APPENDIX 1
Development of Land to the rear of Barclay's Mews,
Overstrand Road, Cromer, NR27 0AQ
Heritage Impact Assessment
Prepared by:
Wilson Compton Associates,
32 Trinity Street,
Norwich,
Norfolk,
NR2 2BQ.
Tel:
01603 662901
Mob: 07876 670291
e-mail: info@wilsoncomptonassociates.co.uk
Development Committee
July 2015
122
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
pg. 2 Development
Committee
123
.
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
Development of Land to the rear of Barclay's Mews,
Overstrand Road, Cromer, NR27 0AQ
Heritage Impact Assessment
Development Committee
124
23 July 2015 pg. 3
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
Contents
Paragraph/Page
List of Images in the Text
p. 5
Summary
p. 6
The Author
p. 7
The Heritage Assets
p. 9
Other Relevant Designations or Lack of Designations
p. 9
Part One - Understanding the Assets
Evidence from Maps, Plans and other Documents
The Two Additional Heritage Assets
1.1 - 1.7
1.8
Part Two - Consideration of the Development Allocation
2.1 - 2.2
Part Three - Consideration of the Proposed Development on the Designated
and Undesignated Assets
3.1 - 3.4
Part Four - The Setting of the Two Designated Assets
The Setting of the Two Undesignated Assets
4.1 - 4.6
4.7 - 4.8
Appendix One - The Statutory List Descriptions
p. 20 - 21
Bibliography
p. 22
The Record photographs can be accessed at the following Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4o2o90tu52qomut/AAD4DoxlUNtyJFC5JwthwRWHa?dl=0
pg. 4 Development
Committee
125
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
List of Images in the Text
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
Sutherland House (left) with Barclay's Mews to the rear
View of the site looking north-east from Swinton House
The site looking south towards The Grove
Detail from Savin's copy of Bellard's 1747 map © Norfolk County Council
Detail from the 1844 Tithe Map © Norfolk County Council
Detail from the 1887 O.S. Map
Detail from the 1906 O.S. Map
Plan from the 1935 sales particulars © Norfolk County Council
The development site as the school playing field in the 1960s © Archant Newspapers Ltd
The pill box is reported to be beyond the trees
View south from the site showing Midway to the right and The Grove to the left beyond the field boundary
Development Committee
126
23 July 2015 pg. 5
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
Summary
North Norfolk District Council Planning Ref:
PO/15/0572
There are two listed buildings which might be affected by the proposed development: Sutherland House and The Grove,
and two unlisted assets of archaeological interest which are not affected. In 1747 there was a small house on the site of
The Grove and it had a small garden but the pattern of fields to the north was rather different to the situation in 1843 and
as they are now. Grove House had been built probably in 1795 and in 1843 was owned by Henry Birkbeck, and he also
owned the development site (the "site") but they had always been separate entities.
The "site" became fully detached by 1887 from both the newly-built Herne Close (now Sutherland House) and The Grove
and by the end of the nineteenth century Joseph Barclay had bought the "site" from Birkbeck and it was attached to The
Warren, a house of 1879 (demolished). There has been no connection between the "site" and The Grove since then, but
there has been a distinct connection between the "site" and Sutherland House since 1959.
The "site" has been allocated by North Norfolk District Council as suitable for approximately sixty dwellings and this has
been upheld on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The Objection Statement by One Planning Ltd. dated June 2015 and
this report both agree that that the "site" is sufficiently detached from the listed buildings to ensure that the proposed
development would have no adverse impact on them. None of the land associated with either listed buildings or the
development site are Registered Parks or Gardens and the setting of Sutherland House has been wholly compromised by
the construction of Barclay's Mews and Swinton House. The setting of The Grove has been similarly compromised by a
number of modern buildings within its immediate curtilage, which must have been considered acceptable within the
meaning of Section 66 of the Principal Act. The actual setting of The Grove has been firmly established for more than a
century, and the development site is not within it. Since any development which affects the setting of the setting of a
listed building is a concept unknown to planning law, this argument must fail.
Conclusion
The proposed site is approved for the kind of residential development for which planning permission is sought, and that
site has never been part of the curtilage of The Grove. Moreover the principle of building within the immediate curtilage of
The Grove has been established and must therefore be similarly established for building outside its curtilage. If
development close to the house and within its garden is acceptable in terms of the setting of the asset (NPPF paragraph
129 and S. 66 of the Principal Act) then it is also acceptable in terms of the proposed development site. The objectors'
argument is essentially that the proposed works would affect the setting of the setting of The Grove, not The Grove itself,
and must fail on this point alone.
Note that an application has been made to the owners of The Grove for access to the house and land for the purpose of
this report but that no such permission has been received at the time of writing
Dr Bill Wilson
Wilson Compton Associates
32 Trinity Street
Norwich
NR2 2BQ
info@wilsoncomptonassociates.co.uk
01603 662901
9 July 2015
pg. 6 Development
Committee
127
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
The Author
Bill Wilson graduated from Manchester University with a degree in the history of art and architecture in 1976 and was
awarded a doctorate in the same subject in 1979, after which he took part in the national resurvey of listed buildings in
Norfolk from 1982 to 1985. This contract was extended to 1987 and at that point he formed the firm of Wilson Compton
Associates with Alec Compton, which was the first dedicated historic buildings consultancy in the country. In the same
year a succession of consultancy appointments with English Heritage Listing Branch followed and in the middle of the
1990s Bill Wilson became the record holder for the number of buildings inspected in England for the purpose of statutory
listing. This work involved extensive travel to all parts of the country (beginning with the Vale of Belvoir) and in addition
Wilson was responsible for the resurvey of most of the market towns of East Anglia, several Conservation Area appraisals
and general thematic surveys for EH (such as Roman Catholic Churches and Chapels).
The thriving private practise has involved many household-name companies as well as hundreds of individuals, small firms
and architectural practices, and in the late 1990s Bill Wilson published the second edition of the Buildings of England
volumes for Norfolk - the largest and most comprehensive of the revisions produced until then. Various academic articles
have also appeared in specialist journals on several aspects of English architectural history.
Development Committee
128
23 July 2015 pg. 7
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
Fig. 1: Sutherland House (left) with Barclay's Mews to the rear
pg. 8 Development
Committee
129
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
The Heritage Assets
There is a wooded area to the north and partly to the east of the site, the remaining area to the east being occupied by a
modern chalet park and to the south is The Grove (a hotel, formerly known as Grove House) and its extensive grounds.
To the west is a further wooded area and a late 1980s house called Midway. In addition there are a number of modern
satellite buildings in the grounds of The Grove built to enhance the commercial activities of the hotel. Beyond Midway to
the west is the Old Road which is more of a track at its south end where it meets Overstrand Road and beyond that two
modern houses and the new development of houses and flats called Sutherland Court. Further new residential
developments, Swinton House and Barclay's Mews, complete the surroundings to the development site and block the view
of Sutherland House from it.
There are two grade II listed buildings
(designated heritage assets) involved:
Sutherland House and The Grove, the former of
1886 designed by Edward May for the Barclays
and the latter of c. 1800 probably for Joseph
Gurney, and it later came into the ownership of
members of the Barclay and Buxton families. In
addition there are supposed to be two further
heritage assets listed on the Norfolk Historic
Environment Record: a post-medieval
earthwork platform (NHER No. 39172) right by
Fig. 2: View of the site looking north-east from Swinton House
the north boundary of the site and marked on
the development proposals and a Second World
War pill box (NHER No. 32567) beyond the east
boundary with the King's Chalet Park.
Other Relevant Designations or Lack of
Designations
The site is not within Cromer Conservation Area
There are no Registered Parks or Gardens in
the area
Fig. 3: The site looking south towards The Grove
Development Committee
130
23 July 2015 pg. 9
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
Part One - Understanding the Assets
[Note: All comments in square brackets embedded in quotations are the author's]
Evidence from Maps, Plans and other Documents: The Grove and Sutherland House
1.1
The earliest available map is of 1717 and all this shows is empty fields, or closes, on the east side of Overstrand
Road apart from a little collection of buildings north of the site of the modern Warren Court. All of these fields
were owned by Nathaniel Smith and the map indicates to whom they were let, and their acreages, and while
they do approximate to the modern field pattern they do not do so convincingly1. The map of 1747 in Cromer
Museum surveyed by Samuel Bellard also has a rather different pattern of fields to those that exist today,
although the course of Overstrand Road is clear enough2. To the south, right by the parish boundary between
Cromer and Overstrand are two small
plots owned by a Mr. Mountain, on one
of which is depicted a small house in
its garden of only 2 roods and 11
perches but this is probably not the
core of the present Grove but a
predecessor. This garden has now
expanded into Mr. Mountain's plot to
the north and into another to the
north-east, but the latter has also been
incorporated into The Hern Close
(which gave its name to the house
now known as Sutherland House).
Further to the north was Gace Close
but there is no evidence of the thick
woods that mark the north and northeast border of the development site. In
Fig. 4: Detail from Savin's copy of Bellard's 1747 map © Norfolk County Council
1717 these two fields had been called
Hunn Close and Gates Close.
1.2
We do not know exactly when Grove House was built, although Savin confidently states it was 1795 for Joseph
Gurney3 and was 'an old fashioned place with meadow and gardens' although the gardens shown on the 1844
Tithe Map were still much smaller than they are now4. It is noticeable that the driftway known as the Old Road
was a much more significant highway in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that it is today. The Tithe
Apportionment of 1843 gives the plots as follows, the northern half of No. 373 forming the development site
under discussion:
1
NRO PD 523/145
NRO MF/RO 476/5. Another enlarged copy was made by A.C. Savin in 1933 and that is at NRO MC 605/22
3
Savin (1937), p. 121
4
Tithe Maps were ordered under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 and were designed to commute the annual payment of tenths of any agricultural
holding to the Church of England to a fixed land tax, to be paid irrespective of agricultural yield. They were often hotly contested, and because they
were used to justify the charge of money the maps had to be accurate. Their accuracy was certified by Tithe Commissioners and appeal to Parliament
was possible, so inaccuracy in such a map is very rare when it comes to acreage, even if the actual footprint of buildings was technically less crucial.
The tithe system was abolished in 1936
2
pg. 10Development
Committee
131
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
Tithe Apportionment, 18435
Landowners
Occupiers
Numbers referring
to the Plan
Name and Description
of Land and Premises
State of
Cultivation
Statute
Quantities
Henry Birkbeck
Henry Birkbeck
364
365
367
372
376
Plantation
Plantation
Driftway
House Buildings & Garden
Garden
Wood
Wood
Garden
Garden
1a
3a
0a
1a
0a
Henry Birkbeck
John Pilgrim
373
374
Lawn
Marlpit Piece
Pasture
Arable
8a - 2a - 8r
7a - 0r - 2p
Henry Birkbeck
George Minns
366
Garden
-
0a - 0r - 38p
Lady Listowel
John William Rust
368
369
First School Piece
Further School Piece
Arable
Arable
1a - 3r - 13p
2a - 1r - 9p
-
3r
3r
1r
0r
3r
-
To Vicar
20p
31p
6p
35
18p
3s 3d
4s 7d
£1 2s 4d
16s 9d
6s 10d
8s 6d
Fig. 5: Detail from the 1844 Tithe Map © Norfolk County Council
1.3
Herne Close was to be built forty years later on Lady Listowel's land known as the First School Piece and rented
in 1843 to John William Rust for cultivation, but Grove House is certainly in place though it did not have exactly
the same footprint as it did in 1887 and certainly not after Edward Boardman's additions of 1895. Not only was
Henry Birkbeck the landowner but he is recorded as being in direct possession of Grove House and the
outbuildings to its west, which will have been stables and other domestic offices. He was also the owner of the
eight-acre field to the north which was laid to pasture and worked by the farmer John Pilgrim, so it would have
been a simple matter for him to have modified the field boundaries into the pattern they had taken by 1887.
5
NRO PD 523/73
Development Committee
132
23 July 2015pg. 11
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
Whatever he might have done there has been a clear distinction between this field, and indeed all fields, and the
garden of Grove House from the time of the earliest available maps. On the Ordnance Survey map issued in 1887
the immediate gardens of Grove House are just about the same as they had been in 1844 but the field to the
north, with the O.S. designation No. 98 had a track running across the middle where the present field boundary
now is, but it remained one coherent plot, even if it had been slightly reduced in size. It remained exactly the
same shape however, a shape not even vaguely the same as that shown on Bellard's 1747 plan.
1.4
To the north-west Herne Close had been built on land bought by the same branch of the Barclay family who had
built The Warren further north in 1879 and Joseph Gurney Barclay also bought the north half of Henry Birkbeck's
pasture field, which appears on the 1906 O.S. Map as plot 114. A permanent field boundary is shown in place of
the earlier track, but it is not known for certain if the Barclays bought the southern part as well. If they had it
might have been in about 1897 when Henry Birkbeck sold Grove House to one of the Barclay family apparently
because the new golf links (opened in 1887) overlooked the estate, but even so he had paid for extensions from
the Norwich architects Edward Boardman & Son of Norwich in 1895-96 using George Riches as the contractor6.
1.5
Trade Directories give various occupiers of the houses at intervals, so in 1866 it is Mrs Birkbeck at Grove House
(Post Office Directory) and in 1908 the Barclays have taken over and were listed at both The Grove, as it was
now known, and at Herne Close (Kelly's Directory). In 1929 and 1933 Mrs. Buxton was at The Grove but Herne
Close was not listed as if it was vacant, though it was occupied in 1937 when Miss Barclay was in residence
(Kelly's Directory).
Fig. 6: Detail from the 1887 O.S. Map
Fig. 7: Detail from the 1906 O.S. Map
1.6
The next major event was the auction at the Royal Hotel in Norwich of the Warren and Grove Estates on 6 July
1935, in total comprising sixty-one acres 'ripe for immediate development', 'By Order of the Executors of the late
F. H. Barclay Esq., and of the Rev. Canon D. B. Barclay'. It is evident that by this time the field No. 113 (O.S.)
was definitely part of The Grove estate, the whole being of about nine acres, and field No 114 definitely not. This
6
NRO BR35/2/39/16/1-3; Pipe (2010), p. 104
pg. 12Development
Committee
133
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
field, with part of the wood to the north was identified as Lot 3 and this comprises the proposed development
site, so it is significant that it was to be sold in 1935 as 'Building Land'. Indeed apart from Lots 1 and 2 (The
Warren and The Grove) and Lot 15 (Grove Farm, Overstrand Road), all of the remaining thirteen plots were
offered for sale as either 'Building Land' or 'Building Plot'. The Grove was substantial, having fourteen bedrooms
and two bathrooms so it is perhaps inevitable that it should have been bought for a hotel, which opened in
19367. Kelly's Directory of 1937 lists Robert William Gravelin as the owner.
1.7
Between 1959, after the death of
Miss Barclay, and 1 September
1990 Herne Close was used as a
school, Sutherland House School,
which had use of all of the
development site as their playing
field ever since they had opened
in The Warren in 19468. The
school amalgamated with Runton
Hill School and the Overstrand
Road site closed, to be converted
to seven apartments in 1999.
Fig. 8: Plan from the 1935 sales particulars © Norfolk County Council
Fig. 9: The development site as the school playing field in the 1960s ©
Archant Newspapers Ltd
7
8
Savin (1937), p. 121
Pipe (2010), p. 110 & p. 183
Development Committee
134
23 July 2015pg. 13
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
The Two Additional Heritage Assets
1.8
The post medieval earthwork platform (NHER 39172) to the north of the site cannot be found. All of the
boundary was walked on both sides but no evidence of any such feature was found, especially where it is
marked on the NHER identifying plan. The Second World War pill box (NHER 32567) is located on land belonging
to King's Chalet Park to the east beyond the boundary of the proposed development site and cannot be seen
from it behind a belt of mature trees, and it could not be found on the chalet site either.
Fig. 10: The pill box is reported to be beyond the trees
pg. 14Development
Committee
135
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
Part Two - Consideration of Whether the Proposed Development falls within an Area Designated by the
Planning Authority for such Development
2.1
The application site is allocated within The North Norfolk Site Allocations Plan (February 2011) under Policy C04
‘Land at Rear of Sutherland House, Overstrand Road’ for approximately 60 dwellings. It states:
‘Land amounting to 1.4 hectares is allocated for residential development of approximately 60 dwellings.
Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies including on‐site
provision of the required proportion of affordable housing (currently 45%) and contributions towards
infrastructure, services and other community needs as required and.... [the usual conditions follow].
2.2
The proposed site has therefore been identified by the local planning authority as suitable for residential
development, and the decision to do so was upheld on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. There is therefore
permission in principle to develop. It is interesting that in 1935 the plot in question was considered to be suitable
building land (see paragraph 1.6 above).
Development Committee
136
23 July 2015pg. 15
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
Part Three - Consideration of the Nature of the Proposed Development on the Four Designated and
Undesignated Heritage Assets
3.1
The relevant governing considerations fall within the meaning of s. 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
3.2
Concerning the two listed buildings, Sutherland House and The Grove, this report takes the same view as that
put forward by the Objection Statement compiled by One Planning Ltd dated June 2015, namely:
'The site is located to the rear of two Grade II Listed Buildings (Sutherland House and 'The Grove'),
however there is sufficient physical separation between them and the site to ensure that development
would not have an adverse impact on them.' (page 3)
However the One Planning Ltd report then goes on to remark that 'it is important to note that the above wording
specially relates to the listed building of The Grove and does not mention its wider setting given the substantial
grounds of The Grove are also curtilage listed.' (page 3)
3.3
Unfortunately for this argument only buildings can be listed but there are a number of ways they may be
included under the provisions of Section 1 of the 1990 Act, as amended, and these are: in their own right, for
group value or as a building physically attached to a building which is already listed in its own right. In addition
buildings which stand within the curtilage of a listed building, forms part of the land and has done so since
before 1 July 1948 are to be treated as part of the listed building. No such building is relevant to either
Sutherland House or The Grove. There is no legal definition of a 'building', and NPPF 2012 interestingly bucks the
issue in its Annex 2 where it sets out the definitions to be used. It provides definitions of such things as an 'Aged
or veteran tree' but not buildings. In fact listing inspectors work under the following definition of a building:
'Any man-made structure permanently fixed to the ground and more than ten centimetres high'.
3.4
The only way that land, grounds or gardens can be considered to be a designated heritage asset is if they form
part of a Registered Park and Garden, and neither the proposed development site, the grounds of The Grove or
of Sutherland House or any other land within a one kilometre radius of any of them qualify. The nearest three
are at The Pleasaunce, Overstrand, Sheringham Hall and Voewood at High Kelling9. The objection made by One
Planning Ltd. to their own assertion cannot apply under any circumstances (paragraph 3.2 above). The setting of
a listed building is, however, of relevance, but this is agreed by both sides not to be affected because there is
'sufficient physical separation between them and the site'.
9
At the date of writing there are eighteen designated parks and gardens in North Norfolk District
pg. 16Development
Committee
137
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
Part Four - The Setting of the Two Designated Heritage Assets
Sutherland House
4.1
It is debatable whether any part of the proposed development could be seen from Sutherland House given that
the recent construction of Barclay's Mews and Swinton House has effectively blocked the view. These
developments similarly mean that any considerations of a new building affecting the setting of this listed building
becomes effectively meaningless because the setting has already been so compromised that development on the
proposed site can make little difference. There is also the question of precedent: if Barclay's Mews and Swinton
House were considered by the local planning authority not to affect the setting of Sutherland House then the
proposed development cannot possibly do so.
The Grove
4.2
The setting of The Grove is more complicated because the roofs of the proposed development will be at least
partially visible, or they will before the new tree planting along the boundary line between the site and the
garden of The grove has a chance to mature. We have already noted that the development field has never
formed part of the land associated with The Grove, although both were owned by Henry Birkbeck at the time of
the Tithe Apportionment in 1844, but the field was sold off to the Barclay family who lived in The Warren to the
north. This house has now been demolished and replaced with the residential block Warren Court. The 1887
Ordnance Survey map does show that the present boundary between the proposed development site and the
modern house, Midway, and the land belonging to The Grove, which lies much farther to the south, had been
Fig. 11: View south from the site showing Midway to the right and The Grove to the left beyond the field boundary
Development Committee
138
23 July 2015pg. 17
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
established as a track rather than just a hedge. This situation was the same on the 1906 and subsequent O.S.
maps except that the track had been abolished in favour of a fixed boundary. The proposed development site
subsequently became part of Sutherland House when that building was converted to a school in 1959 (closed in
1990).
4.3
The Grove has been run as a commercial enterprise (a hotel and restaurant) since the 1930s and in recent years
its immediate setting has been compromised by:
i)
the construction of Midway, a house of the 1980s in the north-west corner of the curtilage land
belonging to The Grove.
ii)
the construction of an indoor swimming pool under a rather prominent pantiled hipped roof in
the 2000s to the north-east of The Grove, within 50 metres of it.
iii)
by the recent construction of single-storey timber, weatherboarded and pantiled service blocks
to the north-east closer to the boundary with the adjacent chalet park. These are so new that they do
not yet appear on Historic England's 2015 digital mapping service.
iv)
by the erection of several large semi-permanent tents designed for luxury camping as part of
the general hotel and leisure activities of the Grove site.
4.4
It is just as significant as in the context of Sutherland House that these developments have not been seen to
compromise the setting of The Grove even though they are much closer to it than the proposed development site
and sit easily within the curtilage of the hotel. This is another significant precedent which has established that
partly residential and partly commercial development within the curtilage of The Grove is acceptable under the
provisions of the North Norfolk Local Plan and acceptable within the meaning of S.66 of the Principal Act.
Development outside the curtilage of The Grove must be even more acceptable especially on a site already
approved for residential development.
4.5
An argument has been introduced that the proposed development would affect the views from and the physical
setting of The Grove. However the proposed site is visible only from one or two of the upper windows, and the
view is quite distant, beyond the line of trees and hedgerow which marks the boundary shown on the 1887 O.S.
Map. A belt of even taller trees could easily be planted to further ameliorate this concern. The advice given in
paragraph 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 elaborates S. 66 in that 'Local planning
authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a
proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset)'. In the case of The Grove this is an
easy determination to make because the extent of the setting of the heritage asset is very clear and has been
since at least the nineteenth century - it is the land that comprises its curtilage.
4.6
The development site is outside the historic setting of The Grove and always has been and constitutes an area
approved for development. This point is even more important because the historic and curtilage significance of
the lands beyond those surrounding The Grove mean that an objection to development on these grounds would
pg. 18Development
Committee
139
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
constitute an argument that the proposed development would compromise the setting of the setting of a
designated asset. This is not a consideration allowed, or even anticipated, by the law.
The Setting of the Post-Medieval earthwork Platform and the World War II Pill Box
4.7
The earthwork cannot be found and therefore must be presumed to be a subterranean structure, assuming it
ever existed in the first place. If it did exist then it falls under the rule that it is not possible to affect the setting
of a subterranean building, and only if groundworks were proposed over the stated position of the earthwork can
it legally be affected. No such work is proposed and in any case one of the standard conditions of the policy to
allow development referred to above is that archaeological investigation shall be carried out if required. The issue
has been addressed because the Norfolk Archaeology Service at Gressenhall has already agreed to a watching
brief once construction is approved.
4.8
The pill box is even less controversial because not only is it not on the land which forms part of the proposed
development site but it is not in the same ownership. It is part of the land belonging to the King's Chalet Park to
the east and is invisible from the site behind dense woodland. Moreover a search on 8 July 2015 failed to locate
it.
Development Committee
140
23 July 2015pg. 19
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
Appendix One
Statutory List Descriptions
TG 24
UID
CROMER
Overstrand Road
(North-east side)
222543
The Grove
2/47
21-Jan-1977
II
Circa 1800. Large house. Whitewashed brick, front clad in ivy. Low pitched hipped roof of pantiles. 2 storeys. 1st
floor 5 sashes with glazing bars. Ground floor 3 widely spaced sashes with side lights and glazing bars. All
window openings have cambered arches. Doorway right of centre moulded architrave doorcase with semi-circular
traceried rectangular fanlight, 6-panel door, porch with 2 unfluted columns supporting Doric entablature, now
glazed in. 2-storeyed splayed bay with sashes on east and west ends. L-shaped on plan with 3 storey wing at
rear (south).
TG 24 SW
UID
CROMER
OVERSTRAND ROAD
1373900
Sutherland House
2/78
1-MAR-1991
II
House. Circa 1886 by E J May for one of the Barclay family. Red brick in Flemish bond with moulde d
brick dressings and applied timber framing and tile-hanging in gables. Axial stacks with tall brick
shafts with moulded caps, some with buttressed bases. Steeply pitched plain tile roofs with -moulded
bargeboards and pendants to jettied tile-hung and timber frame gables.
Plan: Principal rooms at south (right hand) end around entrance and stair hall, axial passage through
service range to left (north) and adjoining lodge on north end.
Old English Style.
2 storeys and attic. Asymmetrical 1:2:1:1 bay west front with gables projecting left and to right of
centre, the left with 3-storey canted bay with buttresses to brick first and second floors and with
wooden top storey. Bays 2 and 3 flanked by diagonal buttresses, bay 2 with oriel. Gabled bay 4 has
5-light attic window with 4-central arches and polygonal stair turret with battlements to right and
gabled tile-hung, timber and brick porch in angle with panelled inner door with radiating balusters to
semi-circular top panel. Polygonal single storey bay on right hand corner and later rebuilt
conservatory on rear (south-east) corner. Rear east garden front has group of 4 superimposed tilehung and timber-frame gables to right, the centre 2 integral, the outer gables projecting and with 2
and 3-storey canted wooden bays with decorative timber framing. The windows are intact and have
moulded mullions and cornices to the transoms, top lights with glazing bars. Single storey and attic
lodge attached at north end has timber-frame gables. Interior is largely complete and retains most of
its original features including panelled doors and other joinery. Hall has woven reed dado and tall
narrow chimneypiece with Delft tiles, mirror and coving. Reed coving continues up staircase which
has arcaded 'clerestorey' and panelled balustrade; attic flight has stick balusters. Drawing room has
moulded ceiling beam and joists and chimneypiece with Tudor arch fireplace and mirrors and shelves
on overmantal with coving above. South end room has another large chimneypiece with mirrors an d
polygonal bay with central column. Complete set of original chimneypieces in chambers above, simple
servants' stairs and pantry cupboards etc.
pg. 20Development
Committee
141
23 July 2015
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
Note: originally known as Herne Close (Kelly's Directory)
Sources: Illustration, The Architect, vol. 36, 12 Nov. 1886 p. 278
Listing NGR: TG2242841692
Development Committee
142
23 July 2015pg. 21
Land to Rear of Barclay's Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer - Heritage Impact Assessment
.
Bibliography
Records in Norfolk Record Office
BR35/2/39/16
BR 241/4/1076
MF/RO 476/5
PD 523/73-74
PD 523/145
Plans for the 1895 extensions to The Grove
Sale Particulars for the Warren and Grove Estates, July 1935
1747 map of Cromer (original in Cromer Museum)
Cromer Tithe Map and Apportionment, 1844 and 1843
1717 Map of Nathaniel Smith's lands in Cromer
Ordnance Survey Maps, 25", Sheet 11.11, 1887 and 1906
Secondary Sources
Kelly's Directories of Norfolk, various dates
Pipe, Christopher, A Dictionary of Cromer and Overstrand History, Cromer, 2010
Savin, A.C., A Modern History of Cromer, Holt, 1936
Simpson, R.J., The Cromer Scrap Book, Ipswich, 1884
Yates, D.A., Directory of Norfolk, 1970-71
pg. 22Development
Committee
143
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 2
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
Heritage Impact Assessment
of
Proposed Development for the
Erection of 68 sheltered housing retirement apartments Land to rear of Barclay Mews,
Overstrand Road, Cromer
North Norfolk District Council Planning
Application Reference: PO/15/0572
Prepared by
of www.oneplanning.co.uk
19 June 2015
1. Currently secluded and undisturbed setting of The Grove.
Heritage Impact Assessment
Development Committee
contura on behalf
144
contura
Historic Buildings Consultancy
Franziska Callaghan MA MSc DipID IHBC
Orchard Pyghtle, Colby Road, Banningham, Norwich Norfolk NR11 7DY
Tel. 01263 478258
Email: fv.callaghan@gmail.com
www.contura-fc.co.uk
23 July 2015
1
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
1. Proposal
1.1 A planning application has been submitted to North Norfolk District Council
for the Erection of 68 sheltered housing retirement apartments - Land to rear of
Barclay Mews, Overstrand Road, Cromer (PO/15/0572).
1.2 The development is for 8 residential buildings and some ancillary smaller
structures (garages). The tallest proposed building is of 2.5 storeys with a tall
turret tower. As the levels of the site rise to the east, this building appears much
taller and overtowers the other buildings on the site.
2. Grade II listed The Grove.
1.3 Immediately adjacent to the north of the site is the Grade II listed The Grove,
a large house of 18th century origin in extensive grounds.
1.4 Submitted documents:
1.4.1 Whilst the application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, no
Heritage Statement has been submitted and only brief reference is made to
the nearby Heritage Asset.
1.4.2 There is no topographical survey that fully establishes the levels of existing
and proposed buildings.
1.4.3 The proposal does not appear to pay special regard to the heritage asset
in terms of design, siting, scale, materials or the setting of the asset.
2. Planning background and relevant policies
The site has been identified for residential development in the North Norfolk Site
Allocations Plan under Policy CO4.
Relevant development control policies can be found in the North Norfolk District Council’s Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework. Particularly
relevant in relation to heritage assets and their setting are the below:
Development Committee
145
23 July 2015
2
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
Policy EN4 Ensure that the scale and
massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area;
Policy EN8 Development proposals,
including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and landscapes, and their
settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that
would have an adverse impact on
their special historic or architectural
interest will not be permitted.
3. View of development site from first floor guest room at The Grove.
Development Committee
146
The SPD Design Guide states in paragraph 5.4.1 Setting that new buildings or structures that would block
important views of listed buildings, or
would have a harmful affect upon
their setting, are unlikely to be acceptable.
23 July 2015
3
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
The NPPF makes it clear that the setting of a heritage asset1 is the surroundings
in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change
as the asset and its surroundings evolve.
Other relevant documents are Historic England’s Guidance The Setting of Heritage Assets 2011 and Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning:
Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets March 2015. The latter guidance sets
out a stepped approach:
Step 1: Which heritage assets and their settings are affected.
Step 2: assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset.
Step 3: assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or
harmful, on that significance.
Step 4: explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise
harm.
Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.
The below assessment uses the first 4 steps of the recommended steps in making an assessment of the impact of the development on the heritage asset.
Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as: a building, monument, site,
place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. They include
designated heritage assets (as defined in the NPPF) and assets identified by the local
1
Development Committee
147
planning authority during the process of
decision-making or through the planmaking process.
23 July 2015
4
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
3. Identification of the heritage assets and their settings which are
affected by the development
3.1 Both the National Heritage List for England and the Norfolk Historic Environment Record have been consulted and the building “The Grove” has been
identified as being the heritage asset immediately adjacent to the proposed
development site. This is a Grade II listed building being of special architectural
and/or historic interest.
4. View of the Grove in the 1790s.
3.2 The list description which is a means of identification records:
Circa 1800. Large house. Whitewashed brick, front clad in ivy. Low pitched
hipped roof of pantiles. 2 storeys. 1st floor 5 sashes with glazing bars. Ground
floor 3 widely spaced sashes with side lights and glazing bars. All window openings have cambered arches. Doorway right of centre moulded architrave
doorcase with semi-circular traceried rectangular fanlight, 6-panel door, porch
with 2 unfluted columns supporting Doric entablature, now glazed in. 2-storeyed splayed bay with sashes on east and west ends. L-shaped on plan with
3 storey wing at rear (south).
3.2.1 The Grove as Heritage Asset
The earliest known reference to the existence of a house on the site of The
Grove is on a map dated 1747 when the house was owned by the Mountain
family.
During the 1790s, the new owner Joseph Gurney extended the cottage into a
large house, adding the western two-thirds of the front section, another floor
onto the existing building and the scullery and kitchen at the back of the house.
In 1895, Henry Birkbeck (Henry and Jane’s son) drew up plans to extend The
Grove, adding the eastern third of the front of the house.
Development Committee
148
5. The Grove pre-1866.
6. 1895 East extension.
23 July 2015
5
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
There are several important historic associations with The Grove such as the social reformer Elizabeth Fry and the Gurneys (for further detailed information see
appendices).
3.2.2 The site was visited on 5th June 2015 and walked over with views into and
from the site from all directions.
3.2.3 The NPPF defines significance (for heritage policy) as “the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That
interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance
derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
8. Views towards the East from the
Setting of The Grove.
3.2.4 The setting of the heritage asset is defined mainly by the large open expanse of garden to the north, but also by the grove-like areas to the east and
west which also have some ancillary outbuildings. This setting has historically
been almost identical, with grassland to the north of the site up to the Warren
and large trees to east and west of the house. Both historic views (ill. 4 and 5)
show a large expanse of open land to the north
and east of the house. This has not changed
much over time and the expanse of the setting of
the heritage asset remains the same today.
9. View east along the southern
boundary of the development site.
7. Views of the church from the (garden) setting of The Grove which will
be obscured by the development.
Development Committee
149
23 July 2015
6
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
4. Assessment of whether, how and to what degree these settings
make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset
4.1 The asset’s physical surroundings
4.1.1 Whilst the heritage asset lies very much on the outer edge of the town of
Cromer, experience of the site once entered is that of a remote and isolated
location with the listed building at the heart of a tranquil natural setting. There
are several ancillary buildings nearby such as a historic barn (now converted)
and a group of timber lodges. However, these are subservient to the main
building and some distance away, separated from The Grove by trees and
green spaces.
4.1.2 The wider landscape is also important as the site lies within an Area of
Outstanding natural beauty (AONB).
4.2 Experience of the asset
4.2.1 The above natural setting contributes significantly to the experience of
the asset as a remote and secluded asset. The site opens up to the north and
is currently beautifully enclosed by nature as is very well demonstrated in both
illustrations 1 and 2. Views in and out of the site include important views of the
Cromer Parish Church (Grade I listed Heritage Asset) which all add to the positive experience of the asset.
4.2.2 This surrounding natural environment very much contributes to the significance of the asset in its current use as Guest House. Historic England’s Guidance states that the economic viability can be diminished by insensitively located development. As the setting significantly enhances the experience of
the asset, the threat to this setting will have an adverse effect on how the asset
is experienced.
Development Committee
150
23 July 2015
7
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
4.2.3 The asset is currently still experienced as a retreat just as it was used and
experienced in the late 18th century. The setting significantly contributes to this
experience.
4.2.4 The experience of the tranquil natural setting within mature trees is also
reflected in the assets name The Grove.
5 Assessment of the effects of the proposed development, whether
beneficial or harmful, on that significance
5.1 Location and siting: The development is located directly on the northern
edge of the heritage asset’s boundary to the north. Buildings have been sited
in an oval arrangement around the proposal site’s edge. There is a high concentration of elongated and large buildings on the boundary to the heritage
asset resulting in harm to its significance.
5.2 Form and appearance:
5.2.1 Whilst the design is of an acceptable appearance, the design is by no
means sensitive, innovative or outstanding as required by the North Norfolk District Council’s development control policies in the proximity of a listed building
and within the AONB. The long form of proposed Beechwood House as well as
the massing and appearance of Laurel House are resulting in harm to the significance of the heritage asset as both buildings do not respond to the heritage
asset and also block important views out of the site.
5.2.2 The proposed glazed rooftiles in green, red and black will make the roofs
an extremely dominant feature which would not be appropriate in the setting
within the AONB. Roof materials should be of a recessive and matt appearance.
Development Committee
151
23 July 2015
8
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
5.3 Scale and massing: Again, massing of both Beechwood and Laurel House
is inappropriate in this location and should be broken up to reduce the impact
on the setting of the listed building. Scale generally appears to be too high,
but this could be more accurately assessed when a levels survey is available.
The 2.5 storey buildings on the southern boundary appear too high as they do
not relate to the two storey heritage asset The Grove. Buildings on this boundary should be low-level and sympathetic to the asset.
Also massing should still allow for existing views out of the site.
5.4 The proposed buildings’ scale and massing is resulting in harm to the setting
of the heritage asset.
5.5 Overall, the proposal fails to preserve and enhance the setting of the heritage asset and would therefore have a harmful effect on the significance of
the asset.
6. Explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm
6.1 In order to minimise harm and maximise enhancement, the following recommendations have been included:
6.2 Establish levels and gain a better understanding of the existing and proposed building heights and their relationship.
6.3 Reduce the number, size and height of buildings along the southern boundary: delete No. 6 from the scheme and relocate No. 7 away from the southern
boundary. Significantly reduce massing of No. 5 and review siting. This would
open up the site towards the south and allow for positive views out of The Grove
and into the development site. See also 6.4.
Development Committee
152
23 July 2015
9
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
6.4 Review the siting of the buildings along the southern boundary: there is a
real opportunity here to improve and enhance the layout such as creating a
communal space (possibly also car parking) in the central area with views of
The Grove. There is an opportunity to create a positive visual connection of the
new buildings and the heritage asset rather than separating the two sites by a
row of buildings along this boundary (as currently proposed). The proposed
layout does not make this important connection and does not maximise enhancement.
6.5 Reduce number of windows along southern boundary (facing the heritage
asset to the south).
6.6 Reduce height of turret building on eastern boundary.
6.7 A full mitigation scheme of the southern boundary (landscaping) should be
included at application stage.
6.8 Roof materials should be of a recessive appearance, such as sedum roofs,
to blend into the natural surroundings or of a vernacular style with a matt finish
as the proposed shiny glazed roof tiles (Design and Access statement 13.4,
p.30) make the roofs appear unsuitably prominent.
7. Conclusion
7.1 Whilst the principle of development has been accepted within the Site allocations of the North Norfolk District Council Local Development Framework,
the proposal fails to comply with several development control policies as well
as primary legislation as below.
Development Committee
153
23 July 2015
10
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
7.2 Taking into account the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development will cause harm to the important setting and therefore the
significance of the Grade II listed The Grove as a designated heritage asset.
Although the harm is deemed to be less than significant, it is considered to be
of an unacceptable level.
7.3 The proposed development fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 66 (1)
of the Planning (LB and CA) and section 12 of the NPPF and is contrary to the
North Norfolk and North Norfolk Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 5.4.1 Setting of heritage assets. It is also contrary to policies EN4 and EN8
of the Development Control Policies of the NNDC Core Strategy.
Development Committee
154
23 July 2015
11
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
8. References
The following sources have been consulted:

North Norfolk District Council Local Development Framework

North Norfolk District Council Supplementary Planning Guidance: Design Guide
2008

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 – The Setting of
Heritage Assets 2015

Norfolk Heritage and Environment Record (NHER)

Norfolk Map Explorer

www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/national-heritage-list-for-england/
Development Committee
155
23 July 2015
12
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
9. Appendices
List entry Summary
This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.
Name: THE GROVE
List entry Number: 1373876
Location
THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD
The building may lie within the boundary of more than one authority.
County
District
District Type
Parish
Norfolk
North Norfolk
District Authority
Cromer
roof of pantiles. 2 storeys. 1st floor 5
sashes with glazing bars. Ground floor 3
widely spaced sashes with side lights
and glazing bars. All window openings
have cambered arches. Doorway right
of centre moulded architrave doorcase with semi-circular traceried rectangular fanlight, 6-panel door, porch
with 2 unfluted columns supporting
Doric entablature, now glazed in. 2-storeyed splayed bay with sashes on east
and west ends. L-shaped on plan with 3
storey
wing
at
rear
(south).
Listing NGR: TG2260241546
National Park: Not applicable to this List entry.
Grade: II
Date first listed: 21-Jan-1977
List entry Description
Details
OVERSTRAND ROAD 1. 5320 (North East Side) The Grove TG 24 lilt 2/47
II
2. Circa 1800. Large house. Whitewashed brick, front clad in ivy. Low pitched hipped
Development Committee
156
23 July 2015
13
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
Quoted from History of The Grove, Cromer as accessed at The Grove on 5th June 2015.
Development Committee
157
23 July 2015
14
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
Quoted from History of The Grove, Cromer as accessed at The Grove on 5th June 2015.
Development Committee
158
23 July 2015
15
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE GROVE, OVERSTRAND ROAD, CROMER
MAPS
1st Ed OS 1882 © old-maps.co.uk
Development Committee
159
23 July 2015
16
APPENDIX 3
Development Committee
160
23 July 2015
Development Committee
161
23 July 2015
Development Committee
162
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 4
Development Committee
163
23 July 2015
Development Committee
164
23 July 2015
Development Committee
165
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 5
HERITAGE AND LANDSCAPE ADVICE: APPLICATION NO. PF/14/1669
Installation of a single wind turbine with a maximum height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a
hardstanding, a small substation building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated
infrastructure
Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead, NR25 6NF
INTRODUCTION
This application by Selbrigg Generation proposes the erection of a single wind turbine at Selbrigg
Farm with access track and associated infrastructure. The height to the hub of the turbine will be
50m with a maximum height of 78m to the tip of the blades. It would have the capacity to generate
500kW which could power approximately 343 homes.
Beacon Planning have been asked to assist North Norfolk District Council by providing heritage and
landscape advice on the proposed development.
The site was visited on 13 March 2015 by a Heritage Consultant and a Landscape Architect. Heritage
issues and landscape issues are generally reviewed separately below.
Potential receptors were visited during the site visit. The documentation relating to the application
and the objections received have been reviewed. This report represents an independent view of the
proposals.
1. HERITAGE APPRAISAL
Introduction
This assessment has concentrated on designated heritage assets (specifically scheduled monuments,
listed buildings, registered parks and gardens and conservation areas) rather than seeking to identify
any non-designated heritage assets that could be affected.
When considering planning applications, a statutory duty is placed upon local planning authorities to
‘have special regard to the desirability of preserving’ listed buildings, their settings or any features of
special architectural or historic interest which they possess by virtue of Section 66(1) of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposed development will not have any
impact on the physical fabric of any of the listed buildings, however it does have potential to impact
upon their settings. This requirement to give considerable weight to preserving the setting of listed
buildings has been upheld in the High Court (Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd V E. Northants DC,
English Heritage, National Trust & SSCLG 2014 EWCA Civ 137).
The same Act places a similar duty when exercising planning functions which affect conservation
areas. Section 72 of the 1990 Act requires that ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of
Development Committee
166
23 July 2015
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’. It is noted that the application
site is not located within a conservation area, and that the legislation does not specifically refer to
their settings. Nonetheless, they are designated heritage assets and the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) is clear in paragraph 132 that their significance can be harmed through
development within their setting. For this reason, they are a material consideration in the
determination of this application, and we have duly considered the Baconsthorpe, Glaven Valley and
Hempstead Conservation Areas which are closest to the application site.
Scheduled monuments are protected via the provisions of the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological
Areas Act 1979. It does not afford statutory protection to their settings, however this is a material
consideration by virtue of central government policy within the NPPF.
As mentioned, the NPPF reflects the statutory duty imposed by the 1990 Act, and extends a
consideration of the impacts on setting to all designated heritage assets. Paragraph 132 states that
harm to heritage significance can occur through development within an asset’s setting and it advises
that ‘the more important the asset, the greater the weight’ that should be given to its conservation.
A Heritage Desk-Based Assessment (Heritage Assessment) was prepared by CgMS, dated December
2014, and forms part of the application submission.
Heritage assets potentially affected by the development
Baconsthorpe Castle (Scheduled Monument and Grade I, II* and II Listed Buildings)
Comprising Grade II, II* and II listed buildings and designated as a scheduled monument, this site is
clearly a complex of extremely high heritage significance. The NPPF is clear that Grade I listed
buildings and scheduled monuments are assets of the ‘highest significance’, and the more important
the asset, the greater the weight that should be given to their conservation (paragraph 132).
In the first instance, it is important to note that the land within the scheduled area extends beyond
the inner castle area, covering the castle and gatehouse remains, a mere and former ornamental
gardens to the east and south east, the moat and the area that is now the visitor car park to the
south. Visitors are encouraged to walk around the site. The first interpretation board is within the
car park itself, and a public footpath travels north-south parallel to the western edge of the moat. It
is not unreasonable to anticipate that visitors will walk along the outer bank of the moat before or
after crossing the bridge into the castle enclosure.
Clearly, Baconsthorpe Castle sits within a rural landscape. Nestled in the valley bottom, it has a
secluded character set away from built development. Whilst there are examples of modern
development in some views, these are generally rural in character and at some distance such that
they have little intrusion on the overall tranquillity and sense of seclusion. This is recognised in the
Heritage Assessment submitted by the applicant which states that the ‘exact nature of the rural
setting has changed over time but it still remains an important element of the…significance of the
assets’ (p. 23). It goes on to note how it was deliberately built in a rural, isolated location, and
Development Committee
167
23 July 2015
therefore that its landscape setting away from built development makes a positive contribution to
its significance (p. 23).
It is clear from the wireframe images provided by the applicant that the turbine will be visible from
the castle site. Viewpoint 15 is taken from a position presumed to be close to the bridge looking
approximately due west towards the application site. The wireframe shows that a blade will be
visible over the top of the hedge line. This image was taken in summer and so does not present the
worst-case scenario, in addition to which the hedge is not of uniform height. It is highly likely
therefore that as one moved around the site there would be locations from which the turbine would
be more visible than this viewpoint suggests.
Viewpoint 16 is taken from within the curtain walls (Grade I listed and scheduled) looking towards
the application site and shows clearly that the turbine will be visible rising above the curtain walls,
with the hub and all three blades visible (although not in their entirety at any one time).
Viewpoint 14 is taken along the approach to Baconsthorpe Castle. This approach affords views
towards the asset, with the gatehouse tower (Grade II listed and scheduled) intermittently visible,
thereby building a sense of anticipation as one nears the site. The Heritage Assessment
acknowledges that this trackway offers views to the castle along the majority of its length, and that
this provides the main access for visitors (p. 23). Of all three viewpoints (14, 15 and 16), the turbine
is most visible from this location, with the turbine shaft, hub and all three blades visible. The height
of the structure is such that the blade tips will travel higher than the top of the gatehouse. The
wireframe suggests that it would be very much a dominant element in the view, competing with and
distracting from the historic structure. The turbine is particularly pronounced in Viewpoint 17 taken
from the start of the driveway (and within Baconsthorpe Conservation Area), with all three blades
visible above the treeline.
The appearance of the turbine above the castle wall will draw the eye outside of the monument,
particularly due to its turning blades which will be a distraction, flickering above the standing
remains. This would erode the intimate nature and sense of enclosure experienced when standing
within the curtain walls – albeit in their current state of ruin – with instead one’s attention drawn to
a modern structure placed some distance outside of the site.
The flickering appearance of the turbine in views from the moat on the western side of the
monument would have a similar impact, adding an alien modern structure which draws the eye out
from the monument and away from the designated assets.
The Heritage Assessment correctly identifies that, in these views, the wind turbine ‘will act as a
distraction to an observer approaching or within the castle and its immediate environs’, and may
‘draw an observer’s view away from the designated assets.’ As a result, the castle ‘will no longer be
experienced in quite such isolation’ (pp. 23-34). The assessment concludes that the proposals will
reduce the contribution that the setting makes to its significance. We would agree with this.
The assessment goes on to state that the proposals ‘will not have a material effect on the
significance of the designated asset itself which primarily derives from factors that will be unaffected
Development Committee
168
23 July 2015
by the presence of the wind turbine’. This will often be the case in issues of setting. Nevertheless,
the NPPF is clear in Annex 2 that heritage significance is derived ‘not only from a heritage asset’s
physical presence, but also from its setting.’ It is unclear therefore how harm to an element of the
setting which contributes positively to the significance of the asset cannot be considered to
constitute material harm. Indeed ‘Table 1: Criteria for Appraisal of Magnitude of Change on Heritage
Resources’ provided within the methodology states that a moderate impact includes ‘Harm to a
heritage asset’s setting, such that the asset’s significance would be materially affected’. The arising
harm is later acknowledged in the conclusions as set out in paragraph 7.3.
In our view, this is an asset of very high heritage significance and the importance of the tranquil,
rural location to its significance appears to be accepted by the applicant. The applicant has
acknowledged that the proposals will have a moderate effect and less than substantial harm will
arise. We agree that the harm caused will fall within the ‘less than substantial’ bracket; nonetheless
it will be significant and will affect heritage assets of the highest significance.
Baconsthorpe Conservation Area
The Heritage Assessment notes that the setting of Baconsthorpe Conservation Area is one of
countryside and that this rural context contributes to the significance of the conservation area
(paragraph 5.4.2). We agree with this assessment. The Baconsthorpe Conservation Area includes
the main settlement along The Street, and takes in School Lane which runs parallel to the south.
Spurs extend to the northeast to include the start of the trackway to the castle, and to the southeast
to incorporate the church and Manor House. The settlement pattern is arranged to either side of
the large central open space, giving the settlement an open character and affording longer views
across the conservation area. In many locations, the roads at the edges allow views outwards to the
open countryside, placing the village in a rural context.
The Heritage Assessment states in 5.4.4 that the turbine is located ‘beyond the setting’, however as
it will be seen from the conservation area, ‘it is considered to fall within the setting’. Aside from the
fact that this would appear to be somewhat contradictory, this is to misunderstand the nature of
setting. English Heritage’s guidance document, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), makes clear
that setting is not fixed. It states that: ‘Construction of a distant but high building; development
generating noise, odour, vibration or dust over a wide area; or new understanding of the relationship
between neighbouring heritage assets may all extend what might previously have been understood
to comprise setting’ (p. 4). It is reasonable to assume therefore that in this instance, the application
site forms part of the extended setting as a result of the height of the structure proposed and its
visibility from the conservation area.
Viewpoint 4 is taken from School Lane across the open space around which the village is centred.
From this road, views northwards can be gained across the open fields towards the castle which can
be glimpsed between the houses along The Street, creating a clear visual relationship between the
village and castle. It is these fields, between the village and the castle, which are stated in the
Heritage Assessment to be of the greatest importance to the significance of the conservation area
(paragraph 5.4.4). It is acknowledged that the turbine will not be directly visible in these views;
however it will be on the western periphery of this arc of vision.
Development Committee
169
23 July 2015
Although the assessment acknowledges change, it concludes that this will not have a material effect
on the significance of the conservation area. To the contrary, it is considered here that the
appearance of a modern structure with moving blades in views across the conservation area to the
surroundings beyond will detract from the rural setting of the village, and will distract from the
glimpsed views gained of the castle. This harm is considered to be less than substantial.
Red House (Grade II)
The Red House is the closest designated heritage asset to the application site. It is an early C18
farmhouse which at one time was occupied by the head keeper of the nearby Hempstead Estate. It
stands alongside a collection of both historic and modern farm buildings, of which those that predate July 1948 are likely to be curtilage listed.
The assessment provided by the applicant of the setting of the farmhouse concludes that the arable
fields to the east make a ‘mildly positive contribution’ to the significance of the house by virtue of
placing it within a rural context (p. 27). This underestimates the close historic and functional
relationship that the site is likely to share with the arable fields given the nature of the asset as a
farmhouse (although the current and historic land ownership boundaries are not known and this
information is not provided within the assessment). The farmyard structures to the north and
northwest are said to make the strongest contribution to the significance of the asset. Whilst this is
not necessarily disputed, the assessment does not acknowledge that the curtilage listed barns form
part of the asset and as such should form part of any impact assessment. Indeed the barns are
argued to screen the proposals from the farmhouse.
The farmstead sits within a hollow on a quiet country lane lined with hedgerows and mature trees.
It forms part of the rural landscape which, from this location, enjoys very little modern intrusion that
might detract from the otherwise archetypal agricultural setting. Whilst the farmhouse faces the
lane, the farmstead has an open setting to the east and to the north and south, with an extensive
area of arable land stretching to the south, east and north including as far as the application site.
It is surprising given the close proximity of the application site to this asset that no wireframe images
from this location have been provided. As such, it is difficult to be clear on the magnitude of the
impacts; a wireframe image would certainly have been helpful. What it is likely to have shown, is
that the turbine will be the dominant element in views from the barns outwards towards the
application site. Whilst the barns themselves might screen the farmhouse (although the extent of
this screening is not known), the turbine will be prominent as one moves around the site which
forms part of the experience of the asset. This is considered to detract from the otherwise
predominantly agricultural, quiet and secluded setting of the farm complex, constituting an alien
feature within an otherwise open rural landscape.
Glaven Valley Conservation Area
Paragraph 5.4.6 of the Heritage Assessment notes that the application site is located only c.800
metres from the conservation boundary at its closest point. It acknowledges that the wind turbine
will be visible in views outwards from the conservation area, and suggests that it is only from these
Development Committee
170
23 July 2015
locations that there will be any impact. The assessment however fails to identify adequately what
the significance of the conservation area is, or the contribution made by its setting, in addition to
offering no suggestion as to the level of impact.
Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that whilst it may be visible from a limited number of
locations, given the extensive size of the conservation area any impact would be localised and
therefore minimal.
Other assets
Voewood House is Grade II* listed and located within a Grade II* registered park and garden (not
Grade II as stated in the applicant’s Heritage Assessment). The complex includes numerous other
Grade II listed buildings. This complex is located approximately 1.5km to the north east of the
application site. This early C19 Arts and Crafts house has an unusual plan form, with rooms at
ground, first and second floor. It is orientated such that its principal front elevation directly faces
the application site.
It is acknowledged that the house has an intimate setting, being located within an enclosed
landscape. Notwithstanding this, the Heritage Statement notes that there may be some visibility
from the upper floors of the proposed turbine. Given the very high heritage significance of this
listed building, augmented by its location within a Grade II* registered park and garden, it is
important that the nature of this impact can be understood. This is particularly so given the
orientation of the house which is such that the front elevation directly faces the application site. An
appropriate level of assessment is not considered to have been undertaken by the applicant to allow
a considered and informed analysis to be made. With respect to this site therefore, the
requirements of paragraph 128 of the NPPF are not considered to have been satisfied.
There are a number of other heritage assets in proximity to the site and within the zone of
theoretical view. These include (although not exclusively) Manor House Farmhouse (Grade II),
Hempstead Conservation Area and Pine Farmhouse Barn (Grade II). Whilst there may be some
impact on these other heritage assets, they are considered likely to be limited.
Cumulative impacts
An application has been submitted for a wind turbine at Pond Farm to the east of the castle
(PF/14/0925). This is yet to be determined. If permission was to be granted, then the cumulative
impact of the Pond Farm turbine together with this proposal is considered to exacerbate the harm to
Baconsthorpe Castle and Baconsthorpe Conservation Area. This situation is considered to be
particularly detrimental, with modern, distracting elements intruding into the view to both the east
and west of the assets.
The Heritage Assessment notes that the cumulative impact would be moderate with respect to the
castle. It is considered here that the cumulative impacts arising from both wind turbines would give
rise to an increased level of harm, which, although significant, would fall within the remit of
paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Development Committee
171
23 July 2015
Conclusions
The Heritage Assessment concludes in paragraph 7.3 that the proposals would cause ‘less than
substantial harm’ to Baconsthorpe Castle, with the caveat that the majority of the setting would
remain unaffected when considered in the round. Whilst this might be the case, nevertheless the
experience of the assets from the main approach road, when walking around the western part of the
site, and from within the walled enclosure would be harmed as a result of this proposal. Whilst it is
considered that this harm is less than substantial, it is nevertheless significant. Recent case law has
highlighted the weight that must be given to the desirability of preserving the significance of listed
buildings and their settings. Clearly, the harm to this heritage asset needs to be given very careful
consideration in the light of section 66 of the Act and paragraph 132 of the NPPF.
The proposals will also impact upon the character and appearance of Baconsthorpe Conservation
Area and Red House (Grade II). Although these are assets of lower significance, they are still
designated heritage assets, and the NPPF is clear that any harm to such assets requires clear and
convincing justification. Section 66 of the Act is also relevant in the consideration of the impacts on
the Red House in order to fulfil the statutory test. In addition to which, there are a number of other
heritage assets within the vicinity which will suffer minor impacts as a result of these proposals.
Development Control Policy EN 8 requires that development proposals should preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of designated assets, and other historic buildings, structures,
monuments and landscapes and their settings. Development that would have an adverse impact will
not be supported.
These proposals fail to preserve the setting of a number of designated heritage assets (including a
Grade I and II listed building and scheduled monument). The proposals are therefore contrary to the
Development Plan.
Section 66 of the Act 1990 is clear that in exercising its planning functions, the local planning
authority must pay special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings.
It is clear from High Court judgments that considerable weight must be afforded to the protection of
listed buildings and their settings in balancing harm to their heritage significance against other
interests.
The harm in this instance falls within the less than substantial bracket and, in national planning
policy terms, is subject to the tests of paragraph 134 of the NPPF. In our view, in the light of the
legislative test that must be met in the case of the listed buildings, and the ‘great weight’ that must
be given to the conservation of heritage assets by virtue of paragraph 132 of the NPPF, the Council
will need to be satisfied that there are clear, demonstrable public benefits that will outweigh the
presumption in favour of preserving the setting of these designated heritage assets.
The Heritage Assessment identifies no heritage public benefits that would result from these
proposals and we have been unable to identify any. The Planning Practice Guidance is clear that
wider public benefits can be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress
(paragraph 18a-020). Whilst it is not within our remit to undertake the ‘planning balance’, it would
Development Committee
172
23 July 2015
in this instance seem to focus upon whether or not the renewable energy generated by this proposal
(which could power approximately 350 homes) will deliver sufficient benefit to outweigh clear harm
to a highly graded and scheduled site of national importance, and other designated heritage assets.
If sufficient public benefit is not considered to result, then it is recommended that this application is
refused.
Development Committee
173
23 July 2015
2. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL APPRAISAL
A Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVIA) dated November 2014 has been undertaken by Stephenson
Halliday Ltd in accordance with recognised professional best practice (Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment 3rd edition, 2013, Landscape Institute and IEMA( (GLVIA 3).
A 10km radius is selected as the study area which incorporates 19 viewpoints.
Potential Effects
Landscape Effects
The site lies between 60 and 70m Ordnance Datum (AOD) within the Tributary Farmland
(Hempstead, Bodham, Aylmerton and Wickmere) LCA as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape
Character Assessment (SPD, June 2009).
The LVIA describes the Tributary Farmland LCA as having a MEDIUM sensitivity. The Magnitude of
Change which could be expected, certainly within the environs of the proposal site, would be
SUBSTANTIAL, leading to a MAJOR / MODERATE ADVERSE landscape effect on the LCA.
NNDC’s Landscape Character Assessment of this LCA states that care should be taken ‘not to place
(turbines) so prominently that they are apparent for miles’. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)
shown in Figure 15 of the LVIA indicates there is potential for the turbine to be seen for miles.
This proposal will cause significant detrimental impact to the distinctive character of the area/
character area, creating a new land-mark which attracts the eye in countryside which has an open,
gently rolling character with long uninterrupted views. The proposal does not comply with Policy
EN2.
Area of Natural Beauty
Areas of Natural Beauty (AONB) were originally created by the National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act 1949. Further regulation and protection came through the Countryside and Rights
of Way (CROW) Act 2000.
The Purpose of AONB designation “...is primarily to conserve and enhance natural beauty”. (Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty: A policy statement (Countryside Commission, CCP 356, 1991, p.5)).
The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 significantly raised the profile of AONBs by
placing new responsibilities on the local authorities and conservation boards who are responsible for
their management, including a statutory duty to produce and regularly review AONB Management
Plans for their areas and a duty on all ‘relevant authorities’ to have regard for AONB purposes.
Development Committee
174
23 July 2015
The significance of the Norfolk Coast AONB at a national level is described as being “one of the few
remaining examples of relatively undeveloped and unspoilt coastal areas of this character”.
GLVIA3 states at paragraph 5.47 that “Landscapes that are nationally designated (National Parks and
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England and Wales and their equivalents in Scotland and
Northern Ireland) will be accorded the highest value in the assessment”.
The LVIA accords the AONB a High sensitivity. This value is also ascribed to some LCA’s, for example
Wooded with Parkland: Holt Cromer LCA; and Rolling Heath and Arable: Salthouse and Kelling LCA
and which is, in effect, equivalent to the visual sensitivity criteria of residents; users of outdoor
recreational facilities including footpaths etc. As the GLVIA3 is clear that AONB’s should be accorded
the highest value in assessments, there is a question that the LVIA has undervalued the sensitivity
attributed to the AONB and as a consequence also undervalues the likely effects on the AONB which
could be expected.
Whilst the proposal site is not within an AONB, it lies approximately 1km south of the boundary of
the AONB.
Figure 15 of the LVIA illustrates the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the proposed wind turbine.
The ZTV covers areas where a) the turbine blades and hub may be visible and b) the turbine blades
may be visible. There is a significant area where the turbine and blades are likely to be visible within
the AONB.
There are five viewpoints taken from the AONB, viewpoints 3, 7, 9 , 10, and 12 and whilst these are
visual effects, they also illustrate the likely effects to the landscape character of the AONB in that the
significance of the AONB is its undeveloped and unspoilt character.
Viewpoint 3 – South west of Bodham. The turbine blades and hub will be seen. The LVIA indicates a
MAJOR/MODERATE effect on the visual amenity. Paragraph 2.37 of the Appraisal indicates that the
assessment considers that all effects on views which would result from the construction and
operation of the proposed development to be adverse, unless specified otherwise. In an AONB or
on the edge of an AONB, the receptor is likely to be very aware of the special character of the
surrounding countryside and views from the AONB where the proposed development is seen are
significantly adverse in their effect. The effect on the visual amenity from this part of the AONB is
MAJOR / MODERATE ADVERSE.
Viewpoint 7 – Kelling Heath. The turbine blades and hub will be seen. The LVIA indicates a
MODERATE effect on the visual amenity. Paragraph 2.37 of the Appraisal indicates that the
assessment considers that all effects on views which would result from the construction and
operation of the proposed development to be adverse, unless specified otherwise. In an AONB the
receptor is likely to be very aware of the special character of the surrounding countryside and views
from the AONB where the proposed development is seen are significantly adverse in their effect,
especially as the Norfolk Coast AONB is one of the few remaining examples of relatively
undeveloped and unspoilt coastal areas nationally. The effect on the visual amenity of this part of
the AONB is MODERATE ADVERSE.
Development Committee
175
23 July 2015
Viewpoint 9 – View from A148 / A1082 Sheringham junction. The turbine blades and hub will be
seen. The LVIA indicates a MODERATE/MINOR effect on the visual amenity. Paragraph 2.37 of the
Appraisal indicates that the assessment considers that all effects on views which would result from
the construction and operation of the proposed development to be adverse, unless specified
otherwise. In an AONB, or on the edge of the AONB, the receptor is likely to be very aware of the
special character of the surrounding countryside. This is also likely to be true of road users and so
the assessment of Medium for the receptor sensitivity is undervalued. The effect on the visual
amenity of this part of the AONB is likely to be MODERATE ADVERSE.
Viewpoint 10 – Salthouse Heath. The turbine blades and hub will be seen. The LVIA indicates a
MODERATE effect on the visual amenity. Paragraph 2.37 of the Appraisal indicates that the
assessment considers that all effects on views which would result from the construction and
operation of the proposed development to be adverse, unless specified otherwise. In an AONB the
receptor is likely to be very aware of the special character of the surrounding countryside, and views
from the AONB where the proposed development is seen are significantly adverse in their effect.
This effect is assessed as MODERATE ADVERSE.
Viewpoint 12 – View from Roman Camp Inn. The turbine blades and hub will be seen. The LVIA
indicates a MINOR effect on the visual amenity. Paragraph 2.37 of the Appraisal indicates that the
assessment considers that all effects on views which would result from the construction and
operation of the proposed development to be adverse, unless specified otherwise. In an AONB the
receptor is likely to be very aware of the special character of the surrounding countryside, and views
from the AONB where the proposed development is seen are significantly adverse in their effect. In
the LVIA, the receptor sensitivity is taken to be a road user, however road users are likely to be very
aware of the special character of the AONB. Also, there are residences close to this location, a hotel
and PRoW. All of these receptors would normally be accorded a receptor sensitivity of HIGH. The
LVIA undervalues the sensitivity of the receptor. The LVIA assesses the magnitude of change as
NEGLIGIBLE, however it is more likely to be SLIGHT. The LVIA undervalues the effect on visual
amenity as it is likely to be MODERATE ADVERSE in this location.
The proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on the landscape and visual
amenity of the AONB. From areas to the south of the AONB views of the proposed turbine would
detract from the feeling of remoteness, introducing a significant man made landmark into an area
valued for its landscape qualities as an undeveloped and unspoilt coastal area. The visual amenity
would be adversely affected by the intrusion of the wind turbine.
Policy EN1 is relevant. The proposed wind turbine will detract from the special qualities of the
Norfolk Coast AONB, and should not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that it cannot be
located on an alternative site that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development
clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Development Committee
176
23 July 2015
Road Network including minor and unclassified local roads.
The character of the road network in the vicinity of the proposed wind turbine includes minor and
unclassified roads where there are stretches which are tree lined and have a tunnel-like appearance
adding to the character and amenity of the local landscape.
The proposed development will require the delivery of the wind turbine hub and blades. The route
is set out in the application document Road Access Survey by Collett Consulting and reproduced
below for convenience. The route distance is 132 km.
The delivery pay load of the turbine is large, and will require a clear space clearance of 4.4m width x
5.0m height and will require the removal of trees, hedges and shrubs along the nominated route. In
the vicinity of the site this will have substantial repercussions on the character and amenity of minor
and unclassified roads to their detriment.
Section from Great Yarmouth to Fakenham
A1065 – There are tree covered sections along this road,
an example is given below. A clearance of 4.4 x 5.0 m is
required. This will possibly necessitate clearance of
trees to allow passage.
Development Committee
177
23 July 2015
Holt to High Kelling
It is not envisaged that trees will be removed
although the full width of road will be required. At
High Kelling part of the road will be required to be
levelled. It is not clear what impact this will have
on the trees close to the junction of the A148 with
Selbrigg Road illustrated below.
Selbrigg Road
Selbrigg Road is currently 4.0m wide. A path will need to be cleared 4.4 x 5.0 m which will require
tree pruning and possibly tree removal. This will bring a perceptible change to the character of the
landscape and the visual effects experienced by the receptor.
Development Committee
178
23 July 2015
Junction of Selbrigg Road with Unclassified Road
It is likely that trees will be affected to achieve the
swept path required at this junction.
Unclassified Road between Selbrigg Road and site entrance.
Road widening will be required along the length of this section. In addition, tree pruning and tree
removal will be required to ensure a clear space of 4.4m wide x 5.0m high. This will change the
landscape character and visual qualities of this road. Images of this road are shown below.
Development Committee
179
23 July 2015
Site access
A new access will need to be created. Road widening
will be required. Due to the banks on either side of
the carriageway, the land take is likely to be
extensive and trees will need to be removed to allow
a minimum envelope on the road of 4.4m wide by
5.0m high.
The LVIA states that “the only noticeable effects
would arise from the delivery of the turbine towers
and blades. Overall, the visual effects of the limited
number of turbine delivery vehicle movements would
be Minor”.
The effect caused by the delivery of turbine towers and blades is underestimated. The fact that
there would be a limited number of turbine delivery vehicle movements is not material. The
clearance of trees, hedges and shrubs and the widening of roads would still need to take place. This
would result in a MAJOR / MODERATE ADVERSE effect according to the methodology.
Neither is it clear as to what tree pruning and removal is required and how extensive this would be.
Policies EN2 and EN4 are relevant in that the development proposals would be very unsympathetic
to the distinctive character and special qualities of the area. These minor and unclassified roads link
into the system of Public Footpaths and they are an important element of the landscape character.
The proposed development does not accord with these policy EN2 and EN4.
Effects on residents
The LVIA sets out the predicted effects on local villages, hamlets and individual residences. In
general, it would be helpful to have viewpoints from these locations where the effect is likely to be
significant.
There are views from individual residences in Baconsthorpe resulting in a MAJOR / MODERATE
ADVERSE effect.
Development Committee
180
23 July 2015
The LVIA considers the effect from the Red House as MAJOR / MODERATE. However, the magnitude
of effect is likely to be SUBSTANTIAL resulting in a MAJOR ADVERSE effect on this dwelling. It is
considered the LVIA underestimates the effect.
It is not known whether Beckett’s Farm to the south east of the proposed site is a dwelling, but it
does not appear to have been considered in the LVIA. The magnitude of effect is likely to be
SUBSTANTIAL resulting in a MAJOR ADVERSE effect.
Motorists and other road users
The A148 is a key route, including for tourists visiting the AONB and the North Norfolk Coast. These
receptors are likely to have a heightened awareness of the special character of the surrounding
countryside. Along part of its length the A148 forms the boundary of the AONB. GVLIA3, paragraph
6.22 emphasises the importance of ‘sequential’ views along key transport corridors. LVIA viewpoints
3 and 9 are both taken along this route and illustrate potential views. There are likely to be views of
the proposed from the Roman Camp Inn, Aylmerton (see viewpoint 12) to High Kelling. The most
significant effect along this route is likely to be MAJOR ADVERSE.
The most significant effect experienced from the A148 is the section between High Kelling and
Bodham. The LVIA notes the level of effect would be MAJOR / MODERATE ADVERSE in localised
sections. Part of the A148 forms the boundary of the AONB. Motorists and other road users are
likely to have a heightened awareness of the countryside in this area. The most significant effect is
MAJOR ADVERSE.
Public Rights of Way
Figure 15 of the Landscape and Visual Appraisal sets out the Long Distance Footpaths in the area.
However, Public Rights of Way are not mapped.
The area in the vicinity of the application site is criss-crossed by Public Rights of Way (PRoW). It
would be helpful to have had viewpoints from PRoW’s where the effect is likely to be significant.
There is a PRoW which runs alongside the development site linking Selbrigg Cottage with Beckett’s
Farm and then to the road between Holt and Baconsthorpe. There are further PRoWs to the east in
the area of Baconsthorpe and Baconsthorpe Castle.
There are no viewpoints taken from PRoW close to the proposed development. This omission is not
helpful to the decision maker.
The image below illustrates the view from the PRoW which abuts the south west site boundary. The
proposed wind turbine lies in approximately the middle of the image.
Development Committee
181
23 July 2015
The image below represents the view from the PRoW alongside Baconsthorpe Castle. It is likely
there are views of the proposed turbine along the length of this PRoW.
The image below shows the area where the new site access will be created adjacent to the PRoW.
Development Committee
182
23 July 2015
Using the methodology in the LVIA, the receptor using the PRoW adjacent to the site is likely to
experience a MAJOR ADVERSE visual effect, as are the views from other nearby PRoW receptors.
The LVIA concurs with this assessment in that “a substantial magnitude of change and Major level of
effect is predicted from localised sections of those PRoW’s extending within approximately 1-2 km of
the proposed turbine with clear views towards the proposal site, including those to the south east of
the proposed turbine in particular (i.e. the Hempstead to Selbrigg Cottage PRoW which extends
within ~100m of the proposed turbine, and the Bodham to Baconsthorpe / Baconsthorpe Castle
PRoW’s, which extend within 1.1km of the proposed turbine)”.
Regional Cycle Route 30
In the length between Langham and Gresham, the likely effect would be MAJOR / MODERATE
ADVERSE along a short section. The majority of the route would be MODERATE /MINOR ADVERSE.
Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects
Figure 18 of the LVIA sets out the Cumulative Location Plan of the proposed Selbrigg wind turbine
(this application) and a proposed wind farm application to the east which is subject to a Public
Inquiry.
Significant cumulative effects are most likely to be experienced from Tributary Farmland LCT and
LCA; Baconsthorpe Castle; Norfolk Coast AONB; some Hempstead residences; Baconsthorpe; some
Bodham properties; West Beckham; Edgefield; A148 – Bale to Cromer; B1149 – Holt to Saxthorpe;
Regional Cycle Route 30; Holt to Mannington Walk; local PRoW; and Baconsthorpe Castle and
Baconsthorpe Hall.
Conclusion
The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes advice relating to renewable and low
carbon energy schemes. Amongst other things, this states that “all communities have a responsibility
to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for
renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of
local communities” paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 5-003-20140306 .
The LVIA concludes that the main landscape and visual effects associated with the proposed turbine
“would be relatively localised and focused within approximately 2 km (reducing to approximately
500m in a westerly direction)”. This covers a large area of AONB to the north. It could be argued
that the sensitivity of the AONB, as our most valued of landscapes, is more sensitive and susceptible
to change and the assessment has undervalued its sensitivity. The wind turbine will be clearly seen
from VP 3, 6, 7 and 10 and the effects on the AONB is extensive, well beyond 2km, and adverse.
The proposal will adversely affect the LCA – Tributary Farmland: Hempstead, Bodham, Aylmerton
and Wickmere LCA.
Development Committee
183
23 July 2015
The proposed turbine will have a considerable adverse effect to the visual amenity experienced of
from the A148 which is a main tourist route through North Norfolk. The A148 will be most
significantly affected between High Kelling and Bodham.
Local PRoW and cycle routes will be adversely affected.
The delivery of the turbine will have a significant adverse effect on local minor and unclassified roads
to the overall detriment of character and visual amenity.
The LVIA concludes that the landscape and visual effects associated with the proposed Selbrigg Wind
Turbine would diminish with increasing distance. It is suggested that the proposed turbine would
typically account for a small angle of view within a broad landscape context. However, it should also
be considered that the wind turbine with its moving blades will draw the eye and it would become a
local landmark and an incongruous element within its landscape context; particularly so in the
AONB.
It is considered that this proposal does not accord with:
EN1; the proposed development detracts from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB. It is
up to the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Committee that it cannot be located on
an alternative site that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh
any adverse impacts.
EN2; the proposed development is not sympathetic to the distinctive character of the LCA. The
location and scale will not protect or conserve the distinctive character of the area.
EN4; the scale and massing of the proposed scheme is not sympathetic to the surrounding area;
EN7; there are likely to be significant adverse effects on the surrounding landscape and the AONB.
The consideration of the wider benefits of the scheme is not within our remit and will need to be
judged but the planning benefits will need to be considerable to outweigh the harm to the landscape
and visual amenity of the area. Otherwise the proposed development should not be permitted.
Development Committee
184
23 July 2015
UPDATE ON HERITAGE AND LANDSCAPE ADVICE: APPLICATION NO. PF/14/1669
This document is undertaken by Beacon Planning for North Norfolk District Council to address the
additional comments provided by CgMs and Stephenson Halliday Ltd respectively in their responses
to the review of the Selbrigg Wind Turbine undertaken by Beacon Planning for Norfolk District
Council 13.4.15.
Heritage impacts
Beacon Planning has reviewed the response issued by CgMs with respect to Beacon’s initial
comments on the potential heritage impacts of the proposals to erect a wind turbine at Selbrigg
Farm, Hempstead.
With regards to our comments on the impacts on Baconsthorpe Castle, Baconsthorpe Conservation
Area and Red House, we welcome the further clarification but wish to make no revision to our initial
comments. We remain of the view that with respect to the Castle, the harm will be significant and
affect assets designated in the higher tiers. With respect to the Conservation Area the harm will be
less, but nevertheless paragraph 134 of the NPPF is relevant and these impacts should form part of
the overall planning balance.
The turbine will be prominent in views from Red House given the close proximity and its height, such
that the change to the setting described by CgMs as ‘perceptible’ is considered to understate the
scale of change. Nevertheless we welcome that this change is recognised by the applicant and
again, this impact should form part of the overall planning balance.
We welcome the further analysis provided with regards to the impacts on the assets at Voewood
which is helpful in confirming that there will be limited impact on their setting. With the current
tree screen in place, it is considered that the impacts on these assets are likely to be acceptable. It
should be noted however that the trees mitigating the visual impacts appear to be outside of the
site ownership boundary and are therefore not within the applicant’s control.
With issues of setting, it is most often the case that the ‘primary’ significance of the asset, ie its
physical fabric, is unlikely to be harmed as is argued in this instance by CgMs. This assessment is not
disputed, however due weight should still be given to ‘indirect’ harm caused through changes within
their setting. The NPPF is clear that an asset’s setting can also contribute positively to its significance
(Annex 2 NPPF), and that harm to an asset can result through harm to its setting (paragraph 132).
The Local Planning Authority should therefore be particularly mindful of the directions of paragraph
132 of the NPPF and the duties set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990.
Development Committee
185
23 July 2015
Landscape and visual impact
Stephenson Halliday refer to this last document undertaken by Beacon Planning as the Landscape
Advice document. For ease of use, the same terminology will be used here and the Stephenson
Halliday Ltd report will be referred to as the S H Landscape Response June 2015. The Stephenson
Halliday Landscape and Visual Appraisal submitted with the planning application will be referred to
as S H LVA.
This report will follow the sections broadly set out in both the Landscape Advice and the S H
Landscape Response documents and will refer to the main points put by Stephenson Halliday in their
Landscape Response document.
Potential Effects on Landscape Character
The Landscape Advice document does not challenge the statement made by Stephenson Halliday on
Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), paragraphs 2.42 et seq of the S H LVA. However, whilst it is
acknowledged that ZTV does not take into account the screening effect of tree cover and built form,
the statement made in the Beacon Landscape Advice document is correct in that that ‘there is
potential for the turbine to be seen for miles’.
This is demonstrated in the S H LVA which considers the viewpoints from which the Selbrigg turbine
can be seen. These are as follows:















Viewpoints 1, 1.5km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 2, 1.7 km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 3, 2.1 km from the turbine on the edge of the AONB;
Viewpoint 4, 2.3km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 6, 3.2km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 7, 3.7km from the turbine within the AONB;
Viewpoint 8, 4.5km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 9, 5.0 km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 10, 5.6 km from the turbine within the AONB;
Viewpoint 11, 7.5 km from the turbine within the AONB;
Viewpoint 12, 7.7 km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 14, 1.8 km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 15, 1.3 km from the turbine;
Viewpoint 16, 1.4 km from the turbine; and
Viewpoint 17, 2.1 km from the turbine.
The S H LVA appraisal of all these viewpoints takes account of intervening vegetation and buildings,
and whilst these viewpoints are representative of views, it is likely that there are a considerable
number of additional potential viewing locations in the surrounding countryside from which the
Selbrigg turbine can be viewed. Indeed, Stephenson Halliday state that for some views not
contained in the above list, Viewpoint 18 for example, the “views of the turbine would be completely
Development Committee
186
23 July 2015
screened in summer, although there would be potential, heavily filtered views in winter”. There may
be additional views of the Selbrigg turbine in the winter months when leaves are off the trees.
The advice given to North Norfolk that “there is potential for the turbine to be seen for miles” in the
Landscape Advice document stands.
Stephenson Halliday claim that because the Landscape Advice document does “not make any
mention of the key characteristics of the local area”….”the conclusions therein in relation to
landscape effects (and compliance with planning policy) are completely unfounded” (S H Landscape
Response page 4 second paragraph).
The Landscape Advice note refers to the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (SPD, June
2009), the full details of which are available on the web. The S H LVA sets out clearly the key
characteristics of the local landscape character areas in paragraph 3.17 et seq. The Landscape
Advice document not does not challenge the information quoted in connection with the published
LCA’s in the S H LVA. Therefore there seems little point for the Landscape Advice note to reiterate
this information. The key characteristics of the local area are there for anyone to reference and the
Landscape Advice note makes no attempt to regurgitate information which is readily available.
Likewise, the Landscape Advice note does not quote planning policy, but makes reference to the
policies. Planning Policy is clearly set out in the Local Plan and within the planning application
documents which are under review. Again, it is not credible that comments in the Landscape Advice
document could be summarily dismissed simply because policies were referred to, rather than
quoted.
It is not at all clear what point the S H Landscape Response June 2015 makes. Considering that the
information is available in public documents and indeed reiterated in the S H LVA which was being
reviewed, Stephenson Halliday seem to claim that any conclusions based on this information are
unfounded. This is not credible. The purpose of the Landscape Advice note was to review the S H
LVA and give advice to the decision makers for this application.
The point is that the main issues should not be lost in trivia. The North Norfolk District Council’s
Landscape Character Assessment of the Tributary Farmland LCA clearly states that care should be
taken “not to place (turbines) so prominently that they are apparent for miles”. The Landscape
Advice note and indeed the LVA Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and appraisal of viewpoints is
clear that there is potential for the turbines to be seen for miles.
The proposal will cause a MAJOR/MODERATE ADVERSE effect on the landscape character.
Stephenson Halliday note that the Beacon Planning terminology “is surprising; the word ‘significant’
is primarily used in relation to development requiring formal EIA”. The proposed Selbrigg Wind
Turbine is not subject to Environmental Impact Assessment. The context which ‘significant’ was
used in the Landscape Advice document does not imply an EIA development.
Development Committee
187
23 July 2015
Potential Effects on the North Norfolk Coast AONB
In response to item 3.1 of the S H Landscape Response, the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment Third Edition (GLVIA3) states at paragraph 5.37 “landscapes that are nationally
designated (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England and Wales and their
equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland) will be accorded the highest value in the assessment”.
Beacon stands by the quotes from GLVIA3 and considers the worth of the AONB is greater than the
sum of the parts which make it.
The conclusion of the S H Landscape Review states that the “the suggestion within the Landscape
Advice document that the LVA has undervalued the sensitivity of the AONB has been clearly
disproven”. This is not accepted. For example, the LVA attributes a MEDIUM sensitivity to the
Tributary Farmland: Hempstead, Bodham, Aylemerton and Wickmere LCA. However, this LCA also
lies within the AONB north of Bodham, so the attribute of MEDIUM does not indicate the sensitivity
of the AONB as a receptor where it is within the AONB. The confusion of this matter could be
cleared up by treating the AONB as a receptor entity, as it is greater than the sum of the LCA’s which
make it up.
Beacon Planning accepts that its view of whether the AONB is accorded the highest value in the
assessment differs from the Stephenson Halliday’s consideration.
The S H Landscape Response (3.2) addresses the screening effect of tree cover and built form. This
report deals with this in the previous section.
There is a note about the use of the word ‘significant’ in the Landscape Advice document. There is
no implication that this is an EIA development.
The Stephenson Halliday Landscape Response (3.3) disagrees with the Landscape Advice note in
regards to Viewpoint 9. The Landscape Advice document questions the S H LVA assertion that road
users at this point will have a MEDIUM receptor sensitivity as some road users will have a HIGH
sensitivity as they have a high expectation of the area in and close to the AONB and the north
Norfolk coast. Road users travelling west are likely to have more than a transient view towards the
proposed turbine in addition to raised expectations.
In terms of the comments in relation to Viewpoint 12, it is not clear whether the hub and blades will
be seen when leaves are off the intervening vegetation.
Referring to the S H Landscape Response 3.4:


Beacon stands by its comments that if the Selbrigg Wind Turbine can be seen from the
AONB, including the edge of the AONB, this will detract from the feeling of remoteness
within the AONB;
The Selbrigg Wind Turbine would be introduced into a landscape which is described in the S
H LVA paragraph 3.21. There is a gently rolling quality to the landscape, and in the near
vicinity of the proposed turbine there are wooded areas and hedgerows with narrow lanes
Development Committee
188
23 July 2015



bounded by trees creating a characterful and valuable local landscape. Beacon Planning
consider that these qualities, very local to the proposed wind turbine, are special, and
valuable.
The Landscape Advice document is an advice note. It does not purport to set out
methodology in accordance with GLVIA3, but seeks to review the S H LVA, drawing upon the
methodology and information set out in that document and draws the attention of the
decision makers where it draws a different conclusion. The special qualities of the AONB are
clearly set out in background documents which are accessible. It is reasonable to conclude
that where the Selbrigg Wind Turbine can be seen from the AONB, this would introduce a
discordant element within the landscape and detract from the scenic qualities within the
AONB.
Nowhere within the Landscape Advice document is it claimed that there would be views of
the Selbrigg Wind Turbine from the coastal area.
A review of the Norfolk Coast AONB partnership’s comments were not part of the Beacon
Planning brief.
Potential Effects on the Road Network
S H Landscape Response item (4.1) states that “the Landscape Advice document suggests that there
would be removal of trees, hedges and shrubs along parts of the nominated delivery route”.
However, this likely removal is set out clearly in the planning submission documents.
The Landscape Advice document sets out extracts from the planning submission documents of the
relevant stretches of road network that would be affected. The advice given by Beacon holds in that
local, narrow roads would be notably changed to the detriment of the existing character in the
vicinity of the proposed site.
With reference to the S H Landscape Response item 4.2 the use of the word ‘extensive’ in the
Landscape Advice document is challenged. The S H Landscape Response states the road widening
equates to 90 cm as the overall road width is only 3.1m in this vicinity. Beacon do not dispute this
calculation. However, the banks to the road are not wide and, as the road is slightly sunken, they
are banked. The road width would need to be widened to 4.0m, the banks reduced and re profiled.
In addition to enlarging the road width, a clearance of 4.4m in the horizontal plane, and 5.0m in the
vertical plane is required.
The lanes in the vicinity of the proposed wind turbine are tree lined, with branches almost touching
overhead, giving a tunnel-like appearance beneath the tree canopy. The trees/hedges/shrubs which
would need to be removed would be more than just those growing within the first 45cm of the
existing bank at the edge of the road. Beacon consider this to be an extensive area in the context of
a lane which is currently 3.1m wide, as well as taking into account the length of lane affected.
These localised effects of the proposed are likely to the MAJOR/MODERATE and very detrimental to
this local character.
S H Landscape Response challenges that the Landscape Advice document is not in accordance with
GLVIA3. The Landscape Advice document is required to review the findings of the S H LVA submitted
Development Committee
189
23 July 2015
with the planning application documents, and where it is questionable, or not robust or transparent,
challenge the appraisal, as well as consider the potential effects the S H LVA does not address.
Stephenson Halliday challenge the use of the word ‘special qualities’ used in page 15 of the
Landscape Advice document as, they state, it could be misleading as such words “are typically
reserved for the description of recognised landscape planning designations (such as AONB’s)”.
However, North Norfolk District Council Policy EN2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and
Settlement Character at the first bullet point recognises the “special qualities and local
distinctiveness of the local area”. Beacon Planning have not come across the concept of the
reservation of the word ‘special qualities’ for recognised landscape planning designations alone. As
the Local Plan recognises that there could be ‘special qualities’ in areas which are not AONB’s,
Beacon Planning do not consider its use misleading.
Characterisation from national to local level is a hierarchical process. Character can be very local.
GLVIA states in 5.12 states “There is a hierarchy of assessment, from broad-scale national or regional
assessments, through to more detailed local authority assessments, to in some cases quite fine-grain
local or community assessments” and at 5.15 “Existing assessments may need to be reviewed and
interpreted to adapt them for use in LVIA – for example by drawing out more clearly the key
characteristics that are most relevant to the proposal. Fieldwork will also be required to check the
applicability of the assessment throughout the study area and to refine it where necessary, for
example by identifying variations in character at a more local scale”.
S H Landscape Response states that “the presence of overhanging / encroaching tree cover onto the
highway does not represent a key characteristic of the Wooded with Parkland: Holt Cromer LCA…”.
The GLVIA is clear that fieldwork may be required to check the applicability of a character
assessment and it should be refined where necessary. The trees overhanging lanes in the very close
locality and on the proposed delivery route for the proposed turbine are a valuable aspect of the
local character, and as such should not be dismissed simply because they are not cited in published
character studies.
Potential Effects on residents
The S H LVA incorporates viewpoints from the settlements of Hempstead, Baconsthorpe and
Bodham. The effect on residents in Baconsthorpe is MAJOR/MODERATE.
Viewpoints from the Red House and Becketts Farm would have been helpful. Considering the
proximity of the Red House the magnitude of change is likely to be SUBSTANTIAL resulting in a
MAJOR ADVERSE effect.
At 850m from the Selbrigg Turbine, the magnitude of change on Becketts Farm is likely to be
SUBSTANTIAL resulting in a MAJOR ADVERSE effect.
Development Committee
190
23 July 2015
Potential Effects on road users
A point of disagreement between the Landscape Advice document and the S H LVA/Landscape
Response documents is whether road users of the A148, which forms the boundary of the AONB,
would have a heightened sensitivity due to their expectations of being close or in the AONB. Both
documents agree that the most significant effect would be experienced between High Kelling and
Bodham. Beacon disagrees with the sensitivity attributed to the road users in the S H LVA.
Potential Effects on recreational routes
It is not helpful that the Public Rights of Way (PRoW’s) are omitted from the LVA plans, nor are there
any viewpoints to illustrate potential views from PRoW’s (where the receptors are HIGH sensitivity)
close to the proposed turbine. Beacon agrees with Stephenson Halliday that viewpoint visualisations
are a useful tool to help illustrate landscape and visual effects, and whilst there is agreement in that
the most notable effects would be experienced from PRoW’s within 1-2km of the proposed turbine,
a viewpoint visualisation to ascertain the scale of the proposed would have been most helpful to the
decision makers. The GLVIA3 notes it is especially important to “ b) to focus on likely significant
adverse or positive effects, c) to focus on what is likely to be important to the competent authority’s
decision”.
The S H Landscape Response document 7.3 refers to the Landscape Advice document which could be
misleading. However, had the S H Landscape Response quoted in full the Landscape Advice
document, and not with the omission of the words “along a short section” there could not possibly
be a misunderstanding. The accurate quotation from the Landscape Advice document is “in the
length between Langham and Gresham, the likely effect would be MAJOR / MODERATE ADVERSE
along a short section. The majority of the route would be MODERATE / MINOR ADVERSE”. Beacon
Planning do not consider this to be misleading.
Potential Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects
There is considerable overlap of agreement between the as S H LVA and the Landscape Advice
document. There would be significant cumulative effects across the local landscape character area
and the AONB. (The use of the word significant here does not imply EIA development but is used as
a descriptive term meaning noteworthy, or major.)
The S H LVA clearly states (p 61) that “from the southern edge of the AONB near Bodham, there
would be relatively close proximity views of both turbines. …The proposed Selbrigg Wind Turbine and
Pond Farm Turbine would be cumulatively visible in some limited locations; resulting in a MODERATE
cumulative magnitude of change in localised southern parts of the AONB, where the cumulative level
of effect would be MAJOR/MODERATE. However, the cumulative magnitude of change across the
wider AONB would be SLIGHT, reducing to NONE across coastal areas, and the cumulative level of
effect would be moderate or less”.
The S H Landscape Response clearly states at 8.1 when describing the potential cumulative effects of
the Selbrigg Wind Turbine and the Pond Farm turbine “the LVA describes the potential cumulative
Development Committee
191
23 July 2015
effects on this LCA as Moderate or less. In terms of effects on the AONB, the most notable effects
would be limited to very localised southern parts of the AONB, reducing to Moderate across the
wider AONB with no effect across coastal areas”.
Stephenson Halliday and Beacon Planning are in agreement that there is an adverse cumulative
effect of varying degree across the Tributary Farmland LCA and the AONB.
Conclusion
The Landscape Advice document is a critique of the S H LVA, a supporting document of the planning
application. The S H Landscape Response makes various challenges to the Landscape Advice
document with the effect that it draws attention away from the bigger issue to hand.
The point is that the proposed Selbrigg Wind Turbine will have an adverse effect on a number of
sensitive receptors, not least the AONB and the local landscape character and this should be taken
into account in the consideration of the proposal against the Council’s planning policies.
It is Beacon’s conclusion that the proposal does not accord with the following policies:
EN1 – Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Broads.
The viewpoint visualisations in the S H LVA show that the Selbrigg turbine can be seen from parts of
the AONB. Taking a precautionary approach, effects on views which would result from the
construction and operation of the wind turbine should be considered ADVERSE. The proposal will
therefore have an adverse effect and, according to EN1, should not be permitted “where it does not
detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB”…..“unless it can be demonstrated that
they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the
development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts”.
If the Planning Committee consider that it has not been demonstrated that the turbine could be
located on an alternative site that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development
clearly outweigh any adverse impacts, then this application should be refused.
EN2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character.
This policy requires “development ….. will protect, conserve and where possible, enhance: the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area….”
The proposed development is not sympathetic to the special qualities and distinctive character of
the LCA. The location and scale will not protect or conserve the distinctive character of the area.
EN4 – Design
The scale and massing of the proposed scheme is not sympathetic to the surrounding areas.
Development Committee
192
23 July 2015
EN7 – Renewable Energy
There are likely to be significant adverse effects on the surrounding landscape and the AONB.
The consideration of the wider benefits of the scheme is not within the remit of this document but it
is advised that the planning benefits will need to be considerable to outweigh the harm to the
landscape and visual amenity of the area.
Development Committee
193
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 6
EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE
Mr Gary Linder
North Norfolk District Council
Council Offices
Holt Road
CROMER
Norfolk
NR27 9EN
Direct Dial: 01223 582710
Our ref: P00445989
2 April 2015
Dear Mr Linder
Notifications under Circular 01/2001, Circular 08/2009 &
T&CP (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010
LAND AT SELBRIGG FARM, HEMPSTEAD, NORFOLK NR25 6NF
Application No PF/14/1669 - installtion of single wind turbine with a maximum
height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation
building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure
Thank you for your letter of 2 February 2015 notifying Historic England of the above
application.
Summary
This application seeks permission to erect a wind turbine to a blade tip height of 78
meters. The turbine is located in open countryside that forms the wider setting of a
number of designated heritage assets and the scale, motion and form of the turbine
has the potential to have an adverse impact upon the significance of these assets. Of
particular concern to Historic England are the highly graded listed and scheduled ruins
of Baconsthorpe Castle, the grade II* house known as Voewood, and the church at
Bodham. The wider setting of a number of other designated heritage assets, including
the medieval church and the Conservation Area at Baconsthorpe also needs to be
considered.
We have assessed the application in light of the information provided and, in our view
the development of a turbine at this location would be harmful to the significance of a
number of heritage assets, namely Baconsthorpe Castle and the church at Bodham.
We consider the magnitude of change to, and the impact upon the setting would
represent a high degree of harm. We would also consider that the application has
failed to fully assess s the impact of the turbine upon the setting and significance of
Voewood house, and that further information is required.
Historic England Advice
24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU
Telephone 01223 582749
HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All
information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA
or EIR applies.
Development Committee
194
23 July 2015
EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE
Baconsthorpe Castle is listed at grade I and is a Scheduled Monument. It is also in the
Guardianship of English Heritage. It is an important and heritage asset with high
aesthetic, historical, evidential and social value, which includes the remains of an
impressive moated manor site, gatehouse and associated gardens. The primary
significance is derived from an appreciation of the fine ruins and the layout of the
asset. The asset is however also located in a quite rural location and the character of
the landscape in this area is an important consideration and contributes much to its
significance. In particular, the way in which the site is approached through small quiet
and rural country lanes, delivers to the visitor a powerful feeling of exploration and
discovery. The experiential nature of a visit to Baconsthorpe draws much from the
rural nature of the landscape in delivering a greater understanding of the site in its
historic context. We consider that the landscape as it is today makes a valuable and
important contribution to the setting of the asset. The site is also in guardianship with
English Heritage and is popular with visitors. The importance of the setting of the
castle is also important to the appreciation of the high numbers of visitors, who are
able to visit experience and explore the site. The nature of the National Planning and
Policy Framework’s approach to understanding the setting of heritage assets is of
considerable importance in this case.
The house at Voewood is listed at grade II* and sits within a registered park and
garden which is also listed at grade II*. It is surrounded by a cluster of contemporary
and associated listed structures including two lodges, a coach house, garden walls
and structures and two loggias. The main house is listed under a former name
(Thornfield Residential Home for the Elderly - list entry number 1049826) and has only
recently reverted back to its original name of Voewood. It was built in 1903 and is
known as an iconic building, which follows the Arts and Crafts style, and more
commonly known as the Butterfly House because of its unusual plan form, with its 5
bay range flanked by angled wings to the south and east. The house has two principle
storeys, with basement and important bedrooms in the attic and open terraces to the
front with splayed walls and semi-circular stone flight of steps that leading down into
the garden. Although the house was situated in, and surrounded by the gardens, the
parkland setting of trees create an intimate setting. The house however has important
views over the garden area from all of the principle rooms, on all floors, from the front
and side terraces, first floor balcony and upper story bedrooms. Likewise the rooms in
the splayed angled wings are also designed to capture these views. The house is a
hugely significant building in its own right with high aesthetic and evidential value;
however it derives a considerable amount of its significance from the plan form, and by
virtue of this design, the views from the front of the house and from the rooms that
overlook the garden are of considerable importance.
The church of All Saints at Bodham is an important early Norman grade II* listed
parish church with a tall 14th century tower. It is situated to the south of the main
village in an isolated and open countryside setting with views toward the turbine from
24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU
Telephone 01223 582749
HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All
information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA
or EIR applies.
Development Committee
195
23 July 2015
EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE
within the churchyard and from the surviving doorway in the west front.
We are primarily concerned that the kinetic circular motion of the blades and the ultramodern form of the turbine would erode the significance and rural character of the
listed and scheduled castle at Baconsthorpe and the church at Bodham. At Voewood
the primary concern is that the front of the house faces directly towards the turbine and
therefore it would be visible in key views from the terraces, balcony and first and
second floor windows. Furthermore because of the intimate setting of the house and
the relationship of the house to the designated gardens the turbine would potentially
be seen over the top of the trees or through the trees in winter and would intrude on
this important relationship.
In our view, the magnitude of harm to these and other heritage assets is higher than is
expressed in the application. We are therefore concerned that the development of a
turbine at this location would harm the significance of the assets through a
development within their setting. We consider that the magnitude of the impact would
represent a high level of harm.
In determining the application the council would need to take into consideration the
statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting
of listed buildings as noted in section 66 of the 1990 Act, and also section 72 which
has regards to the protection of the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) builds upon the 1990 Act, and
identifies protection and enhancement of the historic environment as an important
element of sustainable development. It also establishes a presumption in favour of
sustainable development in the planning system (paragraphs 6, 7, and 14). Of specific
relevance in this case is paragraph 128, which requires the applicant to describe the
significance of any heritage assets affected and that the level of detail should be
sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.
We would also recommend that this application is considered in accordance with
paragraph 131, which notes that when determining planning applications, account
should be taken of ‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of
heritage assets….’ In addition, paragraphs 132, 134 and 137 refer to the significance
of heritage assets and note that this can be harmed by a development within the
setting of a monument, and that any harm requires clear and convincing justification
(see paragraph 132). Paragraph 134 says that harm to the significance of a
designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal, and paragraph 137 states that proposals that preserve those elements of the
setting that make a positive contribution to, or better reveal the significance of the
heritage assets should be treated favourably.
24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU
Telephone 01223 582749
HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All
information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA
or EIR applies.
Development Committee
196
23 July 2015
EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE
We have considered the current proposals in light of this government policy and
relevant our guidance on the setting of heritage assets. We note that the applicants
have provided a detailed planning assessment with the application in relation to the
historic environment, whilst it is well argued and provides a good policy background,
we are concerned that it is based on an assessment of impact that we consider to be
flawed and incomplete. We are concerned that the applicants have not fully
appreciated the significance of the heritage assets or completed a full assessment of
the impacts upon the historic environment.
For the most part the photomontage and wirescape images submitted with the
application identify the designated assets and consider some of the views that relate to
the sites and their context, and have been useful in illustrating and providing general
indications of the likely scale of the turbine in the landscape. From this information we
are of the view that the impact on some of the more distant heritage assets is likely to
be minimal. However, the application does raise concern about the impact on and
lack of assessment of other assets. We are concerned that the photomontages
provided for Baconsthorpe for example, do not express the full visibility of the turbine
from the site. Both the chosen views from within the site are not representative of the
potential impacts. In our view is that the turbine would be visible not just on the
important approaches to the castle but critically from the footpaths around the site and
from most of the main internal spaces. In the case of the house at Voewood there are
no photomontages and no assessment of impact at all. Here, although the house at
Voewood is seen within the intimate setting of the park and gardens, and within a
landscape of mature trees, the front of the house faces directly towards the turbine
location. Our concern is that because the turbine would be located on higher land to
the south east the blades and possibly the hub would be visible from house. The
nature of the house, the plan form and the and the numbers of important rooms that
face this direct mean are so specifically designed that the visibility of the turbine in this
space is likely to be harmful to its significance.If constructed the proposed turbines
would be the largest structures in the landscape. It would also be clearly visible from
the churchyard at Bodham, and seen in combination with it from a number of
directions. It would also be visible from a number of locations It is likely that it would
also distract from an appreciation of the Bodham church.
Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires applicants to describe the significance of heritage
assets affected by proposed development and the contribution their setting might
make to that significance. Sufficient information should also be provided to enable an
understanding of the potential impact of the development on the assets. As noted
above, the heritage assessment submitted with this application does not consider the
house at Voewood, and we would wish to note that we do not consider the views from
within the site at Baconsthorpe to be representative of the likely visibility of the turbine.
Consequently the application does not satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF, and we
would welcome further images depicting the turbines’ likely visual impact and an
24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU
Telephone 01223 582749
HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All
information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA
or EIR applies.
Development Committee
197
23 July 2015
EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE
improved assessment of the overall heritage impact. When assessing the impact at
Voewood we would also note that it would be important to provide winter views to
ensure that views can be assessed at all times of the year.
However, based on the information submitted and our assessment we consider that
the visual impact of the proposed turbines on the setting of Baconsthorpe Castle,
Voewood and Bodham church would detract from an understanding of the character
and importance of these historic assets. This would result in harm to their significance.
Furthermore, this will have a negative impact on the wider setting of the more distant
churches at Baconsthorpe and the Baconsthorpe Conservation Area. We conclude
that the development would be harmful to designated heritage assets in terms of
paragraphs 132 and 143 of the NPPF, would not satisfy paragraph 137 and would not
achieve the NPPF’s overarching objective of delivering sustainable development.
Recommendation
While the application is accompanied by some useful information, the lack of images
and assessment on Voewood means that in our view it fails to satisfy paragraph 128 of
the NPPF. The information so far available however suggests that the turbine would
be a harmful impact on Baconsthorpe Castle, Voewood and Bodham church, and on
the wider setting of the more distant churches at Baconsthorpe and the Baconsthorpe
Conservation Area. We would therefore consider that the application is contrary to
paragraph 134. This states that public benefit deriving from a proposed development
might be weighed against harm to the significance of designated heritage assets. We
are not in a position to assess the merits of the case for renewable energy generation
being delivered at this site, but the Council should weigh any public benefit and if a
clear and convincing justification for the harm is not found then we recommend that
the Council should refuse the application.
Should further information be submitted in relation to this application then we would
welcome the opportunity to provide additional comments.
Yours sincerely
Will Fletcher
Inspector of Ancient Monuments
e-mail: will.fletcher@HistoricEngland.org.uk
24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU
Telephone 01223 582749
HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All
information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA
or EIR applies.
Development Committee
198
23 July 2015
Development Committee
199
23 July 2015
Development Committee
200
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 7
Development Committee
201
23 July 2015
Development Committee
202
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 8
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
ALLEN, Sarah J on behalf of NATS Safeguarding
Planning Consultation
Your Ref: PF/14/1669 (Our Ref: SG14523)
09 February 2015 10:31:03
The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not
conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL")
has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
However, please be aware that this response applies specifically to the above consultation and only
reflects the position of NATS (that is responsible for the management of en route air traffic) based on
the information supplied at the time of this application. This letter does not provide any indication of
the position of any other party, whether they be an airport, airspace user or otherwise. It remains
your responsibility to ensure that all the appropriate consultees are properly consulted.
If any changes are proposed to the information supplied to NATS in regard to this application which
become the basis of a revised, amended or further application for approval, then as a statutory
consultee NERL requires that it be further consulted on any such changes prior to any planning
permission or any consent being granted.
Yours faithfully,
Sarah Allen
Technical Administrator
On behalf of NERL Safeguarding Office
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk at Email
Information.Solutions@nats.co.uk immediately. You should not copy or use this email or
attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose their contents to any other person.
NATS computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to
secure the effective operation of the system.
Please note that neither NATS nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses or any
losses caused as a result of viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
email and any attachments.
NATS means NATS (En Route) plc (company number: 4129273), NATS (Services) Ltd
(company number 4129270), NATSNAV Ltd (company number: 4164590) or NATS Ltd
(company number 3155567) or NATS Holdings Ltd (company number 4138218). All companies
are registered in England and their registered office is at 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham,
Hampshire, PO15 7FL.
Development Committee
203
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 9
Development Committee
204
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 10
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Hamilton, Ken
Gary Linder
Dack, Zara; Will Fletcher (Will.Fletcher@english-heritage.org.uk)
PF/14/1669 Wind Turbine, Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead
17 March 2015 08:36:08
Dear Gary,
PF/14/1669 Wind Turbine, Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead
Our ref.: CNF44822_3
Thank you for consulting us on this application.
The application contains the results of an archaeological field evaluation, and a
modified heritage statement, discussing the impact of the turbine on the
significance of surrounding heritage assets through alteration of their settings.
The archaeological field evaluation indicated that the ground impact of the turbine
on the historic environment would be negligible.
The revised heritage statement accepts throughout that there is harm to the
significance of a number of heritage assets, particularly Baconsthorpe Castle and
the listed barn at Hall Farm, with a lesser degree of harm to other heritage assets,
as detailed in the assessment. The assessment also states the potential for
cumulative harm, should the turbine at Pond Farm also receive permission.
While we believe that the revised heritage statement underplays the degree of
harm to the historic environment through the alteration of the settings of a number
of heritage assets, we would not go so far as to say that the harm is substantial.
The Planning Committee should therefore weigh the harm inherent in this
proposal against the public benefits, in accordance with paragraph 134 of the
NPPF.
The Planning Committee should bear in mind the requirement to have special
regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting when
considering this application, in accordance with paragraph 66 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas ) Act 1990.
Yours aye
Ken
________________________________
Ken Hamilton PhD FSA MCIfA
Senior Historic Environment Officer (Planning)
Historic Environment Service
Environment and Planning
Community and Environmental Services
Norfolk County Council
Direct dial telephone number: 01362 869275
Mobile telephone number: 07748 761354
E-mail: ken.hamilton@norfolk.gov.uk
Development Committee
205
23 July 2015
General enquiries: 0344 800 8020 or information@norfolk.gov.uk
www.norfolk.gov.uk
-To see our email disclaimer click here
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer
Development Committee
206
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 11
Date: 4 March 2015
Our ref: 143915
Your ref: PF/14/1669
Mr G Linder
North Norfolk District Council
Holt Road
Cromer
NR27 4EN
Customer Services
Hornbeam House
Crewe Business Park
Electra Way
Crewe
Cheshire
CW1 6GJ
BY EMAIL ONLY
T 0300 060 3900
Dear Mr Linder
Planning consultation: Installation of a single wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of
78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation building, a temporary
meteorological mast and associated infrastructure
Location: Land at Selbrigg Road, Hempstead
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 2 February 2015 which was received by Natural
England on the same date. Please accept my delay in responding which was due to internal and
external consultations about this proposal.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the
natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future
generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to comment on this development
proposal.
The development however, relates to the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB). We therefore advise you to seek the advice of the AONB Partnership who we are aware
have concerns about the cumulative impacts of this application together with other similar
applications on the AONB. Their knowledge of the location and wider landscape setting of the
development should help to confirm whether or not it would impact significantly on the purposes of
the AONB designation. They will also be able to advise whether the development accords with the
aims and policies set out in the AONB management plan.
Other advice
We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible
impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:



local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity)
local landscape character
local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.
Natural England does not hold locally specific information relating to the above. These remain
material considerations in the determination of this planning application and we recommend that
Development Committee
Page
1 of 2
207
23 July 2015
you seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records
centre, your local wildlife trust or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation
document) in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the
proposal before it determines the application. A more comprehensive list of local groups can be
found at Wildlife and Countryside link.
If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the possible presence of a
protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the authority should request survey
information from the applicant before determining the application. The Government has provided
advice1 on BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system.
Protected species
We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.
Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species.
You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the
determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural
England following consultation.
The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in
respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect
the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has
reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer’s responsibility) or
may be granted.
If you have any specific questions on aspects that are not covered by our Standing Advice for
European Protected Species or have difficulty in applying it to this application please contact us with
details at consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any
queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Louise Oliver on
0300 0601981. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation
please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.
Yours sincerely
Louise Oliver
Norfolk and Suffolk Team
1
Paragraph 98 and 99 of ODPM Circular 06/2005
Development Committee
Page
2 of 2
208
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 12
Development Committee
209
23 July 2015
Development Committee
210
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 13
Development Committee
211
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 14
TABLE 1A – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
DECISIONS BY SPEED - 2011/12
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
6
13
198
308
425
370
31.58%
68.42%
39.13%
60.87%
53.46%
46.54%
DECISIONS BY SPEED - 2012/13
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
14
10
163
262
379
331
58.33%
41.67%
38.35%
61.65%
53.38%
46.62%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – 2013/14
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
30
9
218
262
483
296
76.92%
23.08%
45.42%
54.58%
62.00%
38.00%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – 2014/15
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
7
1
39
44
102
71
87.50%
12.50%
46.99%
53.01%
58.96%
41.04%
DECISIONS BY SPEED – Quarter 1 2015/16
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
7
7
37
64
142
90
50%
50%
36.63%
63.37%
61.21%
38.79%
COUNCIL TARGETS
Development Committee
80%
70%
212
70%
23 July 2015
TABLE 1B – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT WORKLOAD
2011/12
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1543
477
374
201
1982
2012/13
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1408
218
172
192
2153
2013/14
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1545
190
134
200
2161
QUARTER 1 2015/16
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
Development Committee
213
469
74
15
43
768
23 July 2015
TABLE 1C – DELEGATION OF DECISIONS
Year ending 31 March 2012
Year ending 31 March 2013
Year ending 31 March 2014
Year ending 31 March 2015
Quarter 1 2015/216
%
DELEGATED
93.28
92.48
93.07
94.36
93.14
TABLE 2 - PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS
Allowed
Year ending
31 March 2012
Year ending
31 March 2013
Year ending
31 March 2014
Year ending
31 March 2015
Quarter 1
2015/16
Dismissed
Total
4 (28.57%)
10
14
9.5 (35.19%)*
17.5
27
7 (35%)
20
12
9 (52.94)
17
18
1 (33.33)
2
3
* Includes 3 appeals part allowed and part dismissed.
TABLE 3 - LAND CHARGE SEARCHES
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Quarter 1
2015/16
Development Committee
Official
Searches
1872
2322
2313
606
Personal
Searches
578
864
850
257
214
Total Search
requests
2450
3186
3171
863
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 15
Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 12 and 13 May 2015
Site visit made on 13 May 2015
by Anne Napier-Derere BA(Hons) MRTPI AIEMA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25/06/2015
Appeal Ref: APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
Land to the south of North Walsham Road, Happisburgh, Norfolk




The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Chris Lomax (Happisburgh Estates) against the decision of
North Norfolk District Council.
The application Ref PF/14/0120, dated 30 January 2014, was refused by notice dated
29 April 2014.
The development proposed is described as ‘relocation of Manor Caravan Park,
comprising 134 static caravans, 60 touring caravan pitches and camping area, and
office/warden accommodation, to include new access to site and new wash block
building and landscaping’.
Decision
1.
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the relocation of
Manor Caravan Park, comprising 134 static caravans, 60 touring caravan pitches
and camping area, and office/warden accommodation, to include new access to site
and new wash block building and landscaping, at Land to the south of North
Walsham Road, Happisburgh, Norfolk in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref PF/14/0120, dated 30 January 2014, subject to the conditions in
the attached Annexe.
Application for costs
2.
At the Hearing an application for costs was made by the appellant against the
Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Preliminary Matter
3.
The masterplan and entrance sketch plan, Refs 662/01RevE and 662/02RevD,
submitted with the appeal planning application are marked as illustrative.
Notwithstanding this, it was confirmed by the appellant at the Hearing that these
drawings are regarded as definitive representations of the development proposed
on site. Furthermore, it was also confirmed that the application had been
considered on this basis by the Council. As such, I am satisfied that my intention
to consider the appeal proposal in the same way will not be prejudicial to the
interests of any party.
Main Issues
4.
It is not a matter of contention between the parties that the current Manor
Caravan Park site has existed for many years in its present location, on the northeastern edge of the village between the church and the cliff edge, or that this
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
215
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
location is now under threat, due to coastal erosion. Compelling evidence was
provided in relation to this threat, including comments from the Council’s Coastal
Management Team on the appeal application, which confirm that the adopted
Kelling to Lowestoft Ness Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) indicates that almost
the entire caravan park will be lost to erosion by 2025.
5.
I understand that the sea defences close to the site have failed, or are failing, and
it was confirmed at the Hearing that there are no schemes to replace these. It is
also not a matter of dispute that the overall number of static caravans on the site
has been reduced in recent years as a result, with a number temporarily relocated
to a part of the site previously used for touring caravans and camping. From the
evidence before me, including the information provided about the Pathfinder
Project, it is clear that the appeal proposal has arisen as a direct result of this
threat and is proposed as a replacement for this existing facility. I intend to
consider the appeal accordingly.
6.
The North Norfolk District Council Core Strategy 2008 (CS) sets out the local
planning policy approach to the management of coastal change in the area. This
includes CS Policy EN12 which, amongst other matters, provides for proposals for
the relocation and replacement of community facilities, commercial and business
uses that are considered important to the well-being of a coastal community
affected by coastal erosion to be permitted, subject to certain criteria. These
criteria require that: the development is proposed to replace a facility that is
affected or threatened by erosion within 50 years; the new development would be
beyond the identified Coastal Erosion Constraint Area and in a location well related
to the coastal community from which it was displaced; the existing site is cleared
and managed or appropriately temporarily re-used; and taken overall (considering
both the new development and that which is being replaced) the proposal should
result in no detrimental impact upon the landscape, townscape or biodiversity of
the area, having regard to any special designations.
7.
The appeal site is located outside, but adjacent to, the Happisburgh Conservation
Area; the existing site is partly located within the Conservation Area. There are
also a number of listed buildings within the locality, including the grade I listed St
Mary’s Church, the grade II* listed Happisburgh Manor, also known as St Mary’s,
and its grade II registered park and garden, and the grade II listed Happisburgh
lighthouse. These are designated heritage assets and I am mindful of my statutory
duties in these respects. In addition, the Happisburgh Cliffs Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI) is included within the existing site, and I am also mindful
of my statutory duties in that respect.
8.
In light of all that I have read, seen and heard, I consider the main issues in this
appeal to be the effect of the proposal on:

The local landscape;

The significance of nearby heritage assets, with particular regard to whether or
not it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the
Conservation Area, and preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings and the
registered park and garden of Happisburgh Manor;

The local community;

Biodiversity and ecology, having particular regard to whether or not it would
conserve or enhance the special interest features of the SSSI;

The local highway network, including in relation to public footpaths and the
Norfolk coastal path; and
2
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
216
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049

Whether or not the proposal represents an appropriate site for a caravan park,
having particular regard to the principles of sustainable development.
Reasons
Landscape
9.
The village of Happisburgh is located on the north Norfolk coast and forms part of
an area described within the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment
Supplementary Planning Document 2009 (LCA) as ‘Coastal Plain’. This character
area is described within the LCA as a relatively small distinct area, with an open
flat landscape with long, uninterrupted views and dominant skies. Certain factors
are identified within the LCA as having the potential to erode this landscape
character, including further development within coastal areas beyond current limits
and significant numbers of new properties sited within or outside existing
settlements. Amongst other matters, it states that ‘Further development should
[…] seek to address the ‘hard edge’ lack of integration of the settlements into the
surrounding landscape.’1
10. The elevated main part of Happisburgh is largely contained and, in contrast to the
surrounding landscape, contains many trees. These trees are a strong visual
characteristic of the area and make an important contribution to the setting of the
village. In addition, the prominent and distinctive skyline features of Happisburgh,
such as the parish church and the lighthouse, also make an important and positive
contribution to the local landscape. The wider area mainly comprises relatively
large, open fields, with low levels of woodland cover. The strong contrast between
the settlement and the surrounding countryside reflects the distinctive landscape
character of the area.
11. From the details provided, it is evident that facilitating the relocation of the existing
caravan site was identified as a specific objective of the Pathfinder Project in
relation to Happisburgh. To this end, the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
for the Pathfinder Project to Re-locate Manor Caravan Park, Happisburgh, October
2011 (LVIA) was undertaken by Norfolk County Council, as part of a scoping
exercise carried out to identify a potentially suitable site for the relocated facility,
outside the Coastal Erosion Constraint Area but within the immediate locality.
Given the purpose of the LVIA, its assessment does not extend to a specific
analysis of the detailed appeal proposal. Nonetheless, it provides an independent
assessment of the potential impact of such a development and provides a
considered analysis in relation to its identified preferred site. Given this and,
insofar as it relates to the appeal site, I accord this document significant weight.
12. The LVIA considers a number of possible sites and provides an explanation for the
choice of its preferred site. Whilst these possible alternatives provide a useful
context for the appeal proposal, the merits or otherwise of these other sites are
not matters that are primarily before me as part of this appeal. Consequently, I
intend to consider the findings of the LVIA principally in relation to the appeal site
before me. Notwithstanding the relatively minor variation in the extent of land
involved, the preferred site identified within the LVIA is largely comparable to the
current appeal site.
13. The appeal site is situated on the landward side of the village and is comprised of
two fields, of some 7.9ha in area, separated by an established hedgerow. The site
adjoins the North Walsham Road to the north, opposite a row of existing dwellings,
with the village school, playing fields and gardens of neighbouring dwellings to the
1
LCA, Table 10.3, p.124
3
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
217
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
east, as well as an approved site for the development of 9 dwellings. Open
agricultural land lies to the south and west of the site, with a footpath running
along the southern boundary and another crossing the site from north to south
along the line of the existing hedgerow.
14. As a result of its location to the west of the village, the proposed site would have a
negligible visual impact on the coastal edge and shoreline landscape. The LVIA
considers that the significant visual effects of the proposal would be restricted to
views in the immediate vicinity of the site, with only local landscape impacts.
However, it identifies that, in the absence of mitigation, these local effects would
be major to moderate on the local landscape. It would also have a major effect on
some viewpoints within the locality.2 Even taking into account the recent
development of a new classroom facility at the school, there is nothing substantive
before me that would lead me to a different finding overall in these respects.
15. Nonetheless, the LVIA concludes that the landscape and visual effects of the
proposal would be acceptable. The author of the report confirmed at the Hearing
that this conclusion takes into account the potential for mitigation. Although no
increase in the historic number of caravans is proposed, the appeal site area would
be considerably larger than that of the existing site, which would enable a layout
with greater space between the pitches, with areas of significant landscaping and
tree planting. From the evidence before me, one of the principal areas of
contention between the two main parties concerns whether or not the effect of this
landscaping would be beneficial in mitigating the impacts of the proposed
development.
16. Caravan parks are recognised as a distinctive key characteristic of the local
landscape.3 However, these sites are also generally perceived to have a negative
effect on its character due to, amongst other matters, a lack of integration by
suitable or sufficient landscaping.4 The LCA indicates that landscaping which builds
upon and enhances existing trees, hedges and other features on and adjacent to a
proposed development site is a factor which may enhance or actively contribute to
the maintenance of the landscape character. In this particular case, the
landscaping of the site as proposed would avoid creating a hard edge to the
settlement, as encouraged by the LCA. However, the proposal would result in the
introduction of significant areas of tree planting and an extension of development
into the surrounding low lying agricultural landscape. Woodland is not
characteristic of this landscape type and the development and planting proposed
would result in a change to the local landscape character, which would be evident
in local views from the west.
17. Nonetheless, although considerably larger than the existing site, the appeal site
forms a relatively small part of the extensive surrounding predominantly arable
landscape and the development and planting proposed would be in close proximity
to the village. Furthermore, the layout of the proposal indicates that the static
caravans would be positioned away from the western boundary of the site, with the
area to the west of the site proposed for touring caravans and camping, and thus
more transitional in character. The proposal would be experienced in this context
and generally seen against the backdrop of the existing trees and buildings within
the settlement. Consequently, whilst the proposal would result in some alteration
to the setting of the village, I consider that its impact on the character of the
surrounding rural landscape would be relatively modest, due to this context, the
2
3
4
LVIA, p.66-67
LCA, 10.1
Ibid., 10.0.16
4
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
218
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
particular characteristics of the site, the landscaping mitigation proposed and the
low density appeal scheme.
18. The proposal would alter some existing views, such as those of the school buildings
from North Walsham Road, and those available from the public footpaths on or
near the site. However, the Council does not dispute that there would only be
limited longer views of the appeal site and its relationship with the village.
Furthermore, whilst full details of the proposed landscape mitigation scheme have
not been provided, there is nothing substantive before me that would lead me to
disagree with the conclusion of the LVIA that, from the more distant viewpoints
that are available, the landscaping proposed would ‘reflect the scene around St
Mary’s house to the north’ and ‘appear as an extension of this tree cover.’5
Moreover, the nature of the development proposed, including the siting and height
of the caravans, the topography and existing hedgerow field boundaries, some of
which are raised above the level of adjacent roads, would further limit the visual
impact of the proposal in local views of the village and its setting, including during
winter months and whilst the landscaping proposed becomes fully established.
19. In addition, I am mindful that the proposed development would be a replacement
for an existing facility, which has a significant landscape impact. Whilst
recognising the Council’s concerns about the proposal and acknowledging the
limited life of the existing site, I consider that the layout proposed and the
incorporation of substantial areas of planting within the appeal site, in comparison
with the existing, would represent a considerable overall improvement in landscape
impact terms on the setting of the village as a whole. Detailed concerns about
certain aspects of the landscaping proposals, such as the suggested planted bund
to the eastern boundary of the site, are matters which I consider could be
appropriately addressed by condition.
20. As a result, overall and for the above reasons, I conclude that the effect of the
proposal on the surrounding landscape would be acceptable. It would meet the
aims of CS Policies EN2, EN3 and EN4, where they seek to protect local landscape
character and the undeveloped coast, whilst allowing for the relocation of facilities
threatened by coastal erosion. It would also meet the aims of paragraphs 109 and
17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), to protect valued
landscapes, take account of the different roles and character of different areas and
recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
Heritage Assets
21. The Conservation Area covers the historic core of the village and is largely
comprised of older properties, which vary in scale and design. There is an
identifiable pattern of development along The Street, which is generally of a single
plot in depth. However, within this, there are elements of tight-knit built form, as
well as examples of individual properties in generous gardens. The area is
predominantly residential, but contains a number of other commercial and
community uses that make an important contribution to its overall character,
particularly given the relatively small size of the village.
22. From the evidence before me, including the Council’s Happisburgh Conservation
Area Form and Character Description 1998 and the comments of Historic England
(HE)6, I consider that the significance of the Conservation Area is largely derived
from its coastal edge location, its dominant nucleus centred around the main road
junction within the village, the quality and variety of historic buildings within it, its
5
6
LVIA, p.67
Provided as English Heritage, 7 March 2014
5
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
219
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
pattern of development, the relationship of buildings with the spaces around them,
its vibrant mix of uses and its rural setting.
23. Happisburgh contains a number of listed buildings, some of which are referred to
above. From the details available to me, including the listing descriptions, I
consider that the significance of these buildings is primarily derived from their
form, fabric, architectural features and their function or use. In addition, their
setting makes a valuable contribution to their significance. The commanding
position of the church within the village and the interrelationship of the extensive
views over the surrounding countryside and the sea that are available from its
large churchyard are particularly important. Similarly, the siting of the lighthouse
is fundamental to its significance and its relationship with the enclosed small
cluster of keepers cottages gathered at its foot, in an elevated position within
surrounding farmland, clearly visible but detached from the remainder of the
village, is of considerable value.
24. A number of listed dwellings, as well as the public house, are situated within the
heart of the village. This location and the historic and current physical and visual
relationship of these properties with the other buildings around them are important
elements to their value as heritage assets. Similarly the location and setting of
Happisburgh Manor, set back from the main road, approached by a long driveway
and situated within formal landscaped gardens to one side, with uninterrupted
sweeping views of the coastline to the other, makes a substantial contribution to
its significance. The registration of these gardens reflects their importance. Their
design and location, surrounding the Manor and situated between the main body of
the village and the sea, is intrinsic to their value.
25. Due to its location and relationship with other neighbouring development, the
existing caravan site is not widely visible in the landscape from its landward side.
However, it is partly within the Conservation Area and, as such, can be considered
to contribute to its character and appearance. Its position between the village and
the sea, and in close proximity to the church, public house and Happisburgh
Manor, results in it being dominant in many views of the Conservation Area and
some important listed buildings from the seaward side of the settlement, including
from the national coastal path and paths through the registered park and garden.
The established nature of the caravan park and the limited, and decreasing, site
area offer restricted scope in terms of layout. The rather regimented rows of static
caravans reflect other sites in not dissimilar positions elsewhere along the coast.
Nonetheless, their visual impact is not sympathetic to the otherwise largely
undeveloped coastal landscape, the appearance of the remainder of the
Conservation Area, or complementary to the important setting of the nearby listed
buildings and adjacent historic garden.
26. It is not a matter of contention between the parties that, in terms of its impact on
the coastline and these important heritage assets, the removal of the caravan site
from this location and the appropriate reinstatement of the land would be a
benefit. However, the SMP indicates that the extent of predicted coastal change is
likely to lead to the loss of the existing site within the next ten years, and predicts
the loss of the church, the public house, Happisburgh Manor and much of its
historic gardens within the next 40 years. As such, whilst I am satisfied that the
removal of the existing site and the reinstatement of the land would be a clear
benefit of the appeal proposal, I consider that it is one that should attract only
limited weight in these circumstances.
27. HE has raised concerns about the impact of the proposal on nearby heritage
assets. From the detail of those comments, it is not readily apparent that the
LVIA, which includes some analysis in this respect, was made available to HE prior
6
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
220
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
to its response on the application and no further comments were provided as part
of the appeal process. Nonetheless, I have had careful regard to the concerns
expressed and accept that there is a strong relationship between the Conservation
Area and its setting within an arable landscape on the appeal site side of the
village. The proposal would result in a clear extension of development in this
sensitive location. As a result, taking into account the size and location of the site
and the scale of the proposal, I consider that the appeal scheme would result in
some erosion of this important relationship, which would have an adverse effect on
the character and setting of the Conservation Area.
28. Having regard to my findings above and the details of the scheme, including its
proposed landscaping, layout and form of development, I consider that the effect
of this would be relatively limited in its impact. Due to its location relative to the
local highway network, the relocation as proposed would also be likely to result in a
reduction in the amount of caravan park traffic within the Conservation Area.
However, considered overall, this benefit would not be sufficient to outweigh the
impact arising from the loss of the agricultural landscape that would result from
the development of the appeal site as proposed.
29. The development of the site as proposed would also result in an alteration to the
context of nearby listed buildings and the historic garden. Having regard to the
details of the scheme and the relationship of the appeal site to these heritage
assets, including the separation distances involved and the difference in land
levels, the proposal would not compete for dominance with the church or the
lighthouse. Nonetheless, due to the size and scale of the proposal and its
relationship with the village, the appeal development would lead to some alteration
in the perception of those buildings, the other listed buildings nearby and, to a
lesser extent, the historic garden. For reasons similar to those above, I consider
that this change to the setting of the heritage assets would be modest in its
impact. However, it would result in some limited harm to their significance.
30. It is not disputed that the appeal site has the potential to include heritage assets
with an archaeological interest. However, it is suggested that this matter could be
appropriately addressed by way of a suitably worded condition. Having regard to
the evidence available to me, including the geophysical survey, there is nothing
that would lead me to a different view in this respect.
31. Accordingly, whilst there would be some benefits in removing the caravan park
from its existing site, its relocation to the appeal site as proposed would also lead
to harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets and, considered
overall, these benefits would not be sufficient, either individually or cumulatively,
to outweigh this harm. As such, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting of nearby listed
buildings, or the historic garden, and would not accord with CS Policy EN8, which
seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment.
Local community
32. Evidence was provided of the social and economic impact of the existing caravan
site on the local community. Currently, I understand that this relatively small
coastal village is able to support two shops, including a post office, as well as a
public house, a community centre and a church. Although the caravan park is not
open all year round, from the compelling evidence available to me, including that
from local businesses, I have no doubt that the effect of the existing caravan park
is considerable in its support for these facilities and its economic impact on the
local community.
7
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
221
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
33. The details provided of the Pathfinder Project7, which identifies the caravan site as
providing a ‘vital contribution’ to the local economy, add further weight to this
finding. In addition, my attention has been drawn to development plan policies
that recognise the importance of tourism to the local economy and encourage the
provision of a diverse range of appropriate tourist accommodation within the
locality. Consequently, overall, I find that the loss of the park would have a
considerable negative impact on the local economy, whereas its suitable relocation
would enable it to continue to play a very important role in supporting the vitality
and vibrancy of this coastal community.
34. In addition, I understand that many occupants of the caravan park are regular
visitors to the site and participate in local events, such as the church fete. Whilst
the composition of visitors and the length of their stay may alter in the future, it is
not unreasonable to consider that some of these future visitors may also wish to
participate in local events during their stay within the village. In addition, whilst
the relocation of the proposed site away from the coastal edge may deter some
visitors, the location of the site would not be remote from the coast and its
proposed layout, with greater space about the pitches, may make it a more
attractive destination for others. As such, I consider it very likely that these social
and community benefits would continue with the relocation of the park.
35. Local concerns have been expressed about the potential impact of the proposal on
the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, in particular in relation to the
potential for disturbance from noise and lighting, and from cooking smells from
barbecues. However, given the characteristics of the site proposed, the separation
distances involved and the level of activity likely to be associated with a site of this
size, I consider that the impacts of the proposal in these respects would not be
materially different to those experienced from residential or domestic activity. As
such, I find that the proposal would be very unlikely to be harmful to the living
conditions of its neighbouring occupiers. The clear evidence provided by the
neighbouring residential occupier of the existing site further supports this view.
36. Concerns were also expressed about the impact of the proposal on the students of
the village school and on the security of local residential occupiers. Whilst I
acknowledge the fears expressed, there is nothing substantive before me to
demonstrate that the proposal would be reasonably likely to have a detrimental
effect in these respects. Accordingly, I consider that it would not be appropriate to
find against it for these reasons.
37. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed relocation of the caravan site would
not be detrimental to neighbouring living conditions or security and would have
clear social and economic benefits to the local community. As such, it would be in
accordance with CS Policies SS1, SS2, SS5, EN4 and EC10, where they seek to
support local coastal communities in the face of coastal erosion, provide for the
relocation of static caravan sites in such areas and protect the residential amenity
of nearby occupiers. It would also meet the aims of paragraphs 106 and 107 of
the Framework in this respect, as well as those of paragraphs 28 and 17, to
support a prosperous rural economy, achieve a good standard of amenity for all
existing and future occupants of land and buildings, and take full account of coastal
change.
Biodiversity and ecology
38. The Ecological Assessment indicates that the special interest feature of the
Happisburgh Cliffs SSSI relates to its geological interest. It was confirmed at the
7
Appellant’s Statement, Appendix 9
8
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
222
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
Hearing that, in particular, this relates to the repeated exposure of the cliff face
resulting from the on-going coastal erosion. On the evidence before me, there is
nothing that would lead me to disagree with the view of Natural England that the
relocation of the existing site as proposed would not damage or destroy the special
interest features of the SSSI. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would be
acceptable in this respect.
39. In addition, having regard to the submitted Ecological Assessment, I am satisfied
that the restoration and management of the existing site and the appropriate
mitigation of the appeal site would result in the development proposal having an
overall neutral effect on ecology and biodiversity. Such mitigation measures could
be appropriately secured by condition. Furthermore, I understand that the appeal
site comprises Grade 1 agricultural land. However, the LCA indicates that the
surrounding area contains some of the largest areas of such land in the country.
As such, in this particular case, having regard to the size of the site and the
background to the proposal, including its locational requirements, I consider that
this is not an issue that would justify finding against the scheme.
40. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would conserve the special interest
features of the SSSI and the effect of the proposal on ecology and biodiversity
would be acceptable. As such, it would not conflict with CS Policies EN2 and EN9,
which seek to conserve and enhance the special qualities of the area and protect
the biodiversity value of nationally designated sites. It would also meet the aims
of paragraphs 17, 109, 117 and 118 of the Framework, to conserve and enhance
the natural environment and biodiversity, and protect geological conservation
interests.
Highway network, including footpaths
41. Whilst the traffic impact of the proposed development would be likely to be
significantly greater than that associated with the existing use of the agricultural
land, it would also replace the traffic generation of the existing site. Manor Park is
currently accessed from a narrow, unmade, steep track, which also provides access
to a number of other properties, including the public house, and has limited
forward visibility. The use of this existing access also requires the negotiation of
the main road junction within the village, which is located on a sharp bend.
42. Given the location of the proposed site on the edge of the village and its
relationship with the surrounding road network, the proposal would be very likely
to result in a significant reduction in use by the caravan park traffic of this
junction, as well as avoiding the need for the use of the existing shared access.
Furthermore, due to the scale of the appeal site and its proposed access
arrangements, I am satisfied that, with the use of appropriate conditions, the
proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety or cause significant
inconvenience to other road users. In reaching this view, I have taken into
account the local concerns raised but, in the absence of substantive evidence to
the contrary, have given greater weight to the lack of an objection to the proposal
from the highway authority in this regard.
43. The existing site includes footpaths within it, including the Norfolk coastal path and
footpaths linking to routes through the adjacent historic gardens. The coastal path
forms part of a recently opened new section, which is part of the national coastal
path trail. As such, I concur with the view that it is likely to be well-used. There is
nothing to suggest that the relocation and restoration of the site would jeopardise
the continued operation of these paths and I understand that, as the coast erodes,
the coastal path is rolled back further inland. As such, I am satisfied that the
proposal would be acceptable in these respects.
9
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
223
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
44. Two public footpaths are adjacent to, or within, the site. The details provided
indicate that it is the intention to divert the footpath FP9 that runs north-south
within the site, so that it would follow its western boundary. If the footpath needs
to be diverted that is a matter for other mechanisms. However, I see no reason
why the current footpath route could not be successfully included within the
proposed caravan park, with appropriate landscaping maintaining the amenity of
the route, or in another approved alternative location. As a result, I am satisfied
that this issue is not one that should be decisive in this appeal.
45. Local concerns have been raised about the effect of the proposal on the local road
network, due to the relationship of the appeal site to the beach. Whilst it is
possible that some holidaymakers would choose to drive to the beach from this
site, taking into account the distances involved, I consider that this is unlikely to be
necessary for most. Furthermore, although no footpath currently exists along the
road from the site to the village, the appeal proposals include provision for a link
within the site to the road, with a path proposed along the frontage of the
adjoining site approved for residential development. There is nothing before me to
demonstrate that an appropriately designed pedestrian link could not be provided
as proposed. As such, subject to the control of these details, I am satisfied that
the provision of such a footpath in this location would be acceptable, as it would
significantly improve the accessibility of the site to the village and the beach, whilst
not causing material detriment to the character of the area.
46. In addition, the details provided indicate that the use of the existing public
footpaths within or adjacent to the site (FP8 and FP9) would have the potential to
provide for an alternative route to the beach, which would avoid the use of the
road adjacent to the site. As such, subject to the control of appropriate details, I
consider that the relationship for pedestrians of the site to the village and its
facilities, including the beach, would be acceptable.
47. Accordingly, overall and for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would
have an acceptable effect on the local highway network, including in respect of
highway safety and the convenience of other road users. It would not have a
detrimental impact on the continued operation of the existing footpaths within the
area and has the potential to make appropriate provision for improved pedestrian
links to the site. As such, it would be in accordance with CS Policies EN4, CT5 and
CT6, which seek to provide safe and convenient access for all, and adequate
parking for new developments. It would also meet the aims of paragraphs 32 and
75 of the Framework, to achieve safe and suitable access for all people, and
protect and enhance public rights of way.
Sustainable development
48. I have found above that the proposal would cause harm to nearby designated
heritage assets, to which I give considerable importance and weight. However, the
scheme would not lead to the loss or destruction of those assets, or a major
erosion of their significance. As such, whilst material, I consider that the harm
would be less than substantial. Paragraph 134 of the Framework requires that, in
the case of designated heritage assets, the harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal. Furthermore, paragraphs 6-9 of the Framework
indicate that ‘sustainability’ should not be interpreted narrowly. Elements of
sustainable development cannot be undertaken in isolation but should be sought
jointly and simultaneously. Sustainable development also includes ‘seeking
positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment
as well as in people’s quality of life’.
10
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
224
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
49. The proposal relates to the relocation of an existing caravan park, which is
important to the well-being of the Happisburgh coastal community. For the
reasons given above, the proposal would have demonstrable local economic and
social benefits. Furthermore, the appeal site would be beyond the identified
Coastal Erosion Constraint Area, but in a location well related to the coastal
community from which the existing facility would be displaced. The details of the
appeal scheme indicate that the existing site would be restored and managed as
open space as part of this relocation, which are matters that can be appropriately
controlled by condition.
50. Consequently, the proposal would result in substantial public benefits, to which I
give great weight. These are matters that weigh in its favour and contribute
towards the aim of achieving sustainable development. In addition, I have found
overall (considering both the new development and that which is being replaced)
that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the landscape or
biodiversity of the area, including on the SSSI. Furthermore, the proposal would
not cause harm to neighbouring living conditions, security or the local highway
network, including public footpaths.
51. Paragraph 132 of the Framework advises that great weight should be given to the
conservation of a heritage asset in considering the impact of a proposal on its
significance and, as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should
require clear and convincing justification. For the reasons given above, I find that
the great weight given to the harm identified to the significance of the heritage
assets is outweighed by the greater weight given to the substantial public benefits
of the proposal. As such, in this particular case, there would be a convincing
justification for this resulting harm and the proposal would be in accordance with
the aims of section 12 of the Framework. Accordingly, for these reasons, I
conclude that the proposal would not conflict with the overall aims of CS Policy
EN12 and would meet the overarching aims of the Framework to achieve
sustainable development.
Other matters
52. There are strongly held views both for and against the appeal scheme within the
locality and I have had careful regard to these in my consideration of the appeal.
Concerns have been expressed about the potential effect of the proposal on a
number of issues, many of which have been addressed above. In terms of other
matters raised, these include the potential for the proposal to lead to flooding
within the area. However, from the evidence before me, including the submitted
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and its addendum, I consider that this issue could be
appropriately addressed by condition and, as such, would not be a reason to find
against the proposal.
53. External lighting within the site could also be adequately controlled by condition.
In addition, whilst I note the concerns raised about the effect of the proposal on
local house prices, I am mindful of the guidance within the Planning Practice
Guidance (PPG) in this respect, which indicates that such a concern is generally a
purely private matter. Accordingly, it is not an issue that leads me to alter my
findings above.
54. It has been suggested that an alternative layout of the appeal site, or an
alternative site for the relocation of the caravan park within the locality, would
have less harmful environmental and other impacts on the local area. Reference
has also been made to the approach taken in respect of the Council’s decision to
approve the development of nine dwellings on land adjacent to the appeal site and
the relocation of a caravan park elsewhere, as replacements for development
11
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
225
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
affected by coastal erosion. However, given the evidence available to me and my
findings above that the development of the appeal site as proposed would be
acceptable, it is not necessary for me to consider any of these matters further.
Conditions and conclusion
55. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in the light of the PPG and for
clarity and to ensure compliance with the Guidance, I have amended some of the
suggested wordings. Whilst it is necessary to apply a time limit for
commencement, there is nothing before me to demonstrate why a five year period
would be appropriate in this case. Consequently, I have amended the suggested
time limit to three years. Otherwise than as set out in this decision and conditions,
it is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
56. Given that the proposal seeks to replace an existing facility, it is both reasonable
and necessary to control details of the transfer from the existing to the proposed
sites and to control details of the restoration and management of the existing site,
and it is essential to ensure that these details are agreed before development takes
place. However, for precision and clarity, I have amended the detailed wording
suggested, to require the approval and implementation of an appropriate scheme.
57. It was agreed by the main parties at the Hearing that, for clarity and precision, and
in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the local
landscape, it would be appropriate to control the number and layout of the pitches.
To ensure that the accommodation provided would continue to be used as holiday
accommodation, it was also agreed that it would be reasonable to limit the
occupancy of the caravan site to prevent its use in the winter months. This would
reflect the restrictions on the existing site. Although such a restriction would not
fully reflect that required by CS Policy EC9, given that the proposal would be a
replacement for the existing site, I consider that it would be unreasonable to
impose more onerous limitations on use in this particular case.
58. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, the local landscape,
neighbouring living conditions, ecology and the biodiversity of the site, it is
necessary to control the details and implementation of the roofing materials for the
warden’s accommodation, the external lighting and the detailed landscaping
scheme for the site, including in respect of the green roof of the toilet and shower
block. In the case of the landscaping scheme, as the works involved would
potentially involve groundworks, it is essential that these details are agreed before
development takes place. It is also necessary to ensure the appropriate
management of the landscaping, including replacement planting required during
the period of establishment. However, for precision and clarity, I have amended
some of the wording suggested. In addition, there is nothing before me to
demonstrate why a ten year period would be necessary in this regard. Therefore, I
have reduced the period for replacement planting to five years, which would be a
reasonable time frame to allow for the new planting to become established.
59. In the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, the local
environment and the well-being of the occupants of the caravan park, it is
necessary to require the provision a water supply on site, for use in the event of
fire, and refuse storage areas. Given the potential archaeological interest of the
site, it is necessary to require the implementation of a programme of
archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation.
Furthermore, due to the nature of this potential interest, it is essential to require
the submission of the scheme before any development takes place. I have had
regard to the concerns expressed about the wording of the condition. However,
12
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
226
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
taking into account the results of the submitted geophysical survey, I consider that
it would not be unreasonable to apply the condition suggested in this case.
60. In the interests of highway safety, accessibility and the character and appearance
of the local area, it is both reasonable and necessary to control details of the
vehicular access, parking arrangements, circulation and servicing areas for the
proposal. Whilst not specifically referred to within the suggested conditions, the
details submitted clearly demonstrate that the proposed pedestrian link to the site
is intended to form part of the appeal development. As such, I am satisfied that
my intention to apply a condition that also secures this element of the scheme
would not be prejudicial to the interests of any party. To prevent flooding and
pollution, it is also necessary to control the drainage details of the site.
Furthermore, given the findings of the FRA, it is reasonable to require the surface
water details to incorporate methods of sustainable drainage.
61. The access to the site from North Walsham Road would be located beyond the
existing 30mph speed limit for the village and the Council’s suggested condition
would prevent any works on the site until this limit were extended westward to a
point beyond the site access. However, having regard to the tests for conditions
within the PPG, I am not satisfied that the application of the condition as suggested
would be reasonable, as it would concern a matter entirely outside the control of
the appellant and subject to consideration by another authority. Furthermore,
having regard to the evidence before me, including the comments of the highway
authority and the alignment and characteristics of the highway in the immediate
vicinity of the site, I am not satisfied that it has been adequately demonstrated
that the extension of the speed limit would be necessary in order to make the
development acceptable.
62. Similarly, given my findings above in relation to FP9 and having regard to the
advice within the PPG, I consider that it would not be appropriate to apply a
condition requiring the submission of an application seeking to divert the public
footpath, or one that prevents the commencement of the appeal development until
such a diversion takes place. Accordingly, I have not applied the Council’s
suggested conditions in either of these respects.
63. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude
that the appeal should be allowed.
Anne Napier-Derere
INSPECTOR
13
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
227
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
Annexe
Conditions
1)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2)
Other than as required in this decision and conditions, the development
hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following
approved plans: site location plan, 662/01RevE, 662/02RevD, 01, 02 and 03.
3)
No development shall take place until details of a scheme to transfer the
caravan park from its existing site, as shown in Figure 1b of the Ecological
Assessment and Restoration Proposals Report, February 2013, to the site
hereby approved, which shall include any transitional arrangements and
provide for the restoration and management of the existing site, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These
details shall have reference to the recommendations of the Report and
include a timetable for the implementation and any necessary phasing of the
works concerned. The development hereby approved and the restoration of
the existing site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
and within any such timescale as specified.
4)
For the avoidance of doubt, the layout of the caravan park and the siting of
the caravans hereby permitted shall be in accordance with plan
Ref 662/01RevE. No more than 194 caravans, as defined in the Caravan
Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968
(of which no more than 134 shall be a static caravan) shall be stationed on
the site at any time.
5)
No caravan on the site shall be occupied between 31 October in any one year
and 1 April or Easter, whichever is the earlier, in the succeeding year.
6)
No development of the site office and warden’s accommodation building
hereby permitted shall take place until details of the materials to be used in
the construction of the external roof surface of that building have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
7)
No use of the site as hereby permitted shall take place until details of any
external lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority and no external lighting shall be installed within the site
unless in accordance with those approved details.
8)
(i) Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved plans, no
development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape
works, including details of the green roof of the toilet and shower block
hereby permitted, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority.
(ii) These details shall include: proposed finished levels or contours; means
of enclosure; hard surfacing materials; and minor artefacts and structures
(e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs).
(iii) Soft landscape works, which shall have reference to the mitigation
recommendations of the submitted Ecological Assessment and Restoration
Proposals Report, February 2013 and the Site Layout and Landscape
Proposals Supporting Statement, Rev A, January 2014, and include: planting
plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations
associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting
14
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
228
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; an
implementation programme and a landscape management plan.
(iv) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the use of any
part of the development hereby permitted or in accordance with the
approved implementation programme.
(v) Any new tree or shrub, or any part of the green roof of the toilet and
shower block, which within a period of five years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced within the next planting season with another of a similar size and
species, unless prior written approval to any variation is given by the local
planning authority.
9)
No use of the site as hereby permitted shall take place until a fire hydrant or
other means of water supply for use in the event of a fire has been provided
in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Once provided, this provision shall be retained as such
thereafter.
10)
No development shall take place within the site until the implementation of a
programme of archaeological work has been secured in accordance with a
written scheme of investigation that has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority.
11)
No use of the site as hereby permitted shall take place until the site access,
visibility splays of 59 metres x 2.4 metres to each side of the access where it
meets the highway, parking areas, circulation and servicing areas, and
pedestrian links to the site have been provided in accordance with
specification details submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. These specifications shall accord with the details shown
in drawing Ref 662/02RevD and, once provided, these areas and the access
provision shall be retained as such thereafter and, in the case of the visibility
splays, shall remain free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metre above
the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
12)
No use of the site as hereby permitted shall take place until drainage works
have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted
surface water details shall:
i)
provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the
method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged
from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the
receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;
ii)
include a timetable for its implementation; and
iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the
development, which shall include arrangements to secure the operation
of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
______________________
15
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
229
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr Chris Lomax
Appellant
Mr Simon Randle
of Counsel
Mr Hugh Ivins
Planning Consultant
Mr Christopher Yardley
BA(Hons), MSc, MCIEEM
Landscape Consultant
Mr David Yates
BSc(Hons), MLD, CMLI
Landscape Architect, Norfolk County Council
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Gary Linder
DipTP, MRTPI, IHBC
Team Leader, Major Projects
Ms Cathy Batchelar
BA(Hons), MA Landscape Design,
CMLI, IHBC
Landscape Officer
Mr Roger Howe
FCILEX
Planning Legal Manager
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Cllr Lee Walker
Mr Glenn Berry
Mr Clive Stockton
Ms Rita Price
Mr Stephen Burke
Ms Bryony Nierop-Reading
Mr Jack Hall
Ms Frances Bailey
Mr Julian Stock
Mr Malcolm Kerby
Ms Tessa Beane
Ms Elaine Batt
District Council ward member and local resident
Chair of Parish Council and local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
16
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
230
23 July 2015
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING
1. Details of Norfolk Coast Path
2. Photographs from viewpoints identified in agreed Statement of Common Ground
3. Aerial photograph of Happisburgh
4. The Council’s Happisburgh Conservation Area, Form and Character Description,
dated 1998
5. Descriptions of listed buildings and registered park and garden
6. Corrected versions of descriptions for the Church of St Mary and Happisburgh
Manor park and garden
7. Copy of planning permission, Ref PF/13/0143, dated 3 April 2013, granting
temporary permission for the re-location of 12 mobile homes at Manor Caravan
Park
8. Closing remarks of the local planning
9. g authority
10. Written notes for the Council’s response to the application for costs
11. Final remarks of the appellant
____________________
17
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
231
23 July 2015
APPENDIX 16
Costs Decision
Hearing held on 12 and 13 May 2015
Site visit made on 13 May 2015
by Anne Napier-Derere BA(Hons) MRTPI AIEMA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 25/06/2015
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
Land to the south of North Walsham Road, Happisburgh, Norfolk



The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The application is made by Mr Chris Lomax (Happisburgh Estates) for a full award of
costs against North Norfolk District Council.
The hearing was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission
for the relocation of Manor Caravan Park, comprising 134 static caravans, 60 touring
caravan pitches and camping area, and office/warden accommodation, to include new
access to site and new wash block building and landscaping.
Decision
1.
The application is refused.
The submissions for Mr Lomax
2.
The costs application was submitted in writing, with some additional comments and
amendments to the written application made orally. In brief, the applicant
considers that the appeal should never have been necessary, as the reason for
refusal of the application was not sufficiently supported by evidence. It was
unreasonable for the Council not to consider the effect of landscape mitigation or
the benefits of the relocation, in terms of its traffic impact on the road network
within the village and the character of the Conservation Area.
3.
The Council did not justify the different position it reached on the visual impact of
the proposal, relative to the conclusion of the County Council in the Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment. The Council also failed to consider that caravan parks
are inherently part of the local landscape character and the existing site formed
part of the Conservation Area when designated. Although the Council accepted, as
part of the appeal, that there was no alternative site available for the proposal
within or close to the village, it acted unreasonably in failing to recognise this as
part of the application process.
4.
Furthermore, the Council has adopted an inconsistent approach to the relocation
proposed, given its decision to approve nine dwellings adjacent to the site and
other relocated caravan parks elsewhere. It has failed to provide evidence that it
has taken on board all material factors with regards to the proposal, in particular
the Pathfinder Project and its support for the scheme.
5.
Concerns were also expressed at the Council’s unwillingness to engage with the
applicant, either to discuss the proposal or complete an agreed Statement of
Common Ground within the appeal timetable. The applicant considered this all the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
232
23 July 2015
Costs Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
more remarkable given that the application was sponsored by the Council, albeit
wearing a different hat.
The response by the Council
6.
The response was made orally at the Hearing, supported by written notes. In
summary, the Council refuted the suggestion that the evidence provided was not
sufficient to substantiate its position. It has evidenced and articulated the reason
for refusal and advanced a sound case for the appeal to be dismissed, which will be
confirmed by the site visit. Furthermore, if the appeal were to be allowed, this
would not provide evidence of unreasonable behaviour, but would be indicative of a
legitimate difference of professional opinion.
7.
The reference to the caravan site at Trimingham and the adjacent site for nine
dwellings is misleading, as each case is considered on its merits. The neighbouring
site is much smaller than the appeal site and was found to be acceptable in its
context. In terms of engagement, the Council was invited to attend a meeting
between the applicant and another party, which it declined to do and gave clear
reasons for so doing.
8.
The Council has acted in accordance with paragraph 50 of the Appeal section of the
PPG and, as such, costs should not be awarded.
Reasons
9.
The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a party
who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to
incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
10. The Council’s decision notice identified one reason for refusal which, in addition to
the footpath, primarily relates to the impact of the proposal on the Conservation
Area, the listed church and lighthouse, and the wider surrounding landscape.
Having regard to the comments of Historic England1 about the scheme, I consider
that the Council did not act unreasonably in coming to the view that the proposal
would be unacceptably detrimental to those heritage assets. Whilst relatively brief,
in conjunction with the committee report, the Council’s appeal statement is
sufficient to substantiate this position and, for the reasons given in my decision, I
have agreed with the Council on this point. Furthermore, the Council provided
clear and specific evidence to support its position with regards to landscape impact,
including in relation to the extent of mitigation proposed.
11. There are fundamental differences in terms of the scale, the nature of the
development and likely impact of the appeal proposal in comparison with the
adjacent development site for nine dwellings. In addition, Trimingham is some
distance from the appeal site and I do not have the full details of that scheme or
the background to that proposal. As such, I am unable to assess whether it would
be directly comparable with the appeal scheme and, on the basis of the evidence
available to me, I consider that it has not been demonstrated that the Council has
been unacceptably inconsistent in the determination of the appeal case.
12. From the details available to me, it appears that the Council has adopted a
considered and pragmatic planning policy approach to the difficult issue of coastal
erosion and the real threat that it poses to the coastal communities directly
affected. Nonetheless, even within this context, it is necessary to give careful
consideration to the potential impacts involved in relocating a facility. Whilst the
decision notice does not refer to Policy EN12 of the North Norfolk District Council
1
Provided as English Heritage
2
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
233
23 July 2015
Costs Decision APP/Y2620/A/14/2228049
Core Strategy 2008, this policy is clearly referred to within the Council’s officer
report to its planning committee and in the Council’s appeal statement. It is not a
matter of contention that there is not an allocated site identified within the
development plan for the relocation of the existing caravan park.
13. I have not come to the same view as the Council, in terms of the overall planning
balance and the weight to be given to the various impacts of the proposal.
Nonetheless, to some extent, the matters involved are ones which require the
exercise of planning judgement and, as such, the conclusions reached in these
regards can be considered to be somewhat subjective in their nature. As such,
notwithstanding my decision on the appeal, from the evidence provided, I consider
that the Council did not act unreasonably in according different weight to these
various impacts in its assessment of the scheme.
14. Furthermore, given the evidence available to me, including the Council’s committee
report, there is nothing before me that leads me to consider that greater
consideration of the traffic impacts on the character of the area would have been
likely to have had a material impact on the outcome of the planning application. In
addition, I am not persuaded that greater dialogue between the parties would have
been reasonably likely to have narrowed the issues in dispute, or avoided the
appeal altogether. Appendix 18 of the appellant’s statement includes copies of
emails that indicate that alternative sites and layouts were the subject of continued
discussion with the Council, but that agreement on these matters was unable to be
reached.
15. Accordingly, for these reasons, I consider that the Council did not act unreasonably
in its determination of the application. As a result, in order for the applicant to
pursue his case, the appeal process and the resulting expense associated with this
were necessary. There is also nothing substantive before me to demonstrate that,
in this case, any delay involved in completing an agreed Statement of Common
Ground directly led to wasted or unnecessary expense being incurred by the
applicant in the appeal process.
16. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted
expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated.
Anne Napier-Derere
INSPECTOR
3
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Development Committee
234
23 July 2015