapel Street
for Mr & Mrs M Tetlow
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - NMA1/13/0726 - Non material amendment request to permit
relocation of PV panels and change driveway surfacing to permeable block
paving; Land at Portalfield for Victory Housing Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
STALHAM - PF/13/1227 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 03/2011 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Barn 7 West End
Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel Field Road for Mr S Martin
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PF/13/1396 - Erection of front porch; Oak Tree, Bradfield Common,
Bradfield for Mrs C Mitchell
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/13/1279 - Erection of single-storey side/rear
extension/garage; Conifers, Cross Road for Mr R Wallace
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/13/1392 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Ty-Cornel,
The Street for Mr D Davies
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0062 - Change of use of ground floor from A4
(public house) to residential unit; Red Lion, The Street, Upper Sheringham for
Trustees of John Ashton's Children's Settlement
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0588 - Continued use of former agricultural
buildings and land for
B1 (business), and B8 (storage); Lodge Farm,
Sheringham Road, West Beckham for Mrs L Blaxell
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
51
23 January 2014
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1286 - Installation of French doors; Windmill Farm,
Folgate Lane, Walsingham for Ms F Pitcher
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1295 - Removal of condition 5 and variation of
condition 2 of planning permission reference 12/0776 to permit retention of
cladding of whole of front gable/first floor; Burnham, Bolts Close for Mr I
McGuire
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1276 - Erection of extension to restaurant with
covered walkway; Globe Inn, The Buttlands for The Globe Inn
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/1277 - Erection of extension to restaurant and
provision of flat roof, internal alterations and installation of roof light; Globe Inn,
The Buttlands for The Globe Inn
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AI/13/1128 - Display of internally illuminated totem
sign and externally and internally illuminated advertisements; Polka Road
Caravans, Polka Road for Anglia Region Co-op Society
(Advertisement Illuminated)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/12/0418 - Non material amendment request to
permit additional door to rear elevation to allow access to switch room; Polka
Road Caravans, Polka Road for ARCS
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1250 - Erection of front conservatory; 3
Honeymoon Row, High Street for Mrs W Carr
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA2/11/0509 - Non material amendment request to
permit revision to ground floor front elevation fenestration.; Festival
Amusements, The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1358 - Erection of detached outbuilding; 14
Shop Lane for Mrs K Cleaver
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1361 - Change of Use from to A1 (retail) to A3
(café); Building adjacent Glaven Veterinary Practice, Maryland for Mr J
Cheetham
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1377 - Erection of front extension to garage; 28
Mill Court for Mr M Wagstaff
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/13/1374 - Conversion of detached garage to residential annexe;
The New Bungalow, Mill Common Road, Ridlington for Mr J Plummer
(Householder application)
Development Committee
52
23 January 2014
WIVETON - PF/13/1311 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 98/0522 to permit use of building for holiday accommodation;
Volunteer Accommodation, Adjacent Friary Farm Windmill, Cley Road, Blakeney
for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/13/1329 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and singlestorey side extension; Lyng Hall Farmhouse, Lyng Hall Lane for Mr & Mrs I
Boyne
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - LA/13/1330 - Alterations to facilitate erection of two-storey
rear extension and single-storey side extension; Lyng Hall Farmhouse, Lyng
Hall Lane for Mr & Mrs I Boyne
(Listed Building Alterations)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/1191 - Removal of conditions 5, 6 and 7 of planning
permission reference 12/0425 to permit permanent residential occupation;
Boundary Stables, Grub Street for Mr J Burns
(Full Planning Permission)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/13/1218 - Change of use from residential annexe to one unit
of holiday accommodation; The Gardeners Shed, Robin Farm, The Street for Ms
P Blake
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/1211 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 94/1491 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Woodmill Lodge,
Warren Woods, Brewery Road, Trunch for Mrs A Way
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
No items.
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for
McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for McCarthy
and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING 28 January 2014
Development Committee
53
23 January 2014
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane for Mr T Field
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0937 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include rooflights and bay window, insertion of dormer
windows, rooflights and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay Cottage, The
Quay for Mr & Mrs Bertram
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1219 - Erection of two-storey replacement
dwelling and detached studio/annexe; Arcady, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M Warren
SITE VISIT:- 13 January 2014
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31 Norwich
Road for The Royal British Legion
SITE VISIT:- 09 December 2013
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0961 - Conversion of agricultural storage building to
residential dwelling; The Old Pavilion, Old Playing Field, Waxham Road, Sea
Palling for Mr P Brown
SITE VISIT:- 06 January 2014
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1419 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0874 to permit installation of opening lights in glazed screen; Barn
3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road, for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
SITE VISIT:- 17 December 2013
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1330 - Retention of extension to terrace, installation of
steps and raise height of restaurant extension roof; The White Lady, Front
Street, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9RW for Mr D Gilligan
SITE VISIT:- 17 December 2013
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0687 - Erection of 0.9m high picket fence; 59 Priory
Close for Mr P Farquharson
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a picket fence around
part of the garden of a detached bungalow. The main issue was the effect of the
proposed fence on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
The Inspector concluded that the fence would be at odds with the open character of
the estate. The fence would be a particularly significant feature in the street scene,
not in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the Council‟s adopted Core Strategy.
Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Development Committee
54
23 January 2014
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
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal decision relates to two appeals for the same site, comprising a plot of
land on the north-east side of Clink Road, a narrow unclassified road running parallel
to the sand dunes and shoreline north-west of Sea Palling. Appeal A was an appeal
against an enforcement notice alleging a material change of use of land for the
stationing of a mobile home, Appeal B was against the refusal of planning permission
to retain the said mobile unit and associated development.
The Inspector determined that there were two main issues; firstly whether the mobile
home constitutes an appropriate form of development in this location and secondly
whether there is an unacceptable risk of flooding.
Following a comprehensive assessment of submissions made on behalf of the
Appellant the Inspector concluded that the mobile home is not an appropriate form of
development upon this site and conflicts with policies in the Core Strategy. The
Inspector noted that the Council‟s concern to protect the character of the countryside
and coastal area is broadly consistent with the Government‟s objectives for the
planning system. The development was not consistent with key objectives of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The appeal site lies within Flood Risk Zone 3 and the Council‟s case was that there
are ample opportunities to site the development elsewhere, in areas with a lower
probability of flooding. As such the development was contrary to Core Strategy
Policy EN 10 and also with paragraph 99 of the NPPF.
The Inspector therefore dismissed both appeals and upheld the enforcement notice.
This requires the removal of the mobile home from the site within two months; this
date now runs from the date of the Inspector‟s decision, 7 January 2014 (so by 7
March 2014).
17.
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (1) and David Mack (2)
Planning application PF/11/0983 for the proposed erection of a wind turbine,
maximum hub height 60m and maximum tip height 86.5m and associated
infrastructure was refused by the District Council on 30 August 2012. That decision
was the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State and the Inspector, Mr Alan
Novitzky, allowed the appeal and granted permission for the proposed turbine. The
appeal
decision
letter
was
issued
on
8
April
2013
(reference
APP/Y2620/A/12/2184043).
The Council has initiated a legal challenge against the Inspector‟s decision under
section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This matter is listed for
hearing in the High Court on 22 January 2014.
Development Committee
55
23 January 2014
Development Committee
56
23 January 2014