Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
14 July 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 23 July 2015 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 13 August 2015.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so, must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 25
June 2015
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 8 or 10 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
CROMER - PO/15/0572 - Erection of 68 sheltered housing retirement
apartments and one bungalow, including communal facilities, car parking and
management proposals for adjoining woodland; Land to rear of Barclay Mews,
Overstrand Road for Sutherland Homes
Page 1
(Appendix 1 – page 122; Appendix 2 – page 144; Appendix 3 – page 160; Appendix
4 – page 163)
(2)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0452 - Extension to provide a new two-storey retail unit
(A1); Millers Walk for Fakenham Properties Ltd
Page 14
(3)
HEMPSTEAD - 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 for Selbrigg Generation
Page 21
(Appendix 5 – page 166; Appendix 6 – page 194; Appendix 7 – page 201; Appendix
8 – page 203; Appendix 9 – page 204; Appendix 10 – page 205; Appendix 11 – page
207; Appendix 12 – page 209; Appendix 13 – page 211)
(4)
HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill
for Mr Bradley
Page 76
(5)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/15/0546 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling;
Green Farm House, The Street for Mr Hayes
Page 83
(6)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1399 - Change of use of land to carboot sales;
Davenports Magic Kingdom, Cromer Road for Davenports Magic Kingdom
Page 87
(7)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/0311 - Erection of three car garage with games
room/gym above and link extension to existing dwelling; Glebe Farm, Marsh
Road for Mr & Mrs R Hall
Page 92
(8)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/0312 - Erection of agricultural storage barn; Glebe
Farm, Marsh Road for Mr R Hall
Page 95
(9)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0326 - Demolition of single-storey front extension
and erection of part two-storey and part single-storey front extension; 2 Sand
Pit Cottages, Sandpit Lane for Mr & Mrs Chamberlin
(10)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
(11)
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
Page 106
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
Page 106
(Appendix 14 – page 212)
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
April to June 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal
outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
(12)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 107
(13)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 118
(14)
NEW APPEALS
Page 119
(15)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 119
(16)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 119
(17)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 120
(Appendix 15 – page 215; Appendix 16 – 232)
(18)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
8.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
Page 121
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE:
Arrangements have been made for the Members of the Development Committee and
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party to meet the staff from the Development
Management and Policy teams at 1.30 pm. A separate invitation has been sent to
Members.
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 23 JULY 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1)
CROMER - PO/15/0572 - Erection of 68 sheltered housing retirement apartments
and one bungalow, including communal facilities, car parking and management
proposals for adjoining woodland; Land to rear of Barclay Mews, Overstrand
Road for Sutherland Homes
Major Development
- Target Date: 29 July 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Use Allocation
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
C Road
Tree Preservation Order
Countryside
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
THE APPLICATION
This is an outline planning application albeit it includes all matters of detail (access,
layout, scale, appearance) for determination at this stage, except for landscaping.
The proposal is for the erection of eight apartment blocks, one bungalow, a communal
dayroom building and three garaging blocks together with associated parking and
landscaped areas. The intended use is described as specialised housing
accommodation for the elderly. The apartment blocks range in size to accommodate
between four and ten apartments each and comprise of either two or three floors of
accommodation (the upper floors being part of the roofspace). The apartments (plus
the bungalow) consist of 20 one bedroom and 49 two bedroom units.
Access is proposed via an extension of an existing (unadopted) road off Overstrand
Road which currently serves a similar form of retirement accommodation (Sutherland
Court Gardens and Barclay Mews). A total of 78 car parking spaces are proposed
spread throughout the development.
The principal external building materials will comprise rendered walls and tiled roofs.
Amended / additional plans have been received which alter the position of one of the
apartment blocks and communal day room building; provide for a 1.0m high earth bund
along the southern boundary; indicate finished floor levels; and include a topographical
survey.
Development Committee
1
23 July 2015
First submitted with the application were the following documents:
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Public Consultation Report
Flood Risk Assessment
Transport Statement and Travel Plan
Ecological Assessment
Aboricultural Impact Assessment
Woodland Management Plan
Utilities Report
Financial Viability Assessment (Confidential)
More recently a Heritage Impact Assessment (Appendix 1) has been submitted.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Lee having regard to the following planning issues:
Amount of development, impact upon listed building, increased traffic, type of housing.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection in principle. Would like to see fewer properties in order to allow for a tree
belt to be planted on the southern boundary.
REPRESENTATIONS
29 letters of objection raising the following concerns/issues:



























Overdevelopment of site
Density of development
Loss of green space
Damaging to the AONB
Land should be reserved for recreation
LDF should be reconsidered to assess if the site is still necessary for housing
Unacceptable height/scale - out of proportion with surroundings
4 storey tower should be rejected
Cromer has enough housing for the elderly
Need is for affordable housing for younger people
Proposed accommodation is not sheltered housing
Intrusive upon adjacent properties
Will ruin the character of this part of Cromer
Adverse impact upon the setting of The Grove (listed building)
Duty to preserve or enhance setting of a listed building
Will impact upon views from The Grove
Lack of Heritage Statement with application to assess impacts upon listed building
Overlooking onto The Grove
Grave threat to tourist business (The Grove - guest house and restaurant)
Inadequate boundary screening proposed
Loss of boundary trees
Existing hedgerows should be retained
Will obscure views towards Cromer Church
Will obscure views towards Warren Woods
Adverse impact upon holiday letting of adjacent property (Midway)
Overlooking to adjacent properties
Topographical survey should be submitted as part of application
Development Committee
2
23 July 2015


















Adverse relationship with Swinton House (overlooking/loss of privacy)
No levels information provided in relation to Swinton House
Lack of apparent landscaping between Swinton House and development
Increased traffic would be detrimental to highway safety on Overstrand Road
Increased traffic and noise
Unacceptable single road access to serve existing and proposed development
Access for emergency vehicles
Inadequate parking provision proposed
Visitor parking should not be accessed via The Old Coach Road
Access to site should be retained as a private (unadopted) road
Added pressure on doctors surgery
More elderly people will add strain upon local services
Good site for doctors surgery
Impact upon bats
Disruption to wildlife/flora/fauna
Drainage/water supply concerns
Safeguards need to be in place to restrict type of occupancy
Restrictions need to be imposed on working hours/construction traffic
Planning consultants representing the owners of 'The Grove' (adjacent property) have
submitted a lengthy 'Objection Statement' and accompanying Heritage Impact
Assessment' (Appendix 2) The broad grounds of objection relate to the lack of
appropriate information submitted with the application; the adverse impact upon the
setting of The Grove (listed building) and upon the AONB; adverse impact upon the
future trading of The Grove (guest house / restaurant), together with related planning
policy considerations.
Further to the submission of amended plans consultants representing the owners of
'The Grove' have submitted a further letter of objection and a rebuttal to the applicants
Heritage Impact Assessment (Appendix 3)
Any further representations received in response to the re-advertisement of amended
plans will be reported at the committee meeting.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Comments that there is sufficient capacity at the Cromer Water
Recycling Centre to cater for the proposed development, but in terms of the sewerage
network the development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream and
mitigation will be required. A drainage strategy for the site should cover the
procurement of the improvement works.
The preferred method of surface water disposal should be to a sustainable drainage
system (SUDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option. The surface water
strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application relevant to
Anglian Water is unacceptable.
Recommends conditions requiring the submission and approval of a foul water
strategy and a surface water management strategy.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations) - Requires one fire hydrant to
be secured either by a S.106 Obligation or planning condition.
Requests a contribution of £3,500 (Approx. £51 per unit) for Norfolk Trails and Public
Rights of Way to facilitate improvements to way-marking, signage and literature for
footpaths, including the Norfolk Coast Path and local Health Walks, which will be
accessible from the development via Warren Wood. Health Walks Literature to be
supplied to all new residents and made available for existing within the vicinity of the
Development Committee
3
23 July 2015
development.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Noting that it is not the intention of the
applicant to upgrade the existing and proposed access route to adoptable highway
standards, advises that the proposal would result in a development which exceeds the
Highway Authority's criteria for the number of dwellings which may be served off a
private drive. However previous advice offered by the Highway Authority based on the
site being developed for sheltered housing stated as follows: 'The existing access
road, whilst not constructed to the standards required by the County Council for an
adopted road, is laid out in a manner that would be sufficient to serve this type and
scale of development and the junction with Overstrand Road is also acceptable in its
current form'.
Sheltered housing developments are found to have lower levels of car ownership and
use, as such a reduction in the usual parking requirements is acceptable on the basis
of a 1 to 1.5:1 ratio of parking spaces to dwelling units. The proposed parking provision
equates to 1.18:1 spaces per unit plus approximately 20% visitor space provision.
Given the distance from the public highway it would be difficult to object on highway
safety grounds to this level of parking provision.
Concludes, no objection subject to the applicant entering into a S.106 Obligation to
cover future maintenance of the private road and a condition requiring the provision of
parking spaces prior to occupation of the development.
Conservation and Design Officer - As an introduction advises that this response
has been prepared having due regard to; i) the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared
by Contura on behalf of one of the objectors, ii) the Heritage Impact Assessment
prepared by Wilson Compton Associates on behalf of the applicant, iii) Historic
England's Good Practice Advice Note on The Setting of Heritage Assets 2015, iv) the
general duty placed upon Local Planning Authorities to give special regard to the
desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings under s66 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act, 1990, v) the NPPF and its associated
planning practice guidance, and vi) the North Norfolk LDF.
With the principle of development having been established through the Site Allocations
document in the Local Development Framework, Conservation & Design comments
can concentrate hereunder on the particulars of the submitted scheme; namely: Access
As the existing flint walls fronting Overstrand Road are not to be altered as part of the
development, this particular matter raises no concerns.
Layout
The scheme comprises a mix of mainly 2/2½ storey blocks which are interspersed with
1/1½ storey elements and a three storey tower. Based around a central spine road and
featuring a mix of retirement apartments, the layout adopts a broadly similar approach
to that established at Sutherland Court Gardens and Barclay Mews. Key components
include the day room/lounge which would provide an attractive gateway into the site
and Rosewood whose tower would act both as a counterpoint to the day room and
provide a strong focal point at the eastern end of the site. In between, the blocks would
frame the access drive to provide a relatively legible and communal layout.
Scale
With the obvious exception of the tower on Rosewood, the majority of the individual
blocks would stand approximately 10m above ground level. As such, they are of
comparable height to Sutherland Court and slightly lower than Barclay Mews to the
west. Where the new build would abut the lower property known as Midway to the
Development Committee
4
23 July 2015
south west, the scale drops down to between 7-8.6m high. Site levels would also be
lowered in this area (as they would be across other parts of the site). The relationship
to the Grade II Listed Grove to the south is described more fully below.
Appearance
The design approach adopted takes the late Victorian/Edwardian arts and crafts
architecture of the town and pulls it into the 21st Century with contemporary detailing.
The net result would be bespoke compositions which are complimentary, locally
distinctive and which would offer a level of visual interest over and above that provided
by many standard house types. In pure design terms, the individual elevations raise
few concerns. This said, the fenestration does appear rather disjointed in a few places
as a result of mixing horizontally and vertically proportioned openings. Certainly, in the
interests of coherency, there would be real merit in revisiting the window styles should
the scheme be approved.
Materials
The scheme employs a relatively simple palette of materials – self-coloured render for
the walls and glazed pantiles for the roofs (NB: the day room looks like it has a pintile
roof although we do not appear to have full elevations to confirm this). Colour therefore
assumes added importance in terms of creating variation and in terms of articulating
the blocks (i.e. expressing certain elements to break up the blocks visually). The
specification of green and red glazed tiles is more of a moot point. On the one hand,
there is no real historic precedent for such materials in this area (other than the odd
localised example). They would also serve to emphasise the roofscape across the
scheme. At the same time, however, it could be argued that; i) their use is very much in
the spirit of the non-native materials imported into Cromer after the coming of the
railways, and ii) that they would bring an added note of quality to the scheme (in the
same way that black glazed pantiles were used in Georgian/Victorian times). The
solution probably lies in only the selective use of glazed tiles on the least sensitive
parts of the site (with matt tiles used elsewhere).
Impact upon designated heritage assets
In terms of fulfilling our statutory duty under s66, it is first worth noting the definition of
setting as contained within the NPPF glossary;
“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and
may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make
a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability
to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”.
From this, it is clear that setting extends beyond the immediate curtilage and is subject
to change over time. It also involves more than just physical factors and can cover
things like sensory enjoyment and cultural associations. All of which said, the starting
point for any assessment is to identify the heritage assets affected and their settings.
In this case, there are two Grade II Listed Buildings within the vicinity of the application
site – Sutherland House to the west and The Grove to the south. In respect of the
former, its setting is now quite narrowly defined by recent development and would be
largely unaffected by the proposed scheme. Whilst there would be an inevitable
increase in movements past the c1886 listed building and the new build would be seen
in its background when viewed from Overstrand Road, neither consequence would, it
is considered, result in any demonstrable harm being caused to the setting of the
heritage asset (particularly in light of the separation distance and the existing
developments adjacent).
Development Committee
5
23 July 2015
As regards The Grove, this is an elegant 2/2½ storey house which dates back to the
18th Century but which has been extended over time to create an essentially L-shaped
plan form. It stands within its own verdant grounds and currently faces north towards
the application site and the woodland beyond. These currently reinforce the perception
of apparent rurality and combine to provide a comparatively natural and tranquil setting
as existing. Whilst this is undoubtedly pleasant, it is a setting which has changed over
time by the introduction of; a) the property known as Midway to the north west, b)
No.97 Overstrand Road to the south west, c) the swimming pool immediately to the
north east, and d) the Glamping site further to the north east. Taken together these
have reshaped the curtilage and the overall appreciation of the heritage asset.
Against this context, the main effects of the proposed development can be assessed
as follows: 




Views currently enjoyed over the site to the woodland beyond would be lost and/or
interrupted by the new buildings.
Views of St Peter’s Church currently available from the eastern side of The Grove
gardens would be lost and/or interrupted by the new buildings.
Views back to The Grove from the application site and woodland would be lost
and/or interrupted by the new buildings.
The tranquillity and level of seclusion currently enjoyed by The Grove would be
affected by the development.
Visitors may be less inclined to visit The Grove.
Individually and cumulatively, it is acknowledged that these impacts would result in a
level of harm being caused to the overall significance of the heritage asset. Under the
terms of the NPPF, this harm has to be considered “less than substantial” for the
following reasons: 







The application site appears never to have formed part of the land associated with
The Grove.
The view of the application site from the principal listed building is now confined to
a relatively narrow vista between the established planting and the more recent
buildings. Depending upon the time of year, the development would therefore be
seen from only a limited number of windows.
The separation distance between existing and proposed buildings would be nearly
100 metres at its shortest point.
The curtilage of The Grove has been altered over time and has thus affected its
sensitivity to change.
The development would not block or impinge upon any public views of The Grove.
Any development on the site would result in an element of short term disturbance
and activity during construction. In the medium-long term, however, the nature of
units proposed would largely reinstate tranquillity levels and the overall experience
of the asset.
Although Landscaping is not one of the matters to be considered as part of this
application, the plans do indicate a willingness to plant a tall mature hedge on this
boundary. If this were to be supplemented with mature trees, the perception of
rurality would to a large extent be maintained.
The development would be visible above and behind the boundary planting and
below the treeline of the woodland beyond. As such it would be seen within a
verdant context rather than in isolation and would not, it is considered, compete
with the heritage asset given the separation distance involved. The fact that a more
additive built form is now proposed with variations in ridgeline reinforces this view
and has helped to minimize the level of harm.
Development Committee
6
23 July 2015
In accordance with para 134 of the NPPF, where harm is identified, it needs to be
weighed against any public benefits accruing from the development. In this case, these
would include the short term benefits to the local economy during construction, the
provision of specialised private sector housing to meet a growing demand, the
contribution the scheme would make to housing supply within the District, and the
spend of future occupants. These are significant benefits which weigh heavily against
the Conservation & Design section being able to sustain an objection to the submitted
application.
Conclusion
In summary, it is recognised that the submitted scheme is a controversial one which
has always courted local objection. Notwithstanding these, the land has been allocated
for development through the LDF process and thus only matters of detail have been
considered above. In this regard, it is acknowledged that the proposals could take an
alternative form and that the level of harm to the setting of the heritage asset could be
different. With only one scheme in front of us, however, the application falls to be
determined as it stands. Therefore, for the reasons cited above, and following careful
consideration of the conflicting heritage reports, Conservation & Design do not believe
that there are sufficient grounds to object to this application.
Landscape Officer - Comments that the submitted management plan for the
woodland will ensure the long term viability of the wood and that the boundaries of the
site are very important landscape features which provide amenity value and will
provide a natural screen to the proposed development.
Recommends that certain of the proposed car parking spaces are re-located in order
to retain an existing hedgerow along the western site boundary, which whilst not being
in prime condition does provide a valuable habitat and natural screen. Also
recommends an amendment to the layout in the south-eastern part of the site in order
to retain trees which are proposed to be removed along the southern boundary.
Amended plans should show details of the mitigation proposed in the submitted
Protected Species Survey, to include details of lighting with regard to bats.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No response.
Environmental Health - No adverse concerns.
Strategic Housing Officer - Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in
Cromer with 130 households on the Housing Register and in addition there are a
further 127 households on the Transfer Register and 757 households on the Housing
Options Register who have stated that they require housing in Cromer.
The applicant has submitted a viability assessment to consider the option of a financial
contribution towards the 'off-site' provision of affordable housing. (This was based on
the applicants premise that it would not be appropriate to provide affordable housing
on the site as part of the proposed development). The submitted viability information
was submitted prior to this outline planning application being made. The viability
information was thoroughly assessed and as a result it was concluded that based on
the information that was submitted and the specific circumstances of this site that it is
not viable to provide any financial contribution towards affordable housing. In
reaching the conclusion, the right to review the viability of the proposed scheme was
reserved in case there was a delay in the submission of a planning application and that
delay was material in terms of the viability of the site. The information provided in the
submitted viability has been reviewed against current information and this shows that
there is no material change in the viability of the scheme when current prices are
Development Committee
7
23 July 2015
considered. On this basis the scheme still cannot provide a financial contribution for
affordable housing.
It is not accepted that had it been viable to provide affordable housing that the
proposed scheme could not have accommodated on site affordable housing. The
application proposes a gated community of sheltered housing apartment blocks and a
bungalow; however, it would have been possible for affordable housing to be provided
in a separate block so that the affordable housing would have a lower service charge
than the private sheltered dwellings.
The viability assessment reflects the financial position now of the proposed
development, however, the viability of the development may change as the site is
developed and therefore if this application is approved, a Section 106 Agreement
should accompany the approval to include the Council's standard affordable housing
uplift clauses to enable the viability of the development to be assessed near the end of
the development to ensure that if the viability of the site has improved, this
improvement results in a financial contribution for affordable housing.
NHS (England) -
No response.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy C04 - Land at Rear of Sutherland House, Overstrand Road:
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:
a. Provision of improved highways access to Overstrand Road;
b. improvement of pedestrian and cycle routes to the sea front and town centre;
c. provision of pedestrian routes through the site to the woodland and beyond;
d. provision of a significant landscaped buffer between the woodland to the north and
the developed part of the site and other wildlife mitigation and improvement;
e. archaeological investigation if required;
f. demonstration that there is adequate capacity in sewage treatment works and the
foul sewerage network and that proposals have regard to water quality standards; and,
g. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the North
Norfolk Coast SAC / SPA and Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor
pressure, and on-going monitoring of such measures.
This site is within the Norfolk Coast AONB, and development proposals should be
informed by, and be sympathetic to, the special landscape character of this protected
area. Proposals should also be informed by Development Control Policies EN1 and
Development Committee
8
23 July 2015
EN2.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Type of development
2. Dwelling Mix / Affordable Housing / Development Viability
3. Amount, layout, scale and design
4. Setting of listed buildings
5. Access / Parking
6. Landscaping / Woodland
APPRAISAL
The Site
The application site (approx 1.5 ha), roughly rectangular in shape, consists of an open
field adjacent to the eastern built up boundary of Cromer. Its immediate surroundings
comprise of high density residential development adjoining its western boundary (and
access to Overstrand Road), open land and low density development to the south,
woodland and undulating open land leading to the coastal cliff tops to the east, and
woodland with residential development beyond to the north. Site levels rise gently from
west to east. The site is within easy walking distance to the town centre and other local
facilities.
Development Committee
9
23 July 2015
The site is located outside the development boundary for Cromer as indicated in the
Proposals Map which forms part of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, in an area
designated as 'countryside' and 'undeveloped coast'. It also lies within the designated
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). However the site is one which has since
been allocated for residential development in the North Norfolk Site Allocations DPD.
Accordingly the principle of developing the site for residential use is acceptable in
planning policy terms.
Development Type
The proposal is for a specialised form of housing development for the elderly/retired,
similar to that of the adjoining apartment buildings between the site and Overstrand
Road (Sutherland Court Gardens, Sutherland House, Barclay Mews and Swinton
House). These buildings have been developed by the current applicants during the last
20 years. Whilst described as 'sheltered housing' the apartments would be fully
self-contained and there is no indication that there would be an on-site warden facility.
There is however to be a communal building and grounds maintenance would be
cared for by a management company.
It is worthy to note that during the public examination of the Site Allocations DPD
(2010) the current applicants put forward a case for the site to be specifically allocated
for retirement homes as opposed to general market (and affordable) housing. In his
subsequent report the Planning Inspector stated as follows: "I support the draft
allocation for “approximately 60 dwellings, unrestricted by age group, and subject to
the normal CS affordable housing policy. This would be consistent with the other
residential allocations in the DPD, but would not necessarily preclude an application on
this site for special needs housing, such as retirement homes, if that were thought
desirable on grounds (for example) of specific needs, or reduced traffic generation."
Policy C04 which relates to this residential allocation refers to a development of
approximately 60 dwellings, and whereas the policy is not prescriptive to the type of
residential development, the supporting text to the policy does state that 'a high density
development similar to that of Sutherland House, which retains significant open areas
within the site, is likely to be the most acceptable'.
The proposed development is different to the types of housing development which
have to date been granted planning permission on other allocated sites in the district.
These have been for more standard forms of housing development and have in many
cases provided a proportion of affordable housing.
In support of their application the applicants refer to the increased demand for this type
of housing given the higher than average age profile of residents in North Norfolk and
the forecasted increase in coming years (i.e. by 2034 the population over 65 years of
age in the district will be 24% higher than currently, and will represent nearly 40% of
the local population). In addition the applicants refer to the benefits which retirement
housing can provide both for residents and the wider community (their design,
reducing anxiety, safety, security, addresses problems of mobility/frailty, proximity to
services, maintains independent lifestyle). Members are referred to the supporting
letter from 'Pinders' in Appendix 4.
The Core Strategy does not contain a specific policy which relates to housing for the
elderly, although Policy SS3 (Housing) does state that 'the accommodation needs of a
range of households of different sizes, ages and incomes will be met by ensuring that
the type of housing built contributes to identified needs'.
Paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that "To
Development Committee
10
23 July 2015
deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership
and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities
should.....plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends,
market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not
limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families
and people wishing to build their own homes)."
There is therefore a policy case for permitting a development of this type. In addition,
there are circumstances specific to this site which arguably make this type of
development more compatible with it's surroundings compared to a more standard
form of housing development (i.e. the adjoining complex of elderly person housing
which shares the same access).
Taking into account all the above factors it is not considered that there should be an
objection to this type of housing development on this particular site.
Dwelling Mix / Affordable Housing / Development Viability
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments of this size should
comprise at least 40% of dwellings with not more than 70 sqm floorspace and with no
more than one or two bedrooms. The whole development is for one and two bedroom
units although typically the floorspace for a one bedroom unit is 75 sqm and for a two
bedroom unit 95 sqm. Members attention is drawn to the letter from 'Pinders' on behalf
of the applicants which refers to the preference towards larger two bedroom
accommodation for developments of this type (Appendix 4).
Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires that on schemes of 10 dwellings or more, not less
than 45% of the total number of dwellings should be in the form of affordable housing
(subject to viability). A financial viability assessment (confidential) has been submitted
with the application. This concludes that based on the cost and income for the
development there is no viability for the provision of on-site affordable housing or a
financial contribution for affordable housing elsewhere. Notwithstanding the
conclusions of the viability assessment the applicants contend that it would not be
suitable or practical to integrate affordable housing into the type of scheme proposed
and the current environment enjoyed by elderly residents of the adjoining
development.
Members are referred to the comments of the Council's Strategic Housing Officer
(above) who whilst not accepting the contention that affordable housing could not be
integrated into a development of this type, concurs that on the basis of the
development proposed there is no viability to provide either on-site affordable housing
or an off-site financial contribution.
Amount, Layout, Scale and Design
The total of 69 dwelling units proposed exceeds the figure of 'approximately 60
dwellings' referred to in Policy CO4. However it needs to be recognised that the
allocation policy does not preclude the possibility of the site being developed for a
more standard housing estate layout. Flat / apartment developments by their very
nature allow a higher density in terms of dwelling numbers with less overall land take
than more conventional housing developments. As proposed the development allows
for areas of open space spread throughout the site and is considered acceptable in
this respect.
The proposed layout is to a large degree dictated by the shape of the site and the need
to provide vehicle access through it. Hence the central access road with the individual
apartment buildings interspersed either side of it. Members are referred to the
Development Committee
11
23 July 2015
comments of the Conservation and Design Officer who comments on the relative
merits of the layout.
Similarly attention is drawn to the comments of the Conservation and Design Officer in
relation to the scale of the proposed buildings. One influence upon the scale and visual
impact of the buildings is the variation in levels across the site. A topographical survey
of the site indicates that the site rises by around 7.0 m from its western boundary to its
north-eastern corner. Amended plans submitted show the finished floor levels of the
individual buildings, which indicate a lowering of existing land levels across the site by
on average between 1.0m and 2.0m. This will help to reduce the overall height and
scale of the development.
With regard to the designs of the buildings members are again referred to the
comments of the Conservation and Design Officer, who raises no concerns other than
with regard to certain fenestration details.
Setting of Listed Buildings
Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states
that "In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which
affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may
be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the
building or its setting or any features of special architectural interest which it
possesses".
There are two grade 2 listed buildings in the vicinity of the site, Sutherland House to the
west and The Grove to the south. Sutherland House is separated from the site by a
recent three storey development (Barclay Mews) and for this reason is not considered
to be affected by the proposed development. The situation pertaining to The Grove is
more contentious. Members are referred to the two Heritage Impact Assessments
received, one from Contura on behalf of the owners of The Grove (Appendix 2) which
concludes harm to the setting of The Grove (and suggests a number of amendments to
the scheme), and the other from Wilson Compton Assoc's on behalf of the applicants
(Appendix 1) which appears to argue that the setting of The Grove comprises only its
curtilage, and as the site is outside of this, the issue of affect upon its setting does not
arise. In addition planning consultants acting for the owners of The Grove have
submitted a letter of rebuttal to the applicants' Heritage Impact Statement (Appendix
3) The Committee will need to form its own view on this matter which is addressed in
detail in the comments of the Conservation and Design Officer.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes a distinction between
proposed developments which would lead to 'substantial harm' to a heritage asset and
those which would result in 'less than substantial harm'. In the case of the latter
paragraph 134 of the NPPF advises that the harm caused should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal. The conclusion of officers is that in this case the
impacts of the proposed development upon the setting of The Grove would be 'less
than substantial' (a conclusion also reached in the objector's Heritage Impact
Assessment).
Access / Parking
Vehicular access to the site would be via an extension of the private drive which serves
the existing development (Barclay Mews etc.) from Overstrand Road. Members will
note that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to this arrangement (subject to
a S.106 Obligation) and considers that the junction with Overstrand Road is
acceptable in its current form.
Development Committee
12
23 July 2015
Furthermore the Highway Authority considers that the proposed amount of car parking
provision is acceptable. As this conclusion is based on the type of accommodation
proposed, it would be sensible to include in a S.106 Obligation an age restriction on
occupancy of the apartments. This would be consistent with the other adjacent
retirement developments which have a restriction on there being at least one resident
of each apartment aged 55 or over.
Landscaping / Woodland
Details of landscaping are not included for approval at this stage so in the event of
planning permission being granted, a reserved matters application would need to be
approved before any development could commence. However the submitted plans
illustrate where landscaping treatment is proposed. Principal amongst this (as
amended) is a 3m high hedge on a 1m high earth bund along the length of the southern
boundary (bordering The Grove), the retention of trees and a hedgerow on the western
boundary and incidental planting throughout the site and on the boundary with Swinton
House. The submitted Arboricultural report recommends the removal of three trees
along the southern boundary which it should be noted the Council's landscape officer
considers should be retained.
The applicants own that part of Warren Wood which lies immediately north of the site.
Policy C04 (c) requires provision of pedestrian routes through the site to the woodland
and beyond. The submitted Woodland Management Plan details a 10 year programme
comprising selected tree removal, tree works, clearance of waste, new planting and
the creation of a walkway linking with the adjoining woodland / cliff top footpaths. The
implementation of this management plan would need to be secured in the event of
planning permission being granted.
Drainage
The submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) proposes that surface water drainage will
be managed by on site sustainable drainage measures (SUDs) incorporating
soakaways and water features. These are to be subject to further ground permeability
analysis. If it is found that these 'infiltrtration systems' are not viable then it is proposed
to install an underground attenuation tank which would store water and discharge to
the mains sewer connection at a regulated rate of flow. The applicants have responded
to concerns raised by Anglian Water over this proposed method of discharge, and it is
considered that any unresolved issues relating to drainage can be addressed by
planning conditions.
Conclusions
The principle of residential development on this site is established by virtue of its
allocation for such purposes.
The proposal is for elderly persons accommodation for which there is an
acknowledged and increasing need in the district. This form of development would
compliment existing retirement housing which would share the same access. This is
not to say that an alternative and acceptable form of housing development could not be
proposed for the site, which could in turn provide an element of affordable housing. It
has been demonstrated however that with the form of development proposed it would
not be viable to provide for affordable housing either on-site or in the form of a financial
contribution.
The layout, scale and design of the proposed development is considered acceptable
subject to certain minor amendments to the fenestration details.
The proposed development will change the existing outlook from The Grove and will to
Development Committee
13
23 July 2015
some extent affect the setting of this listed building. However this impact will be
mitigated by the proposed lowering of site levels and indicative landscaping (precise
details of which would need to be the subject of further formal planning approval). The
impact upon the setting of The Grove is considered to be 'less than substantial' and in
accordance with the test to be applied by paragraph 134 of the NPPF, it is considered
that the public benefits of bringing forward housing development on this site outweigh
any such harm.
In all other respects the proposed development is considered acceptable and
accordingly the application is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve the application subject
to;
1) Amendments to the fenestration details of the proposed buildings to the
satisfaction of the Council's Conservation and Design Officer.
2) Satisfactory completion of a S.106 Planning Obligation to cover the following:
(a)The Council's standard affordable housing uplift clauses to enable the
viability of the development to be assessed near the end of the development to
ensure that if the viability of the site has improved, this improvement results in a
financial contribution for affordable housing.
(b) An age restriction of 55 years or over to at least one occupier of the
proposed apartments.
(c) Future maintenance of the private road.
(d) Compliance with the submitted Woodland Management Plan.
(e) Financial payment of £3,500 towards improvements to public rights of way.
(f) Financial payment (£50 per dwelling) to mitigate against potential impacts on
the North Norfolk Coast SAC / SPA and Ramsar site arising as a result of
increased visitor pressure.
3) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include the submission of
reserved matters (landscaping), precise details of materials, drainage and
renewable energy.
4) Expiry of the period of re-advertisement of amended plans and no new
grounds of objection being received.
(2)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0452 - Extension to provide a new two-storey retail unit
(A1); Millers Walk for Fakenham Properties Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 June 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Proposed Retail Opportunity Site
Town Centre
Contaminated Land
Conservation Area
Development Committee
14
23 July 2015
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19870088 PF - Shopping precinct with associated car parking and service
areas.
Approved 04/09/1987
PLA/19831109 PF - Temporary car park and use of buildings for covered market.
Approved 28/03/1985
PLA/20051921 PF - Erection of first floor extension to provide storage space and
alterations to shop fronts
Approved 02/02/2006
PLA/20061786 PF - Installation of roof platform and air handling plant
Approved 16/01/2007
THE APPLICATION
The proposals are to construct a new A1 retail unit through a part single and part two
storey extension to the east of an existing retail unit on an area of land currently used
as car parking at the Millers Walk shopping precinct, located directly to the south of the
main Town Centre (Market Place). There is an existing electricity substation operated
by UK Power Networks to the east of the existing retail unit.
The proposals will create a new retail unit in its own right with gross internal floor space
at ground floor level measuring 472 sqm and a further 99 sqm created at first floor level
in the northern most part of the building, providing 374 sqm of retail sales area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the meeting of the 25 June 2015 for a site visit and to
allow highways to feed back information from Development Team as to potential to
improve the access situation to the remaining area of car park.
Previously at the request of Cllr Punchard and Cllr Rest on the grounds of loss of
reasonable highway access and egress.
TOWN COUNCIL
Councillors objected to this application on the grounds of vehicular
access. Councillors suggested that Cattle Market Street is reopened onto White
Horse Street. Access from Cattle Market Street onto Bridge Street is difficult and also a
concern.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - no objection subject to a condition relating to the
provision of a developer funded scheme enhancing car parking signage. Although
the loss of parking spaces is of concern, considering the site is well located within the
town centre enabling access to other car parking facilities and public transport links,
there are positive benefits in the reduction in use of the access onto White Horse
Street by private cars, entering the car park from that direction. Restricting the use of
the northern access to deliveries, as proposed, would provide a benefit, reducing
existing congestion and delays close to a busy intersection, where vehicles waiting to
enter the site access need to cross queuing northbound traffic waiting to enter the
roundabout, which causes delays to vehicle flows at the roundabout.
Further to receipt of comments from Fakenham Town Council, highways officers
revisited the site to consider the option put forward by the Town Council of opening up
of Cattle Market Street directly on to White Horse Street. However this would create
Development Committee
15
23 July 2015
highway safety issues relating to the creation of a cross roads with Oxborough Lane
opposite and is not something that can be recommended.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader (Conservation & Design) - no
objections to the principle of the proposed addition. Amended plans were provided to
address design changes required to help assimilate the resultant building into the
Fakenham Conservation Area and to ensure that the proposal would not result in harm
being caused to this heritage asset, and to the setting of the adjoining listed buildings.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader is happy with the scheme as
amended.
UK Power Networks - Objection. The proposed retail unit appears to affect the
operation of a UK Power Networks owned electricity substation. The existing access
that UK Power Networks uses will become blocked off and there may be other issues
that need to be addressed such as fire/blast protection.
Further comment awaited further to receipt of amended plans. Committee will be
updated verbally.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service - Taking into account the location and infrastructure
already in place and type and size of proposal, a hydrant is required to be installed
capable of delivering a minimum of 20 litres per second of water. A planning condition
is required to secure the provision of the hydrant at the applicants’ expense.
Environmental Health – no objection subject to informative note regarding possible
contamination given past uses of the site.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
16
23 July 2015
Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2011):
ROS6: Retail: Land at Fakenham Town Centre (Land allocated for retail development Retail Opportunity Site).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of Development
Highway safety, access and parking provision
Design within a Conservation Area
Vitality and viability of the Town Centre
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at committee 25 June 2015 for a site visit. It is also
anticipated that feedback from Highways Development Team will be available prior to
the site visit on the 16 July 2015 to allow any possible alternative access arrangements
to be explored.
1. Location and principle of development
The application site is an area of land currently used as car parking directly to the east
of an existing retail unit at the Millers Walk shopping precinct, located directly to the
south of the main Town Centre (Market Place). A weekly market operates on an area
of car park directly to the south, an area of car park with approximately 76 parking
spaces.
The site is located within the Large Town Centres policy designation for Fakenham
and under Policy SS 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, retail use is deemed to be
acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy
policies. The site is also located directly adjacent to an identified Primary Shopping
Area and Primary Retail Frontage under policy EC 5 and forms part of a much larger
area designated under allocation ROS6 for retail development as a Retail Opportunity
Site in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) 2011.
2. Retail and Town Centre Policies at a National and Local Level (Policy EC 5 and
NPPF)
The government is taking an increasingly flexible approach to town centre uses.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities should 'promote competitive
town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer...' allowing this
proposal will add to competition and choice which will be of benefit to consumers.
Paragraph 10 of the NPPF also states that 'Plans and decisions need to take local
circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for
achieving sustainable development in different areas.' Furthermore, paragraph 19 of
the NPPF states that 'Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an
impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on
the need to support economic growth through the planning system.' Taking the issue
of sustainable development into account, the proposal is in a sustainable location in
Fakenham town centre, with good links to public transport and adjacent to an existing
car park.
The proposals involve the creation of a net sales area of 374 sqm. Policy EC 5 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy requires retail proposals of less than 500 sqm net sales
area to be located within the development boundary on the best sequentially available
site. As the application site is located directly adjacent to a Primary Shopping Area
and Primary Retail Frontage this is considered to be the best sequentially available site
Development Committee
17
23 July 2015
and the proposals therefore comply with Policy EC 5.
The Millers Walk shopping precinct provides linkage between the existing retail food
store to the west of the town centre operated by Tesco and the under construction
retail food store to the east to be operated by Aldi. The 374 sqm sales area proposed
is generally in excess of that offered by many of the standard high street retail units,
meeting increasing demand for larger open plan retail floor space. A unit of this size
will offer variety to support the existing retail mix on offer in the town. The need for
variety and choice in town centres is recognised (as referred to in paragraph 2.9.8 of
the Core Strategy in regards to Fakenham), and it is therefore considered that the
proposal would bring a number of benefits to the town and has potential to have a
positive impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole.
With regards the allocation of the site within the Site Allocations DPD as a Retail
Opportunity Site, the allocation recognises that as the site is within multiple ownership
it is likely to be developed in phases. The application site represents a very small
proportion of the allocated site and is directly adjacent to existing retail uses. In the
absence of a Development Brief for the site it is concluded that the development
proposed on the application site will not compromise the ability of the wider extent of
the allocated site from being developed and also in accordance with that allocation will
ensure that sufficient space remains for the market to continue to operate. Therefore,
it is considered that the proposals will not conflict with the provisions of the allocation of
the site as a Retail Opportunity Site in the Site Allocations DPD.
3. Access and Parking (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The physical position of the extension will result in the existing access to the north east
of the site being separated from the parking provision on the site, with this access
being used for deliveries and servicing only to the north of the Millers Walk complex.
As a result the remaining car parking area to the south of the application site will be
served from one point of access/egress onto Cattle Market Street and then Bridge
Street only.
This is a matter which has raised issue locally with the Town Council and Local Ward
Members. They question the suitability of the existing Cattle Market Street access as
a sole point of access/egress to the car park and have raised an objection regarding
this arrangement.
The Highways Officer (Norfolk County Council) provided initial comment that
restricting the use of the northern access to deliveries would provide a benefit, through
reducing existing congestion and delays close to a busy intersection where vehicles
waiting to enter the site access need to cross queuing northbound traffic waiting to
enter the roundabout, which causes delays to vehicle flows at the roundabout and
gives rise to highway safety issues. Further to the receipt of comments from
Fakenham Town Council and Local Ward Members based on local observations and
concerns Highways Officers revisited the site to investigate further the issues raised.
They have initially concluded that the opening up of Cattle Market Street directly on to
White Horse Street as the Town Council have suggested would create highway safety
issues relating to the creation of a cross roads with Oxborough Lane opposite and this
is not something that the Highway Authority can recommend.
In summary, regarding issues of access and egress to the site and the associated car
parking area the development proposed will result in highway safety benefits from the
closure of the northern access although it is recognised that as a result there may be
inconvenience issues related to using a sole point of access to the car parking from
Development Committee
18
23 July 2015
Cattle Market Street. In coming to this conclusion it is recognised that Cattle Market
Street is narrow at points, however the length of highway in question is short with wider
sections at the east and west ends and given its arrangement traffic using this route
will be travelling at low speeds. A developer funded scheme of enhanced car parking
signage will however help in terms of providing clear direction to this car park and other
alternative car parking available in the vicinity for the benefit of customers visiting this
site and other town centre uses and such details can be secured by an appropriately
worded planning condition. Officers therefore consider that the highway safety
benefits outweigh any access inconvenience issues which may arise as a
consequence of the proposals and the scheme is considered to be compliant with
Policy CT5.
Access issues aside the additional retail floor space being created would generate a
requirement under the Council’s adopted parking standards for 1 car space for every
20 sqm gross floor space. The proposed development would therefore generate a
requirement for 24 car parking spaces for the gross ground floor area of the premises,
extending to a total of 29 car parking spaces if the first floor area is also included.
Cycle parking requirement for both staff and customers totals 9 spaces.
The application does not include any additional car or cycle parking provision
associated with the new retail floor space being created and will actually led to a loss of
approximately 29 existing car parking spaces. Therefore resulting in an effective net
loss of up to 58 car parking spaces. The car park in question and the larger extent of
car park to the south is not safeguarded through any specific car parking designation.
The approach taken has been justified by the agent for the application who comments
that the applicant intends to mitigate the loss of the car parking spaces by imposing a
tariff system and more effective monitoring of existing 2 hour waiting restrictions on
existing car parks in their ownership to the south and east of the proposals, therefore
increasing turnover of parking spaces.
This approach of not providing additional car parking to serve the new retail floor space
is considered acceptable in this instance given the location of the proposals within the
town centre in a location adjacent to existing car parking where ample parking
currently exists. The building is also within short walking distance of other car parks in
the town and public transport links. Furthermore, the Highway Authority have raised
no objection to the proposals with regards to parking and access provision and as
such, the proposals are considered to be compliant with Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Furthermore, the agent has confirmed that the proposals will not impact on the ability
to provide a weekly market on the southern part of the car park as specifically required
by the ROS6 allocation and also paragraph 23 of the NPPF which promotes the
retention and enhancement of existing markets.
4. Design and appearance (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
The site is located within the Fakenham Conservation Area. In respect of the effect of
the development on Conservation Areas, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a general duty on planning authorities to pay
special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or
appearance of a Conservation Area. This is coupled with the requirements of Core
Strategy Policy EN 8, which requires development to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of a Conservation Area.
The existing building is not of any particular architectural or historic merit.
Development Committee
19
The
23 July 2015
extension would bring built form up to the edge of the footpath and would thus
strengthen the enclosure to White Horse Street. As existing this route is relatively
open and lacks definition for a town centre thoroughfare. It is also heavily dominated
by car parking which would be lost/screened in the process.
A design change was suggested to properly articulate the north elevation of the
extension so that it appears as a separate element visually. This together with the
requirement to redesign the floor space of the extension around the existing electricity
substation has resulted in the submission of amended plans. The amended plans
help to assimilate the resultant building into the Fakenham Conservation Area and
ensure that the proposals will not result in harm being caused to this heritage asset or
to the setting of adjacent listed buildings.
Furthermore, the proposals meet the separation distances set out in the North Norfolk
Design Guide relating to residential amenity and therefore comply with part of the
requirement of Policy EN 4. Due to the separation distances involved and the
relationship of those existing residential properties with the existing servicing, delivery
and parking areas at the Millers Walk complex it is not considered that the proposals
will give rise to significant detrimental impacts upon residential amenity in terms of
noise and disturbance.
5. Other Matters
The proposals extend into an area where an electricity substation owned and operated
by UK Power Networks is located. The design and form of the extension has been
amended to ensure that access continues to be maintained to the substation and the
operation of the substation site is not affected. UK Power Networks have no objection
to the amended plans.
The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections subject to an informative
note relating to contamination.
6. Conclusion
In summary, the principle of a new A1 (retail) store is considered acceptable in this
location. Whilst concerns have been raised about the loss of a point of access to the
existing car park and the adequacy of the remaining access, the highway safety
benefits that will result from the closure of the northern access point are considered to
outweigh any potential inconvenience to users accessing the car park from a single
point of access from Cattle Market Street.
The revised design is considered acceptable and will not cause harm to any
designated heritage assets including the Fakenham Conservation Area and any
nearby listed buildings.
Therefore, it is considered that the proposals will accord with relevant Development
Plan policies and subject to a number of conditions the development in its revised form
is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve, subject to conditions relating to;



Restriction of the use of the unit to Use Class A1 (Retail)
Securing a scheme of enhanced car parking signage
Provision of a fire hydrant
Development Committee
20
23 July 2015
(3)
HEMPSTEAD - 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 for Selbrigg Generation
Major Development
- Target Date: 12 March 2015
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/12/0137 SCR - Single wind turbine - 15/05/2012
12/1339 PF Erection of 78 m high (to tip) wind turbine with access track, substation
building, temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure – withdrawn by
applicant 26/03/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 50 metres
and a rotor diameter of 56 metres giving a height to blade tip of 78m. The turbine would
be located at Easting: 610845, Northing: 338615. The base of the turbine would be at
62m AOD.
The proposal also includes associated infrastructure to support the turbine, a single
storey substation building, access tracks and crane hard standing and turning areas.
The applicant has indicated that the candidate wind turbine is a 500kW PowerWind
500, however in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, which
recognises that a degree of flexibility is required in procuring the appropriate turbine
five alternatives 500 kW turbines have also been suggested. They are the Enercon
E-44, Enercon E-53, Enercon E-48 or the Gamesa G58. With the exception of the
Gamesa which has a hub height of 44m and tip height of 73 metres and the Enercon
E-44 which has a hub height of 55 metres and tip height of 73 metres the others have a
hub height of 50 metres with tip heights varying from 74 to 77m, within the parameters
for the size of turbine under consideration. Using UK Wind Speed Database the
applicant predicts that the turbine is likely to produce approximately 1 640 000kWh per
annum (enough electricity for approximately 343 average sized Norfolk homes).
Details submitted by the applicant indicate that the 50m high steel turbine column
would be in three sections and would have a diameter of 4.2m at its base tapering to
1.9m at hub height, and would be finished in a semi-matt grey colour such as RAL7035
or 7038.
The external substation, switchgear and metering would be housed in a flat roofed
single storey building of Glass Reinforced Plastic measuring 5.1m by 3.5m with a
height of 2.5m. The proposed access track would follow the eastern edge of Upper
Fir Covert Wood immediately to the west of the site and would be approximately 4.5 m
wide and be of graded stone with a crushed stone running surface. Whilst the hard
standing which would measure 28m by 35 m would have a similar semi -permeable
surface finish.
Development Committee
21
23 July 2015
The proposed turbine would have to conform to current safety standards.
In addition, it is proposed to erect a temporary guyed 50 metre meteorological mast at
the turbine position for a period of six months which would be removed prior to the
construction of the turbine.
The applicant’s agent has indicates that the connection to the national grid would be
under the control of UK Power Networks and would be underground to the nearest
connection point which is envisaged to be an existing 11kV line, north of Bodham
Common.
The applicant has submitted a planning appraisal to support their view that the
proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
All wind turbine applications are required to be determined by the Development
Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL – Hempstead Parish Council – Support the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date 713 representations have been received, 632 against, 80 in support and 1
comment.
Summary of objections:1. The turbine would wreck our priceless Norfolk skyscape, being visible for many
miles in all directions;
2. It would blight the approach to the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty;
3. It would deter tourists on whom our economy depends;
4. The proposal conflicts directly with the guidance contained in the North Norfolk
District Council Landscape Character Assessment, which indicates that whilst
small scale turbines may be suitable in some areas they should not be places so
prominent that they are apparent for miles, i.e. the Cromer ridge;
5. Approval of the turbine would establish a precedent for a rash of similar proposals;
6. It would ruin the timeless setting of Baconsthorpe Castle and spoil views of and
from other important heritage assets;
7. Any public benefits would be greatly outweighed by the negative impact of the
turbine;
8. In the Stour Valley objections were overruled and there turbine have ruined the
landscape;
9. The best place for wind turbines is out at sea;
10. Would adversely affect the setting of Baconsthorpe Castle, a Grade I listed building
and Schedule Monument and other important heritage assets;
11. The is a beautiful part of north Norfolk, why spoil it;
12. Would adversely affect the tranquilly of Selbrigg Pond and its surroundings;
13. The proposed turbine would have a negligible impact on energy production;
14. Wind turbines are an inefficient way of gathering energy;
15. We live close to the site and are concerned about health and environmental issue;
16. Would be far too close to people’s homes, its noise and overpowering visual impact
would put residents health at risk;
17. Coming from an AONB now plagued by wind turbines I would not wish another
area to lose its uniqueness and peace.
18. The benefits of supplying a mere 340 homes with electricity is a drop in the ocean
Development Committee
22
23 July 2015
compared to the destruction and local scar the proposal will create.
19. The turbine would endanger wildlife in the vicinity of the pond, including, swans,
owls, bats and songbirds;
20. Would adversely affect aircraft movement in the vicinity of the site;
21. The proposal could affect VHF radio signals due to Doppler frequency shift.
22. The proposal could affect T.V reception in High Kelling which is not very good at
times.
23. The proposed turbine is far to large for the site and would constitute a wholly
unacceptable impact upon the surrounding countryside.
24. However many times do we need to say no to such projects.
25. The continuous demand for energy should be meet through methods of reducing
consumptions.
26. Any proposal for an individual turbine in made solely for the economic gain of the
applicant and has no benefit fro the community as a whole.
27. The seascape of Sheringham has already been ruined by the windfarm.
28. Why is the guidance in the NNDC Landscape Character Assessment being
blatantly ignored.
29. We must avoid making short term decisions which will have longer term
consequences for future generations.
30. The proposed wind turbine will pull property values down in the area.
31. Access to the site for construction traffic will be dangerous for road users as the
roads are too narrow for heavy construction traffic.
32. Will be highly viable from the AONB and will cause visitors to go elsewhere.
33. Once the wind turbine is approved others will certainly follow.
34. The noise report does not address the issue of low frequency noise which other
experts say can upset health, especially though sleep disturbance over distances
up to 2km.
35. The proposal would have a negative impact on tourism
36. The wind turbine would have an adverse impact on the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area;
37. The turbine would prejudice the very environment the applicant seeks to enhance;
38. The turbine is far to close to woodland and is a danger to wildlife;
39. Would jeopardizes national defence linked inextricably with the Trimingham Radar;
40. Could impair future Police telecoms services from the nearby mast;
41. North Norfolk is already doing its bit for the environment with the off-shore wind
farms;
42. The proposal will dominate the skyline;
43. Such a turbine is inefficient, expensive and an unreliable measures of energy
generation;
44. Could set a precedent for other similar structures;
45. No amount of screening will hid the structure;
46. Blot on the landscape for miles around;
47. The damage resulting from the wind turbine is not outweighed by the potential
benefits in terms of electricity generation;
48. Adverse impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
49. The proposal will industrialise and dominate the landscape;
50. The Sheringham Shoals off-shore wind farm has graphically demonstrated how
wind turbines can totally transform the environment;
51. Tourism makes an important contribution to the local economy and visitors will be
put off by the presence of turbines;
52. The proposal contravenes national and local planning policies, EN2, EN7 and EN8;
53. The proposal is not sympathetic to the distinctive character areas of the site and
surroundings;
54. Within this Landscape Character Area the Local Planning Authority has set a clear
limit of 15m to the hub for wind turbines;
Development Committee
23
23 July 2015
55. The costs to the landscape, heritage assets environment wildlife, residents, visitors
and the tourist industry are incalculable;
56. The turbine would be visible up to 15 miles away;
57. The financial gain made by the applicant will be met by the rest of the community,
through reduction in house prices and a poorer environment;
58. Adverse impact on television and communication services;
59. The turbine will only generate power for 200 to 300 homes;
60. The benefits claimed for the project are exaggerated and greatly outweighed by the
negative impacts;
61. The turbine will result in unacceptable levels of noise pollution for local residents;
62. The proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework;
63. The output would be just over half of that promised by the recently rejected
Bodham proposal;
64. The turbine would be highly visible on the Cromer Ridge and would affect the
AONB;
65. Blade flicker will affect local residents;
66. There is little public benefit, yet known public harm, for example the Kessingland
and Thurning turbines;
67. It will wreck our priceless Norfolk skyscape;
68. The turbine could interfere with the projected rural broadband service and also
national radar defence systems;
69. Approval would establish a precedent for a rash of others that would destroy the
unique character of our landscape;
70. Will adversely affect local property values;
71. There are enough turbines offshore in the locality already;
72. In this materialistic age, beautiful unspoilt countryside is a most precious heritage
and needs to be cherished for future generations;
73. There is a lack of information to confirm that there are no impacts on bats or their
roosts around the site;
74. The business case has not been proven;
75. Efficiency of wind turbines is not proven;
76. Will result in the loss of valuable farmland;
77. The wind turbine will do nothing to boost the local economy and create jobs;
78. No more inefficient wind turbines;
79. There is insufficient gain to warrant the adverse visual effects;
80. More turbines should be built off-shore and not on-shore;
81. This country does not have a coherent energy policy;
82. The turbine would cause shadow flicker;
83. Noise pollution/shadow flicker and general anxiety/stress associated with this
project will have a detrimental effect on the health of those living nearby;
84. The proposal would have a negative impact on tourism;
85. The visual impact will be seen by a large number of people including walkers,
cyclist, bird watchers from a very large part of North Norfolk including from areas of
outstanding natural beauty;
86. The proposal, if granted, would encourage other land owners to also consider wind
turbines, which would be damaging to the character of the area;
87. This is not about local need but about the landowner making a profit at the expense
of North Norfolk residents;
88. The development is only viable as a result of government grants;
89. The construction phase will have a harmful impact on the rural lanes to the site;
90. The proposal would cause interference to television and mobile phone reception;
91. Wind turbine syndrome is a potential issue for near neighbours;
92. Health and safety issues due to ice throw;
93. The erection of one turbine will set an precedent for others;
94. Wind energy is unreliable and not efficient;
Development Committee
24
23 July 2015
95. The wind turbine would adversely affect the setting of All Saint’s Church Bodham
as well as the setting of other local landscape and assets.
96. The proposal is chronically out of character with the unspoilt character of the area
and could adversely affect the tourist industry which provides may of All Saint’s
church’s annual visitors and summer congregation.
97. Negligible public benefit and a vast range of dis-benefits;
98. Will spoil the historic Georgian town of Holt and its surroundings;
Local campaign group No To That Turbine (NOTTT) has raised a concern about the
submitted ecology report which is the same as that submitted with the previous
application PF/12/1339 and is dated October 2012. They point to the fact that the
Council’s Landscape Officer refers to the Code of Practice for Biodiversity point 6.2
advises that information should be sufficiently up to date (e.g. not more than two/three
years old). It should be fit to inform the decision-making process and advises that the
shelf life of any given survey depends on the nature of the environmental conditions at
the time of the survey (i.e. extreme weather) and the extent of changes in
environmental conditions since the survey.
They therefore suggest that as the report is reaching the outer most months of its
advised life (2 years 5 months) and just over £140,000 of tax payers money has been
spent on the restoration of Selbrigg Pond the impact of these improvements to the
environment needs to be assessed or has to be shown that it has been considered.
Furthermore, the pond is attracting a wide variety of wildfowl and also with the
expansion of the water the pond life is improved. With improved pond life comes more
bugs and flies flitting across the surface of the water and of course this in turn makes a
better environment for bats. In addition the turbine site is surrounded by woodland and
many of the bats may feed on the pond. As a result is a new bat survey not required.
In the event of the application being rejected and the applicant appealing the case the
Council needs to be able to demonstrate that they have fully examined all the facts. If,
as we have seen with the Bodham wind turbine, the application goes to the High Court,
these matters become all the more important.
They therefore consider that given the environmental changes the applicant has made
to Selbrigg pond that a new survey or a letter of justification from the applicants as to
why they have not undertaken a new survey is required.
A letter of objection has also been received from the Council for the Protection of Rural
England (CPRE) Norfolk which raises the following concerns (summarised):1. Considers that the proposal does not meet the requirements National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 17, 115, 132 in relation to Historic assets
and their setting, also 115 on AONB and also 97 on Renewable energy and 114
on the coast. In addition Core Strategy Policies SS4, SS5, EN1, EN2, EN4, EN7
EN8 and also EN9 have been considered.
2. The turbine proposed would impact on the same buildings and their settings as
those identified by English Heritage for the Pond Farm applications. These include
Baconsthorpe Castle which is a scheduled monument and listed at Grade I.
Barningham Hall is also Grade I listed and set in a Registered Park and Garden,
Grade II. It would also be visible from several medieval churches; St Mary’s
Baconsthorpe (grade II*), All Saint’s Bodham (grade II*), St. Mary’s Church
Barningham Winter (grade II*). Also the Baconsthorpe Conservation Area. The
settings of these heritage assets are very important, they make a particular
contribution to their significance.
3. A 78m turbine at Selbrigg would be seen across much of the Glaven Valley
Development Committee
25
23 July 2015
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Conservation Area. It would impact on a number of villages and their Conservation
Areas. A number of heritage assets, and also their settings, would be severely
affected. In the case of churches the proposal will have a significantly large impact
on both historical and cultural aspects, and greatly weaken local distinctiveness.
The scale, design and materials of the turbine are incompatible with these
qualities.
The proposal is not acceptable on landscape and amenity grounds. Visitors do not
come to North Norfolk to see wind turbines in otherwise unspoiled landscapes, to
the contrary. We are all very well aware of the great importance of tourism to the
North Norfolk economy. The offshore wind farms already present, and more to
come, will have a marked effect without adding to the problem of major landscape
impact from onshore turbines which provide few permanent jobs and poor returns
as regards energy yield.
The site of the proposed turbine lies about 2km from the southern boundary of the
AONB between Holt and the Sheringham, and the blades will be seen from some
viewpoints along this line, and parts of the coast itself.
Selbrigg Pond is a County Wildlife Site and the Environmental Report submitted as
part of the application recording 39 species in the vicinity of the Pond. The
proximity of the turbines and the moving blades must be an issue. It is not
possible to prevent or mitigate harm to bats or birds by a wind turbine.
Whilst financial contributions will be made to local causes these public benefits,
need to be weighted against the harm to the significance as described in NPPF
paragraph 134.
Whilst there is no doubt about the sincerity of the applicant that one of the main
purposes of the proposed wind turbine would be to provide long term and
sustainable funding for the restoration of Selbrigg Pond, and the Pond is much
appreciated by locals and visitors and the subject of school visits, there are a
number of similar sites on the Glaven, which provide an outstanding river for
students of Geography and Environments who can go from headwaters to estuary
in a day.
Summary of comments in support:1. Would contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions.
2. Renewable energy does not contribute to global warming.
3. The proposed wind turbine is well away from homes not associated with the
turbine.
4. The proposal accords with development plan policy and the guidance contained in
the National Planning Policy Framework.
5. The public benefits by way of donations are generous and considerably in excess
of industry guidelines.
6. The proposed crowdfunding will all local people participate and give a generous
rate of return.
7. We do not need other energy sources such as nuclear or fracking in north Norfolk.
8. Pleased to see wind turbines creating energy.
9. Wind is at least 5 time more efficient that solar and is urgently needed.
10. Better a wind turbine than nuclear power station.
11. Wind turbines are not unsightly.
12. The turbine would not set a precedent.
13. Would prefer to see wind turbines than the recently installed solar farms.
14. The environmental impact is far outweighed by the long term environmental gains.
15. The skyline is already dominated by masts and the proposed wind turbine would
have a negligible impact on the area.
16. A single wind turbine does not have the same visual impact a cluster of turbines.
17. It will not have an adverse impact on tourism within the area.
Development Committee
26
23 July 2015
18. The ecology report indicates that the proposed development would be unlikely to
result in negative impacts on ecology.
19. The council needs to move into the 21st Century and promote “green” energy.
20. The turbine benefits from significant hedging and woodland which should obscure
views particularly from Baconsthorpe Castle.
Summary of letter of comment:1. In the Planning Appraisal, Government Guidance contained in PPS22 is referred
to, yet this guidance was cancelled on or about 29 July 2013 and replaced with new
guidance. location” – clearly due to the number of objections this current location
is not deemed acceptable by the local community.
In response to the comments received from the Council’s appointed Heritage and
Landscape Consultant (Beacon Planning), Historic England and the Norfolk
Constabulary the applicants agent has provided additional information prepared CgMs
Consulting in respect of the heritage assets, whilst Stephenson Halliday Ltd, has
undertaken a review of the landscape advice provide by Beacon Planning and Pager
Power a Radio Communications Impact Assessment. This information has been sent
to the relevant consultees seeking their further comments.
Further information is awaited from the applicant’s Ecological consultants regarding
any perceived impacts of the development on Selbrigg Pond since its restoration.
CONSULTATIONS
Council’s appointed Heritage and Landscape Consultant (Beacon Planning)
(Original comments) - Objection - Beacon Planning were appointed to assist the
Council by providing heritage and landscape advice on the application. They formed
their own independent view of the application.
HERITAGE
Beacon Planning identified harm to the contribution which the setting makes to the
heritage significance of Baconsthorpe Castle (an ancient monument containing listed
buildings. The harm to the setting of this asset is of greatest concern to Beacon
Planning, as they are assets of the highest heritage value and the desirability of the
preservation of their settings must be given special regard. This refers to section
66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which
requires the local planning authority, in considering whether to grant planning
permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have
“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting”.
Beacon Planning concludes that in the case of Baconsthorpe Castle, 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.
Whilst in terms of Red House, a Grade II Listed building in close proximity to the site,
Beacon Planning indicate that as no wireframe images from this location have been
provided it is difficult to be clear on the magnitude of the impacts. What it is likely to
have shown, is that the turbine would 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
Development Committee
27
23 July 2015
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.
As far as other heritage assets in the vicinity are concerned in the case of 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). Beacon Planning consider
that 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.
In addition, 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.
Beacon Planning has also identified harm to rural setting of Baconsthorpe
Conservation Area. 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.
Although the Heritage Assessment submitted as part of the application 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 would detract from the rural setting of the village, and would
distract from the glimpsed views gained of the castle. This harm is considered to be
less than substantial.
In respect of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, Beacon Planning suggests that
whilst the Heritage Assessment indicates that the wind turbine will be visible in views
outwards from the conservation area, the assessment 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. However notwithstanding
this, they consider 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.
As far as cumulative impact, Beacon Planning considers that if permission were to be
granted on appeal for the wind turbine at Pond Farm, Bodham, combined the two
turbines would 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
Development Committee
28
23 July 2015
assets and would give rise to an increased level of harm, which would fall within the
remit of paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
In as far as the Heritage Appraisal, Beacon planning concludes that whilst the impact
on Baconsthorpe Castle, may result in ‘less than substantial, 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 the proposal. 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.
Whilst in terms of Development Control Policy EN 8 the 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.
Furthermore the Heritage Assessment identifies no heritage public benefits that would
result from these proposals and we have been unable to identify any. If sufficient public
benefit is not considered to result, then it is recommended that this application is
refused.
Further comments received from Beacon Planning on receipt of further
information/response to their earlier comments. Continue to have concerns in respect
of impacts on Baconsthorpe Castle, Baconsthorpe Conservation Area and Red House.
Remain of the opinion that the impact on Baconsthorpe Castle will be significant.
Further analysis indicates that the impact on Voewood House will be limited. However
it should be noted that the trees limiting the impact are not under the applicants control.
(See full copy of response at Appendix 5).
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
As far as the impact on the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
Beacon Planning have assessed the likely impact of the proposed wind turbine from a
number of view points identified in the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
submitted as part of the application. They conclude that the proposed development
would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the
AONB and would detract from its special qualities and 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. It should therefore 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.
As far as the impact of the delivery of the wind turbine and blades on the surrounding
road network. The delivery pay load of the turbine is large, and will require a clearance
of 4.4m width x 5.0m height and will require the removal of trees, hedges and shrubs
along the nominated route. The LVIA states that “the only noticeable effects would
arise from the delivery of the turbine towers and blades. Overall, the visual effects of
Development Committee
29
23 July 2015
the limited number of turbine delivery vehicle movements would be Minor”. Beacon
Planning conclude that the effect caused by the delivery is underestimated and the fact
that there would be a limited number of turbine delivery vehicle movements is not
material. Furthermore, neither is it clear as to what tree pruning and removal is
required and how extensive this would be.
As far as the impact on residents Beacon Planning has indicated that although the
LVIA sets out the predicted effects on local villages, hamlets and individual residences,
it would be helpful to have viewpoints from these locations where the effect is likely to
be significant. However, Beacon Planning considers the views from the Red House are
underestimated and the effects are likely to be MAJOR ADVERSE rather than MAJOR
/ MODERATE. Whilst in terms of Beckett’s Farm to the south east there is likely to be a
MAJOR ADVERSE effect yet this has not been considered in the LVIA.
In terms of the impact on motorists and other road users The A148 is a key route.
There are likely to be views of the proposed wind turbine from the Roman Camp Inn,
Aylmerton to High Kelling along the A148 with the most significant effect being
between High Kelling and Bodham route where the effects are likely to be MAJOR
ADVERSE.
As far as the effects on the Regional Cycle Route 30, although the impact on the length
between Langham and Gresham would be MAJOR/MODERATE along a short section
the effects on the majority of the route are considered to be MODERATE/MINOR
ADVERSE.
In terms of the impact on Public Rights of Way, 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 PRoW’s to the east in the area of
Baconsthorpe and Baconsthorpe Castle. Whilst there are no viewpoints taken from
PRoW close to the proposed development using the methodology contained in the
LVIA, Beacon Planning have indicated that this PRoW 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 the event of the wind turbine at Pond Farm, Bodham being allowed on appeal
Beacon Planning have indicated that the most significant cumulative effects are 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.
In conclusion Beacon Planning considers the proposal will adversely affect the LCA –
Tributary Farmland: Hempstead, Bodham, Aylmerton and Wickmere LCA.
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. In addition
Local PRoW and cycle routes will be adversely affected.
The delivery of the turbine would also have a significant adverse effect on local minor
and unclassified roads to the overall detriment of character and visual amenity.
Development Committee
30
23 July 2015
Furthermore, whilst the LVIA concludes that the landscape and visual effects
associated with the proposed Selbrigg Wind Turbine would diminish with increasing
distance and would typically account for a small angle of view 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 there considered that the proposal would not accord
with Core Strategy Policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN7.
As such any wider public benefits of the scheme need to weighted against the
considerable harm to the landscape and visual amenity of the area. Otherwise the
proposed development should not be permitted.
Beacon Planning have responded to the additional information submitted by the agent.
They remain of the opinion that the proposal will have the potential to be seen for miles
and will cause MAJOR/MODERATE ADVERSE effects on the landscape character of
the area. In addition they re-iterate concerns in respect of the impact on the AONB
and the landscape in general. Continue to have concerns required to the delivery
route, impact on residents, road users, recreational routes and cumulative impacts.
(See full copy of responses at Appendix 5).
Landscape Officer (Ecology) – The Ecology Report which is dated October 2012
reveals that a range of ecological receptors could potentially be affected by the
proposal. Seven bat species were recorded during manual bat transect surveys, in
addition automated bat detectors monitored the proposed turbine site over 5
consecutive nights in the same periods. The results showed that activity was most
prolific along the field margins and that it declined significantly in the centre of the field
where the turbine would be located. The siting accords with Natural England advice
on maintaining a 50m buffer distance from hedges and woodland. The survey
concludes that given their level of abundance and species behaviour patterns, the
local population will be exposed to very limited collision risks.
Consideration of other bird species recorded in the area including pink-footed
geese, birds of prey, woodcock and owls concluded that impact risks would be
extremely unlikely.
The cumulative effects of this development with the only other potential
development of a similar nature in the area, that at Pond Farm 3.1km to the east, are
considered to be limited to the identified bird species (pink-footed geese), noctule
bats and common pipistrelles, in relation to range of habitat (Ecology Report 5.4).
These are assessed and any predicted cumulative impact is not considered to be
significant.
The report concludes that the construction and operation of this development would
be unlikely to result in any significant impacts on valued ecological interests and this
is considered a fair assessment.
The proposed mitigation and habitat
enhancement is appropriate, together with post-construction monitoring and should
form part of any formal condition.
The Landscape Officer has indicated that although two years old and nearing the end
of its shelf life, the Ecology Report is still deemed to be adequate and relevant to this
proposal and conforms to BS 42020:2013: Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning
and development. However, since the last submission Selbrigg Pond, which was
included within the original study area has undergone significant restoration. Therefore
Development Committee
31
23 July 2015
any perceived impacts of the development on this altered ecological baseline therefore
need to be assessed by a suitable qualified ecologist and comments submitted.
Environmental Protection Officer – No object subject to the following noise
emissions at any lawfully existing dwelling shall not exceed:


Between 07:00 and 23:00 hours on any day the greater of 35dB L A90, 10 mins or
5dB(A) (including any tonal penalty) above the Quiet Waking Hours Day Time
Background Noise Level (ETSU-R-97 page 95) at that property; or
Between 23:00 hours on any day and 07:00 hours on the following day, the greater
43dB L A90, 10mins or 5dB(A) above the Night Hours Background Noise Level
(ETSU-R-97 Page 95) at that property.
The above noise emission limits shall be increased to the greater of 45dB
LA90,10mins or 5dB(A) above the Background Noise Level at any dwelling owned
by a person or persons having a financial involvement with the wind farm, in
accordance with the principle set out in ETSU-R-97 (page 66)
Heritage England (Original comments) – Objection – 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 All Saint’s Church, 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
the impact of the turbine upon the setting and significance of Voewood House, and that
further information is required.
Baconsthorpe Castle is listed at grade I and is a Scheduled Monument. It is also in the
Guardianship of Heritage England. It is an important 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 Heritage
England 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 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 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.
The nature of the National Planning and Policy Framework’s approach to
Development Committee
32
23 July 2015
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 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 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. Our view is that the turbine would be visible not just on the important
Development Committee
33
23 July 2015
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. 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.
In conclusion whilst 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.
(Comments in respect of addition information received) - In terms of the grade II* listed
house known as Voewood Heritage England accepts that the analysis from the house
was an omission from the original report and that the ZTV analysis appears to rule out
any visibility from the house. We would be happy to accept this conclusion provided
that the Council are satisfied with the analysis. As far as Red House as this is grade II
listed property it was not included in our analysis, however we hope the additional
information in this report has provided the council with clarity on the issues.
We also agree with the analysis that the development would have a harmful impact
upon the setting of the Conservation Areas of Baconsthorpe, and that the harm is less
than substantial. We would like to reiterate our concern about the impact upon this
asset. We also are pleased that the report has considered the impact on Bodham
Church. As noted, the church is in an isolated position in an open landscape. We
consider that this landscape is susceptible to change and therefore, as noted in the
CGMS report, changes here would be harmful to the significance of the church.
However the primary consideration is the impact upon Baconsthorpe Castle. Heritage
England remain concerned that one of the photomontage photographs was taken from
a low-point on the site, within the castle moat, and that this could be considered to be
misleading image. We are however pleased that the report agrees with the
significance of the castle as a heritage asset and that the setting makes an important
contribution to the significance of the site. We are also pleased to see the
acknowledgement of the turbine’s visibility within the monument and the surrounding
areas.
The analysis of harm therefore comes down to assessment of level of impact and the
degree to which the significance of the assets is harmed by the development. We
continue to maintain that this development would be harmful to the setting of
Baconsthorpe Castle and a number of other heritage assets. Although this is less than
substantial, we still consider there to be a high degree of harm to individual assets and
as accumulative effect on the group as a whole.
We would like to reiterate the conclusion that we reached in our previous letter; that the
turbine would result in harm to the significance of Baconsthorpe Castle and Bodham
Development Committee
34
23 July 2015
church, and adversely impact upon the wider setting of the more distant churches at
Baconsthorpe and the Baconsthorpe Conservation Area. We would therefore consider
that the application would need to be assessed under the terms of paragraph 134 of
the NPPF, which states that ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than
substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should
be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal...’. 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 the 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.
(See full copy of responses at Appendix 6).
County Council (Highway) - Cromer – No objection subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Whilst no details have been provided for the off-site highway improvements required to
widen the edges of the carriageway and protect culverts, I am satisfied that such works
can realistically be achieved and could be secured by way of standard conditions.
It should however be noted that in granting approval of the development any
requirement to facilitate the free passage along the public highway would overrule
any TPO’s protecting overhanging branches. Accordingly this point needs to be taken
into account when assessing the suitability of the impact to the landscape.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MOD) – No objection subject to the wind
turbine being fitted with 25 candela Omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting
with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at
the highest practical point. (See full copy of response at Appendix 7).
National Air Traffic Services - No objection subject to conditions - The proposed
development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not
conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited
Company (NERL) has no safeguarding objection to the proposal. (See full copy of
response at Appendix 8).
Norwich Airport - Safeguarding Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
(See full copy of response at Appendix 9).
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service – Comment as follows:The archaeological field evaluation indicates that the ground impact of the turbine on
the historic environment would be negligible.
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, however 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.
(See full copy of response at Appendix 10).
Development Committee
35
23 July 2015
Norfolk Constabulary Headquarters (Original comments) – Objection –
A new National digital Police Helicopter video downlink system has been installed on
our Bodham mast and it has requirement for 360 degree coverage around the mast
(installed November 2014). There is also a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP)
operating from the mast to serve rural communities with poor or no cable internet
services.
Both of these services are operating at very short wavelengths (frequencies between
3 & 6 GHz) and will likely be adversely affected by any nearby tall structures,
particularly non-static ones such as wind turbines.
The maximum tip height of 78m is high enough to cause obstructions or multipath
disturbances to transmissions from low angle sources (e.g. Helicopters towards the
horizon) even though the proposed Turbine is over a mile from the mast.
For the above reasons we are against any such structures close to the Bodham
Police mast, the effects on coverage quality being difficult to predict accurately
without major investigation or re-planning of such schemes.
Further comments awaited in respect of the additional information received.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service – No object subject to the proposal meeting the
necessary requirements of the current Building Regulations.
Natural England – Do not wish to comment on the proposed development - however
suggest that the Local Planning Authority seeks the advice of the AONB Partnership.
Whilst in respect of Protected Species they suggest the Local Planning Authority
should apply the Standing Advice as a material consideration in the determination of
the application. (See full copy of response at Appendix 11).
Norfolk Wildlife Trust – No objection – We support the consultant’s
recommendations that there should be post construction monitoring of collisions and
displacement effects on birds of prey, in order to better inform future projects.
Open Spaces Society – Object to the proposal on account of the serious visual harm
and that the proposed development would cause to the natural beauty of the
countryside. The local area is well served by well used public paths and other
highways, and includes some important features including Baconsthorpe Castle.
They also note that, in the applicant's submission, the proposed development would
have "major/moderate" visual effects upon access areas associated with
Baconsthorpe Castle and Baconsthorpe Hall, as well as the Hempstead to Selbrigg
Cottage PROW (Hempstead FP1 and FP2), and are concerned that this would have a
serious detrimental effect upon the public's enjoyment of this countryside.
Furthermore, the proposed development would have "Major/moderate" cumulative
effects upon the southern part of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Royal Society for Protection of Birds - No response
Norfolk Coast Partnership – Raises no objection based on the visual impact
assessment of this wind turbine on the landscape of the AONB, however they are
concerned regarding the potential cumulative impact of wind turbine development on
high ground running along the southern boundary of the AONB – (See full copy of
response at Appendix 12).
Development Committee
36
23 July 2015
Ramblers Association - No response
Architectural Liaison Officer - No response
SURROUNDING PARISHES
Wiveton Parish Council – Object most strongly for the same reasons that the
application for the Bodham wind turbine was refused by North Norfolk District Council.
Bodham Parish Council – Object on the grounds that the proposed turbine would
have an unacceptable impact on the historically important Baconsthorpe Castle.
Baconsthorpe Parish Council – Objects on the grounds that the turbine would affect
the beauty and tranquillity of the setting and views from Baconsthorpe Castle - an
important cultural heritage site of significance. This would affect the visitor experience.
In addition they do not agree with the applicant’s findings that the wind turbine would
not affect wildlife.
East and West Beckham Parish Council – Strongly opposed to the proposal. The
construction of wind turbines on the Cromer Ridge have been consistently opposed by
many residents and the Parish Council considers that it must continue to vigorously
oppose any constructions which would in any way detract from the unique natural
beauty of this area.
High Kelling Parish Council – Objects to the application on the grounds that due to
its height it would have an adverse impact on the landscape, being within 1 km of the
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition, depending on weather
conditions the turbine could result in noise pollution affecting residents of High Kelling,
resulting in sleep deprivation and impacting on health. Furthermore, the turbine
would have a negative impact on tourism changing the rural character of the area to an
industrial landscape to the overall detriment of attracting tourists. The Parish Council
also considers that the turbine would have an adverse impact on wildlife interests in
the area, especially bats. In addition the proposal could result in inference to of the
terrestrial TV signal from the Tacolneston transmitter. Furthermore the approval of this
wind turbine could result in a proliferation of other similar turbines all over north
Norfolk.
Holt Town Council – Object.
Plumstead Parish Council – Object on the grounds that the design of the proposed
wind turbine would affect the appearance of the AONB, local listed buildings and
Conservation Areas.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
EQUALITIES ACT 2010
In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has considered the
requirements under S149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It is considered that the
application raises no significant equality issues.
Development Committee
37
23 July 2015
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008), as well as supplementary
planning documents: the North Norfolk Design Guide Supplementary Planning
Document (December 2008) and the Landscape Character Assessment (June 2009).
The relevant policies are:
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Planning Policy Context;
2. Background History;
3. Landscape and Visual Impacts;
4. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
5. Impact on Designated Historic Assets;
6. Impact on Residential Amenity;
7. Impact on other Infrastructure Provision;
8. Impact on Wildlife/Ecology;
9. Impact on Aviation;
10. Impact on Highway Safety & Public Rights of Way;
11. Impact on Tourism & Other Sectors;
12. Grid Connection;
13. Benefits of the Proposed Development;
14. Overall Summary.
APPRAISAL
Members visited the site on 18 June 2015, viewing it from a number of significant local
vantage points.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and have had regard to advice
within the Planning Practice Guidance. A Screening Opinion was adopted on 25 July
Development Committee
38
23 July 2015
2014 which considered that the proposal was not EIA development and that the
potential impacts could be properly and rigorously assessed through the standard
planning process. Officers remain of this opinion.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). Although it preceded the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF), the relevant policies (other than Policy EN8) are consistent with the NPPF and
full weight should be given to them.
LOCAL POLICY
The following policies are relevant to the application.
Policy EN1, requires the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on
the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, to be carefully assessed.
Development will be permitted where it;



is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area
or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be
demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less
harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Policy EN2, which requires development proposals to demonstrate that their location,
scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and where possible, enhance, inter
alia, “the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character),” “visually sensitive skylines, hillsides” and ‘the
setting of and views from historic parks and gardens.’;
Policy EN8, which provides that development proposals should preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of designated assets and their settings and that
development which would have an adverse impact on their special historic or
architectural interest would not be permitted; and
Policy EN7, which provides:
‘Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and
integration of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be
permitted where individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse
effects on;
 the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
Development Committee
39
23 July 2015
 residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
 specific highway
considerations.
safety,
designated
nature
conservation
or
biodiversity
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not be
permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are not
compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures and
meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area’.
Policy EN7 operates in two ways. It commits the Council to granting planning
permission for renewable energy technology where there will be no significant adverse
effect on the landscape and historical assets, residential amenity, highway safety and
designated nature conservation or biodiversity considerations. If there will be a
significant adverse effect on these things, then the Council must consider the benefits
of renewable energy gain, including the contribution to overcoming energy supply
problems, and these benefits must be balanced against the significant adverse effects.
If the benefits are outweighed by the adverse effects, the proposal will not accord with
policy EN7. If the benefits are not outweighed, the proposal will accord with policy EN7.
Policy EN8 officers accept that Policy EN8 is not fully NPPF compliant, is on the basis
of the Batsworthy Cross High Court judgment – a case known as Colman [2013]
EWHC 1138 (Admin) and advise the Committee to have regard to relevant parts of
paragraph 14 and 98 of the NPPF as set out below, together with the legal duties
required to be discharged under Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas Act 1990.
NATIONAL POLICY
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) came into effect on 27 March
2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies. It identifies that the purpose of
the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
The core principles of the NPPF include encouraging the use of renewable resources
such as the development of renewable energy; conserving and enhancing the natural
environment and; conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their
significance.
In determining planning applications for wind energy development, Footnote 17 of the
NPPF states that planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the
National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), which should
be read with the relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for
Energy (EN-1). Amongst other things, EN-1 states that the Government is committed
to increasing dramatically the amount of renewable generation capacity.
The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes advice relating to
renewable and low carbon energy schemes. Amongst other things, this states that all
communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green
energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically
overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.
The PPG also includes advice relating to the historic environment.
Development Committee
40
23 July 2015
In June 2013 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued a
Written Statement in respect of onshore wind. A separate Written Statement was also
issued at the same time by the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change.
The Climate Change Act 2008 includes a legally binding reduction in carbon emissions
of 80% by 2050. Towards that goal, the UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 includes
a 30% national target for renewable electricity production by 2020. That would
contribute to a 15% target for all energy to come from renewable sources by that date.
These goals were restated in the National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Of that
30% electricity target, the Renewable Energy Strategy expected 35% to come from
offshore wind and 29% from onshore wind, with the remaining 36% from other sources
such as solar power, tidal and wave power, landfill gas and incineration.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:





have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily,
including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for
co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers’.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:


not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need
for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale
projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;
and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if its
impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable
Development Committee
41
23 July 2015
and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities
should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects
outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the
criteria used in identifying suitable areas’.
In considering this proposal, the Committee should have in its mind the advice set out
within paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:





approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are
out-of-date, granting permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework
taken as a whole; or
specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted’.
On 18 June 2015 the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a
Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government relating to the determination of planning applications for wind energy
development involving one or more wind turbines. This stated that the Secretary of
State has set out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy
development so that local people have a final say on wind farm applications, fulfilling
the commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto. The transitional
provisions take effect from 18 June 2015, and in the case where a valid planning
application for wind energy development has already been submitted to a local
planning authority and the development plan does not identify suitable sites, the
following transitional provision applies. “Local planning authorities can find the
proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the
planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their
backing”.
BACKGROUND HISTORY
On 23 November 2012 a planning application, reference 12/1339 PF was received
by the Local Planning Authority for the erection of 78m high (to tip) wind turbine with
access track, substation building, temporary meteorological mast and associated
infrastructure in the same location as the wind turbine currently proposed. As part of
the consultation process an objection was received from the Defence Estates
Organisation (Lands) which raised concerns that the proposed wind turbine would
cause unacceptable interference to the Air Defence radar at RAF Trimingham,
desensitising radar in the vicinity of the turbine and reducing the Royal Air Force’s
ability to provide a full air surveillance service in the area of the proposed wind farm. As
a result the application was withdrawn by the applicant on 26 March 2013.
LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
When considering landscape and visual impact, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 2
(Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character), which states:
Development Committee
42
23 July 2015
‘Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment [NNLCA] and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:








the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses,
woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological
corridors for dispersal of wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map’.
CS Policy EN 7 states at paragraph 3.3.35 that ‘All proposals for renewable energy
should complement the particular characteristics of the surrounding landscape and the
Landscape Character Assessment will assist in assessing the impact of individual
proposals.’
The application site would occupy an area of approximately 0.24 ha of land including
the upgraded farm track and is situated immediately to the south of Selbrigg Cottage.
The site is bounded to the west by mixed woodland known as Upper Fir Covert, and a
small conifer woodland to the north, which separates the site from Selbrigg Cottage.
Whilst to the eastern and southern boundaries are field hedges. The site lies at an
elevation of 62m AOD, just over the mid range point of the District’s topography.
At present time there are a number of vertical masts within the vicinity of the
application site including a 65m high lattice tower approximately 2.8 km (1.74 miles) to
the east south east of the application site known as Cock Point Radio Mast (located at
98m AOD) and a lattice telecommunications mast at Camp Farm approximately 35m
high some 3.1 km (1.93 miles) to the east of the application site.
The site lies within the Tributary Farmland character type as defined in North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (Supplementary Planning Document) (June
2009). This landscape type extends across the middle section of the District and is
characterised by an open landscape with long uninterrupted views comprised of
predominantly arable land-use. Prominent features of this mainly pastoral landscape
are cited as telecom towers, larger isolated farmsteads and houses and churches.
The overall condition of this Type is assessed as Fair to Moderate with a few good
areas.
The site lies within the sub-area defined as TF3 incorporating Hempstead, Bodham,
Aylmerton & Wickmere. The landscape character of this area is evaluated as being in a
Fair to Moderate condition with a Moderate strength of character. This is because the
majority of the landscape has been affected by commercial agricultural activity over
the past 50 years resulting in the removal of field boundaries which defined the
Development Committee
43
23 July 2015
underlying structure of a relatively old landscape, pre-dating the Enclosure movement
of the C18th & C19th. Where this has not occurred, the impression of an older
landscape is prevalent and the character is therefore much stronger. Outlying
hamlets and farmsteads around the site are defined as such an area.
According to the LCA, landscape area TF3 is moderately sensitive, depending on the
location within the area and the type of development proposed. It indicates that ‘Some
parts may be suitable for small scale wind turbine siting taking care not to place them
so prominently that they are apparent for miles (i.e. near the Cromer ridge)’.
Table 5.2 of the LCA, indicates that the open character and uninterrupted views within
the tributary farmland character type would suggest that the siting of wind turbines
within the more rural locations would be inappropriate. In respect of skyline it is
considered that wind turbines (and telecom masts) could have severe impacts in
certain areas.
The applicants have submitted reports and documents to support their proposal,
including a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA), prepared by Stephenson
Halliday Ltd, together with Visualisations from a number of Viewpoints which,
according to the Council’s appointed Heritage and Landscape Consultant (Beacon
Planning), have for the most part been carried out in accordance with recognised
professional best practice (Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd
edition, 2013, Landscape Institute and IEMA) (GVLIA 3). The 10km radius selected as
the study area incorporates 19 key viewpoints in order to assess the potential visual
and landscape effects.
The submitted LVIA concludes that the most significant landscape impact would be
local landscape in the vicinity of the turbine. Impact on landscape character (landscape
effects) is assessed by combining the degree of Magnitude of Change that would be
incurred by the development together with the Sensitivity of the landscape to a
distance of 1.5km from the site. The Magnitude of Change is assessed as Substantial
to Moderate, so much so that a new ‘landscape character sub-type’ is proposed which
is defined as ‘Tributary Farmland with Wind Turbine.
In contrast Beacon Planning has indicated that they consider 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. Furthermore the 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.
In response the applicants appointed landscape consultants Stephenson Halliday Ltd,
conclude that once operational the wind turbine would result in notable effects across
localised parts of the Tributary Farmland: Hempstead, Bodham, Aylmerton and
Wickmere LCA.
It is concluded that this proposal would 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 would therefore not comply with the requirements of
Policy EN2 as due to its location, scale as design it would fail to protect, conserve and,
where possible, enhance:
 the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character), and
Development Committee
44
23 July 2015

visually sensitive skylines, and the setting of, and views from, Conservation
Areas.
OTHER LANDSCAPE/ARBORICULTURAL IMPACTS
Other landscape impacts relate to the transportation of turbine components to site.
The submitted Planning Statement and Environmental Report which is accompanied
by a Transport Report by Collett Consulting indicates that the proposed turbine
delivery route would require a limited amount of works within the highway boundary
including tree removal and pruning, the temporary flattening of a splitter island, and
removal of some highway signs along the delivery route. However overall it is
suggested that there would be minimal disruption to road users during the
transportation of turbine components to the site.
Beacon Planning however has indicated that the effect caused by the delivery of
turbine towers and blades is underestimated and the clearance of trees, hedges and
shrubs and the widening of roads would result in a MAJOR / MODERATE ADVERSE
effect according to the methodology. They therefore suggest that the development
proposals would be very unsympathetic to the distinctive character and special
qualities of the area and as such the development would not accord with Policies EN2.
In response the applicants appointed landscape consultants Stephenson Halliday Ltd,
conclude that with reference to the Route Access Survey by Collett Consulting the
construction phase of the proposed development would result in limited trimming of
roadside vegetation along select sections of the nominated delivery route to ensure
adequate clearance. There would be no notable effect on the existing landscape
character.
SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
It is evident from the representations received that the surrounding landscape is
attractive and highly valued by local residents as open countryside. It is inevitable
given the scale and location of the turbine that it would be a prominent feature in the
landscape. The smooth sleek lines of the turbine and somewhat utilitarian appearance
would create a degree of harm in this essentially rural location with its smaller scale
and more traditional forms of development which rely to a large extent on local
materials that are more easily absorbed by the natural vegetation.
The key policy test within CS Policy EN 7 is whether the proposal would have
‘significant adverse effects’ whilst CS Policy EN 2 suggests that development
proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will
protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance, amongst other things, the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.
The LVIA concludes in 10,21 that the main landscape and visual effects associated
with the proposed turbine would be relatively localised and focused within
approximately 2km (reducing to 500m in a westerly direction based on screening by
localised tree cover /woodland. Furthermore, the LVIA concludes that the landscape
and visual effects associated with the proposed Selbrigg Wind Turbine would diminish
with increasing distance and that the proposed turbine would typically account for a
small angle of view within a broad landscape context.
The Council’s appointed Heritage and Landscape consultants Beacon Planning
conclude that this covers a large area of the AONB to the north. Furthermore 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
Development Committee
45
23 July 2015
turbine would be clearly seen from VP 3, 6, 7 and 10 and the effects on the AONB
would be extensive, well beyond 2km, and adverse. The proposal would adversely
affect the LCA – Tributary Farmland: Hempstead, Bodham, Aylmerton and Wickmere
LCA. 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.
In addition, the proposed turbine would have a considerable adverse effect on the
visual amenity experienced from the A148 which is a main tourist route through North
Norfolk. The A148 will be most significantly affected between High Kelling and
Bodham. Whilst Local PRoW and cycle routes would also be adversely affected.
Therefore, contrary to the conclusions of the submitted LVIA, the proposed 78m
turbine would incur harm to the landscape (particularly TF3) and the numerous
heritage assets and their settings that are intrinsic to those landscapes and to
receptors within these landscapes and Officers would concur with this view. The
proposal is therefore assessed as being contrary to Policies EN 2, EN 7 and EN 8.
In response the applicants appointed landscape consultants Stephenson Halliday Ltd,
conclude that the main landscape and visual effects associated with the proposed
turbine would be focused within approximately 2km (reducing to approximately 500m
in a westerly direction based on screening by localised tree cover / woodland). In terms
of effects on the AONB, this equates to the southern-most fringe of the AONB. Effects
would diminish at greater distance as illustrated at Viewpoints 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12
(located at distances of 3.2km, 3.7km, 5.0km, 5.6km and 7.7km from the proposed
turbine, where visibility would be limited to the upper part of the turbine and account for
a narrow angle of view). In line with best practice, the sensitivity of the AONB is
considered as High within the LVA. The suggestion within the Landscape Advice
document that the LVA has undervalued the sensitivity of the AONB has been clearly
disproven. It is important to note that there is no landscape objection by the Norfolk
Coast AONB Partnership to the proposed Selbrigg Wind Turbine.
The Selbrigg Wind Turbine would result in notable visual effects as experienced by
some residents in localised parts of Hempstead, Baconsthorpe and Bodham, road
users along localised sections of the A148 (between High Kelling and Bodham,
reducing notably in other sections), as well as recreational users of the local PRoW
network and cycle routes (localised sections) and visitors to Baconsthorpe Castle and
Baconsthorpe Hall. The conclusions presented in the LVA are fully justified, and are
backed up by the description of effects in the written report, augmented by the
visualisations where relevant.
The applicants landscape consultants consider that the Landscape Advice document
is in agreement with several of the findings, although disputes others. In all cases, the
suggestions within the Landscape Advice document are misinformed or
unsubstantiated with any description as to how the conclusions were reached. As
such, the findings within the Landscape Advice document lack clarity and do not
accord with best practice for landscape and visual assessment. This includes an
over-reliance on the ZTV to determine effects on landscape character (with no mention
of key characteristics as described within the Landscape Character Assessment of
North Norfolk); and the suggestion that the Selbrigg Wind Turbine would detract from
the scenic qualities of the AONB, despite the fact that it provides no description of what
these special qualities are, or how they would be detracted from. The Landscape
Advice document also presents confused and contradictory messages in relation to
receptor sensitivity, fails to assess the correct turbine at Vpt 12 and incorporates
potentially misleading terminology throughout.
Development Committee
46
23 July 2015
Notwithstanding the criticism expressed by the applicants landscape consultants,
Beacon planning stand by their comments and concerns they have raised.
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
As far as the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which is 1.3km distant
at the closest point, the LVIA assesses this as Major/Moderate (i.e. significant) in
localised areas, dropping to Moderate overall.
Whilst the proposal site is not within an AONB, it lies approximately 1km south of the
boundary and there is a significant area where the turbine and blades are likely to be
visible within the AONB.
Beacon Planning has indicated that the (GLVIA 3) 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.
There LVIA includes five viewpoints taken from within the AONB, which illustrate the
visual effects, and the likely effects on the landscape character of the AONB which is
one of an undeveloped and unspoilt character. These include views from the south
west of Bodham, Kelling and Salthouse Heaths, the junction of the A148 / A1082
Sheringham (Holway Road) and the A148 at Roman Camp Public house Aylmerton.
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. It is considered that the LVIA undervalues the sensitivity of the receptor.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development would 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. As a result the
proposed wind turbine would detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast
AONB.
Taking all of these considerations into account Officers are of the opinion that, contrary
to the conclusions of the submitted LVIA, the proposed 76m turbine would incur harm
to the landscape and the numerous heritage assets and their settings that are intrinsic
to those landscapes and to receptors within these landscapes. The proposal is
therefore assessed as being contrary to Policies EN1, EN 2 and EN 7.
The Committee should therefore weigh the harm inherent in this proposal against the
public benefits, in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 8
(Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment), which states:
Development Committee
47
23 July 2015
‘Development proposals…should preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that
would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not
be permitted’.
The Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay “special attention” to the
“desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings, and the character and
appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of preserving the
settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas
are not mere material considerations to which any weight can be attached. When a
local authority finds that a proposed development would harm the setting of a listed
building or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm
considerable importance and weight. There is effectively a statutory presumption
against planning permission being granted. That presumption can, however, be
outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so, including the public
benefits of a proposal.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the NPPF, which
specifically addresses the need for conserving and enhancing the historic environment
at paragraphs 126 – 141.
In particular paragraph 132 states:
‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require
clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed
building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of
designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,
protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II*
registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional’.
Paragraph 133 states:
‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse
consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary
to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the
following apply:
 the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site;
and
 no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term
through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
 conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public
ownership is demonstrably not possible; and
 the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into
use’.
Development Committee
48
23 July 2015
Paragraph 134 states:
‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’.
Although the NPPF is expressed in terms of balance rather than expressly referring to
issues of weight and significance, the High Court has held that local authorities must
approach the decision in a way that is consistent with sections 66(1) and 72 of the
1990 Act, and therefore that the question should not be addressed as a simple
balancing exercise, but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in
favour of preservation.
The NPPF defines setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is
experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings
evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the
significance of an asset, and may affect the ability to appreciate the significance or
may be neutral. Significance is defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and
future generations because of its heritage interest. Significance derives not only from a
heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.
The NPPF requires local plans to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of the historic environment. It recognises that heritage assets are an
irreplaceable resource and they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their
significance. The significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost through
alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.
Heritage England guidance, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), advises that
‘setting embraces all the surroundings from which the heritage asset can be
experienced or that can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have a
fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially
bounded area or as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset.’ The construction of
a distant but a high structure such as a wind turbine may extend what was previously
understood to comprise setting. Development within the immediate or extended setting
may affect significance, particularly where it is large-scale, prominent or intrusive.
The Heritage England document Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for
the sustainable management of the historic environment articulates the value of
heritage for its evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. However, the
importance of aesthetic and communal value is not taken through into recent
Government policy in the NPPF.
There are many designated heritage assets within 5 km of the application site including
scheduled ancient monuments, 4 grade I listed buildings, 20 grade II* listed buildings,
213 grade II listed buildings, 6 conservation areas and 4 registered parks and gardens.
In particular these include:





Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe Hall) - Scheduled Ancient
Monument, Grade I listed building (Castle), Grade II listed building (Hall) Grade
II listed (barn).
Red House – Hempstead – Grade II listed
Church of All Saints – Hempstead – Grade II listed
St. Andrews Church – Holt – Grade II listed
Voewood – High Kelling – Historic Parks and Gardens registered Grade II* -
Development Committee
49
23 July 2015











Grade II* listed building
St. Mary’s Church Baconsthorpe – Grade II* listed
Barningham Hall – Grade I listed, Grade II* listed (adjacent buildings), Historic
Parks and Gardens registered Grade II
St. Mary’s - Barningham Winter Church – Grade II* listed
All Saints Church – Bodham – Grade II* listed
St. Peters Church – North Barningham – Grade II* listed
St. Michael – Plumstead – Grade II* listed
St. Helen & All Saints Church – West Beckham – Unlisted
All Saints Church (Site Of) – West Beckham – Grade II listed
Hempstead Conservation Area
Baconsthorpe Conservation Area
Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area
In considering the impact on heritage assets, a number of consultations were
undertaken including with Heritage England, Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Services and with the Council’s appointed Heritage and Landscape
Consultant (Beacon Planning). Copies of consultation replies are attached in full at
Appendices 5, 6 and 10.
It should be noted that Heritage England has suggested that in order to satisfy the
requirements of paragraph 128 of the NPPF the applicant be requested to provide
additional information in respect of the potential impact of the setting of Voewood and
does not considered the views from within the site at Baconsthorpe to be
representative.
In respect of the proposed turbine site in relation to below ground archaeology, Historic
Environment Services has indicated that the impact is likely to be negligible.
Furthermore whilst they consider 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, they do not go as far as to say that the harm is substantial.
Heritage England guidance The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011) advises that ‘setting
embraces all the surroundings from which the heritage asset can be experienced or
that can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have a fixed boundary
and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or
as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset.’ The construction of a distant but a
high structure such as a wind turbine may extend what was previously understood to
comprise setting. Development within the immediate or extended setting may affect
significance, particularly where it is large-scale, prominent or intrusive.
The English Heritage document Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the
sustainable management of the historic environment articulates the value of heritage
for its evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. However, the importance of
aesthetic and communal value is not taken through into recent Government policy in
the Framework.
Turning now to specific heritage assets:
Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe Hall) – (1.3 Km from the site)
– The applicant has set out that, in their opinion, ‘… There will be no effect on the ability
to appreciate the architectural or historic interest of the castle, or the relationship
between the building and its surrounding landscape. However there will be a change to
Development Committee
50
23 July 2015
the isolated rural character of the surrounding landscape to some degree due to the
presence of the wind turbine and its presence would be an addition to the character of
the area rather than a change to the character itself. The wind turbine will be visible to
varying degrees in views looking out from the castle. However the listed barn and the
modern barn will block the view of the wind turbine in views from the car park and the
external gateway. All other views of and from the castle will be unaffected by the
presence of the wind turbine. The proposed wind turbine will be intermittently visible
behind Baconsthorpe Castle as an observer approaches the castle along the track
from Baconsthorpe. It will also be visible at or just above hub height to the north west in
a number of places within the scheduled area/listed building In such views, the wind
turbine will act as a distraction to an observer approaching or within the castle and its
immediate environs. The turbine may draw an observer’s view away from the
designated assets. The castle will no longer be experienced in quite such isolation as it
is currently. Due to the above, it is considered that the presence of the wind turbine will
have moderate effect on the setting of the castle. It will reduce the contribution that the
isolated nature of the castle and its setting has to the significance. However, this will
not have a material effect on the significance of the designated asset itself which
primarily derives from factors that will be unaffected by the presence of the wind
turbine”.
Heritage England considers this to be a highly graded heritage asset, of exceptional
archaeological and architectural value. It is both designated as a Scheduled
Monument and is a highly graded listed building. Likewise it is also a guardianship
property, open to the public on a daily basis. They suggest that at present the
landscape context forms a part of the setting of the asset and makes a considerable
contribution to the significance of the asset. The unchanged rural location is part give
the site's charm and is an integral part of the visitor experience. At present it is possible
to view the site in a traditional mixed agricultural landscape largely unencumbered by
modern interventions. If the turbine were built, it would be both visible on the approach
to the site and critically in a considerable number of views from within the site. Heritage
England’s view is that the development of a turbine will have a detrimental impact on
the significance of the asset at this location, and that it is likely to bring a considerable
degree of harm to the asset. The application should therefore be refused as it fails the
test of paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Whilst Beacon Planning, having assessed the impact of the wind turbine on
Baconsthorpe Castle confirm that from the wireframe images provided that the turbine
will be visible from the castle site, which as they point out extends beyond the
scheduled area inner castle area, covering the castle and gatehouse remains, the
mere, moat and the area that is now the visitor car park to the south. Furthermore, they
point out that as recognised in the Heritage Assessment that Baconsthorpe Castle was
deliberately built in a rural, isolated location, and therefore its landscape setting away
from built development makes a positive contribution to its significance.
From Viewpoint 15 which they presume to be close to the bridge looking approximately
due west towards the application site they consider that a blades will be more visible
over the top of the hedge line than the viewpoint suggests as the image was taken in
summer. From Viewpoint 16 taken from within the curtain walls (Grade I listed and
scheduled) 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). Whilst when
approaching the asset along the access track, which offers views to the castle along
most of its length and provides the main access for visitors as indicated from
Viewpoint 14 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
Development Committee
51
23 July 2015
very much a dominant element in the view, competing with and distracting from the
historic structure. Similarly from Viewpoint 17 taken from the start of the driveway (and
within Baconsthorpe Conservation Area), the turbine would be particularly pronounced
in with all three blades visible above the treeline.
As a result Beacon Planning considers that the appearance of the turbine, particularly
due to its turning blades would be a distraction, flickering above the standing remains
and visible from the access track. This would erode the intimate nature and sense of
enclosure experienced when standing within the castle ruins and also it’s setting in the
wider landscape with one’s attention being drawn to a modern structure placed some
distance outside of the site. The Heritage Assessment submitted as part of the
application 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’. The assessment concludes that the
proposals will reduce the contribution that the setting makes to its significance.
Beacon Planning concludes that 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 would have a
moderate effect and less than substantial harm would arise. Beacon Planning agree
that the harm caused will fall within the ‘less than substantial’ bracket; nonetheless it
would be significant and would affect heritage assets of the highest significance.
In response to the comments received from Heritage England and Beacon Planning
the applicant’s heritage consultants acknowledge the fact that in some places, the
visibility will be greater than as in the photomontages produced and less in others
where factors such as trees and other vegetation screen/filter views toward the castle
from the east of the castle. However they suggest that that this harm is less than
substantial. Consequently, the scheme has to be decided using the test as laid out in
para 134, which is, where there is harm to designated heritage assets, this harm
should be weighed against the public benefits arising from a proposed development.
Heritage England state in their letter that the proposed wind turbine is contrary to para
134 of the NPPF. This implies, but does not state, that the effect on the castle is not
outweighed by the benefits (i.e. renewable energy). This planning balance is required
to be undertaken by the local planning authority not Historic England.
In response to this additional information Heritage England reiterates its previous
concerns.
Beacon Planning also continue to express concerns.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, there is consensus that the
turbine would have a significantly adverse impact on Baconsthorpe Castle (which is a
Scheduled Ancient Monument and also includes Grade I (Castle) and Grade II (Hall)
listed buildings Whilst this harm amounts to ‘less than substantial harm’ under the
NPPF (paragraphs 133 and 134), the harm is still considered to be significant given the
impacts identified above. Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section
66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the
setting of Baconsthorpe Castle, and there is a presumption against planning
permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the
degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider
whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal
(including renewable energy benefits).
Development Committee
52
23 July 2015
Red House – Hempstead (730 m from the site)
The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…There will be no effect on the ability to
appreciate the architectural or historic interest of the house or on it character or the
relationship between the building and its surrounding landscape. The wind turbine will
be located within the periphery of the setting of Red House and although visible from
the house, in many locations within the setting, views of the wind turbine will be
restricted or blocked by the adjacent farm buildings. The turbine will be a change within
the setting but it will be within an area that has a relatively limited contribution to the
significance of the house. This
will not have a material effect on the significance of the designated asset itself which
primarily derives from factors that will be unaffected by the presence of the wind
turbine.
As the property is listed Grade II Heritage England has made no comment.
Beacon Planning have indicated that as the closest designated heritage asset to the
application site it is surprising 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
early C18 farmhouse and its collection of both historic and modern farm buildings, of
which those that pre-date July 1948 are likely to be curtilage listed.
Furthermore they consider that the Heritage Assessment of the setting of the
farmhouse which 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,
is underestimated due 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.
In response to the comments received from Beacon Planning the applicant’s heritage
consultants accept that due to the relatively close distance of the turbine, there will be
a change in the setting that will be perceptible from the house and its environs.
However, they suggest the significance of the farmhouse resides primarily within its
architectural interest and will be unaffected by the turbine. Whilst the fields within
which the turbine will be located will still have a positive contribution to the significance
as they have a historic and functional association with the farmhouse. As such whilst
the proposal would result in some harm to the heritage asset’s setting, this is
considered to be less than substantial and therefore the NPPF para 234 test is
relevant.
Officers consider that although this is the nearest listed building to the site given that
the property is separated from the site by modern agricultural buildings to its northern
boundary whilst the Proposed wind turbine would have some impact on its setting this
would not result in significant harm to the heritage asset. In light of the duty in section
66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the
Development Committee
53
23 July 2015
setting of Red House, and there is a presumption against planning permission being
granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to
the setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this
presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable
energy benefits).
Church of All Saints – Hempstead (1.6 Km from the site)
The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…There will be no effect on the ability to
appreciate the architectural or historic interest of the church or on its character or the
relationship between the building and its village and the wider landscape. Due to the
blocking effect of the trees to the north of the church, the wind turbine will not be visible
from the churchyard other than in winter, when it is possible that the wind turbine may
be slightly discernible in the distance through the trees in a few limited locations within
the churchyard. The proposed wind turbine lies to the north of the church where the
wider landscape does not contribute to the significance of the church due to the
restricting of views out of the village by trees another vegetation. However, this will
have no effect on the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of the
church. As such there would be a negligible effect on the churches significance.
Heritage England and Beacon Planning have not commented on this asset.
Officers consider that it is likely that the top of the turbine would be seen from the
churchyard, particularly due to the motion of the blades, resulting in a degree of harm
to the significance of the asset. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act
1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of the Church of
All Saints, and there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The
strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting of
the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy
benefits).
St. Andrews Church – Holt (2.7 Km from the site)
Heritage England and Beacon Planning have not commented on this asset.
Officers consider that whilst the upper half of the turbine may be visible from the south
east corner of the churchyard, particularly due to the motion of the blades, given the
separation distance of some 1.5 km and modern development closer to the church, the
proposal would not result in harm to the significance of the asset or its setting. In light
of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is
engaged by the harm to the setting of St. Andrews Church, and there is a presumption
against planning permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee
will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of
the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Voewood – High Kelling – Historic Parks and Gardens registered Grade II* - Grade
II* listed building (1.5 Km from the site)
The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…The significance of these assets lies
with the architectural and historic quality of the main building in conjunction with the
Edwardian designed garden. The setting which contributes to the significance of the
asset is largely contained within the triangular layout of the registered park and garden
itself. There is extensive woodland between these assets and the proposed wind
turbine. As such views of the assets would not be affected by the proposed
development. Although it is possible that the wind turbine may be seen from a limited
number of upper windows to the house. The effect on the significance of the listed
Development Committee
54
23 July 2015
building would be negligible.
Heritage England – Has indicated that the primary concern is that the front of the
house faces directly towards the turbine and therefore it would potentially 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. They are
therefore concerned that the development of a turbine could harm the significance of
the asset and that without photomontages and an assessment this impact is difficult to
assess and as such the application fails to satisfy the requirement of paragraph 128 of
the NPPF.
Beacon Planning (original comments) notes that the Heritage Statement suggests that
from the upper floors of Voewood there may be some visibility of the proposed turbine.
They therefore suggest that 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.
In response to the request for further information the applicant’s heritage consultant’s
having indicated that having accessed the upper floors of the house and taking into
account the height of the surrounding trees the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)
demonstrates that even in the winter the wind turbine will not be visible, even from the
top floor windows of the house. Therefore, there will be a negligible effect on the
setting and significance of the house, its associated listed buildings and the Registered
Park and Garden.
In response to this additional information Heritage England accepts that the analysis
appears to rule out any visibility from the house and is happy to accept this conclusion
provided that the Council are satisfied with the analysis.
Beacon Planning (further comments) also now agree that the impact will be limited.
St Mary’s Church Baconsthorpe (2.6 Km from the site)
The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…There will be no effect on the ability to
appreciate the architectural or historic interest of the church or on it character or the
relationship between the building and its village and the wider landscape. Although
theoretically visible, the blocking effect of adjacent buildings and trees means that the
wind turbine will not be visible from the church. Overall there will be a negligible effect
on the contribution that the setting provides to the significance of the church.
Heritage England has made no direct reference to Baconsthorpe Church other than to
state that 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.
Beacon Planning – Has made no a direct reference to Baconsthorpe Church other
than to indicate that there are a number of other heritage assets in proximity to the site
within the zone of theoretical view and that whilst there may be some impact on these
are considered to be limited.
Development Committee
55
23 July 2015
Officers are of the opinion that given the location of the church relative to the site,
together with intervening development, that it is unlikely that the proposed turbine
would be visible from Baconsthorpe Church. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the
LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of St
Mary’s Church, and there is a presumption against planning permission being granted.
The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the
setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this
presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable
energy benefits).
Barningham Hall – Historic Parks and Gardens registered Grade II* - Grade I listed
building (5.0 Km from the site)
– The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…The Registered Parks and Gardens
(RPG) effectively acts as the setting for the house and hall and it has a strong positive
contribution to the significance of the hall and church. Due to the topography views out
beyond the park are largely restricted to within the boundaries of the RPG. However,
the skyline for both assets lies beyond the RPG boundaries. The RPG lies in area
arable farming which has a mildly positive contribution to the RPG as it located it within
a rural context. Theoretically the wind turbine is just visible at hub height on the
horizon. However, when the effect of intervening vegetation is taken into account, the
trees on the horizon will block the view of the turbine. Therefore, there will be no effect
on the contribution that the RPG’s setting makes to its significance. The same
conclusion applies to Barningham Hall and St Mary’s church.
Heritage England and Beacon Planning have not commented on this asset.
Officers consider that due to the motion of the turbine blades, the upper half of the
turbine is likely to be visible from the north western edge of the historic park, as
indicated in Viewpoint 8, of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility Analysis. However, due to
the scale and distance, together with the undulating nature of the landscape and
intervening landscape features, the impact of the propose development on the setting
of Barningham Hall and its grounds whist resulting in some harm to the significance of
the house and the parkland this harm is ‘less than substantial”.
It is therefore considered that refusal on the grounds of substantial harm to the Grade II
registered parkland of Barningham Hall could not be justified. In light of the duty in
section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm
to the setting of Barningham Hall, and there is a presumption against planning
permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the
degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider
whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal
(including renewable energy benefits).
St. Mary’s - Barningham Winter Church (4.8 Km from the site)
The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…See comments fro Barningham Hall
above.
Heritage England and Beacon Planning have not commented on this asset.
Officers consider due to the scale and distance, together with the undulating nature of
the landscape and intervening landscape features, the proposal would not result in
significant harm of this heritage asset. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA
Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of St. Mary’s
Church, and there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The
Development Committee
56
23 July 2015
strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting of
the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy
benefits).
All Saints Church – Bodham (1.7 Km from the site)
– The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…There will be no effect on the ability
to appreciate the architectural or historic interest of the church or on it character or the
relationship between the building and its village and the wider landscape. Views of the
turbine from the churchyard will be restricted/blocked by trees and other vegetation.
The church tower can be seen from most directions from the surrounding area. The
wind turbine will not feature in the majority of these views. However, theoretically, the
view of the church from the southern end of Hart Lane will include the turbine either
behind or beside the church tower. However, Hart Lane is lined by tall hedges and
trees that block views of the church tower for most of its length. In this view, due to the
angle of vision, the turbine will be at least 45 degrees to the right of the church and
behind tall trees. In winter it may be possible to discern some movement behind the
trees but the domination of the church in this view will not be challenged. Views of the
church are not possible at the southern end of Hart Lane due to very tall hedges. Views
toward the church from the lane onto which the church faces are limited to a small
stretch of the road c. 70m to the east of the church. In this view, the turbine will be
blocked by the church and the trees on the western side of the church. Overall there
will be minor effects on the contribution that the setting provides to the significance of
the church.
Heritage England – Having indicated that All Saints Church, Bodham is an important
early Norman grade II* listed parish church with a tall 14th century tower situated in an
isolated and open countryside setting to the south of the main village with views toward
the turbine from within the churchyard and from the surviving doorway in the west front.
As such they are primarily concerned that the kinetic circular motion of the blades and
the ultra-modern form of the turbine would erode the significance and rural character
and of the church and distract from it appreciation. Furthermore, they consider that the
magnitude of harm to Bodham Church and other heritage assets is higher than is
expressed in the application. They are therefore concerned that the development of a
turbine at this location would harm the significance of the asset through a development
within its setting and that the magnitude of the impact would represent a high level of
harm.
Beacon Planning – Has made no a direct reference to Bodham Church other than to
indicate that there are a number of other heritage assets in proximity to the site within
the zone of theoretical view and that whilst there may be some impact on these are
considered to be limited.
In response the applicant’s heritage consultant’s points to the fact that Beacon
Panning’s report does not make any reference to Bodham Church. Whilst in respect of
the concerns raised by Heritage England they suggest that their original assessment
took fully into account both the view from the churchyard and also views toward the
church from elsewhere. Due to the possibility that the turbine will be visible in some
limited places, the assessment concluded that there will be a minor effect on the
significance of the church and as this is a less than substantial effect and therefore the
NPPF para 134 test is relevant.
In response to this additional information Heritage England reiterates its previous
concerns that this landscape is susceptible to change and therefore, changes here
would be harmful to the significance of the church.
Development Committee
57
23 July 2015
Officers consider that there would be some harm to setting of Bodham Parish Church
with the wind turbine blades being visible from within the churchyard. In light of the duty
in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the
harm to the setting of All Saints Church Bodham, and there is a presumption against
planning permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee
will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of
the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
St. Peters Church – North Barningham (4.4 Km from the site)
– The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…As the church is outside the ZTV
there will be no effect on the setting or significance of this designated asset.
Heritage England and Beacon Planning have not commented on this asset.
Officers consider that although it is likely that the upper half of the turbine may be
visible to the north north west, given the separation distance of some 4.3 km, coupled
with intervening landscape features the impact on the setting of St. Peters Church
would not be significant and would not adversely affect this heritage asset. In light of
the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged
by the harm to the setting of St. Peters Church, and there is a presumption against
planning permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee
will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of
the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
St. Michael – Plumstead (4.3 Km from the site)
– The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘… Although this church lies within the
ZTV, the wind turbine will be obscured by trees in the area of St Mary’s Church,
Baconsthorpe on the horizon the north west. St Mary’s Church itself cannot be seen in
this view as it is obscured by trees. Therefore, due to the lack of intervisibility, the wind
turbine will have no impact on the setting and significance of St Michael’s church.
Heritage England and Beacon Planning have not commented on this asset.
Officers consider that although it is likely that the upper half of the turbine may be
visible given the separation distance the impact on the setting of St. Nicholas Church
would not be significant and would not adversely harm this heritage asset. In light of
the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged
by the harm to the setting of St. Nicholas Church, and there is a presumption against
planning permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee
will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of
the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Other Heritage Assets
Baconsthorpe Conservation Area (1.6 Km from the site at its closest point)
– The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…The Conservation Area also
includes St. Mary’s Church Baconsthorpe and Manor House which form the core of the
earlier part of the settlement and are slightly detached from the main village. The wider
setting, within which the wind turbine would be located, makes a relatively limited
contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area and will not have a material
effect on the significance of this asset as a whole.
Development Committee
58
23 July 2015
Heritage England has indicated that it considers that the proposed wind turbine would
have a negative impact on the Baconsthorpe Conservation Area.
Beacon Planning has confirmed that it agrees with the Heritage Assessment which
indicates that the setting of Baconsthorpe Conservation Area is one of countryside and
that this rural context contributes to the significance of the Conservation Area.
However they question the statement that although the turbine is located ‘beyond the
setting’, as it will be seen from the Conservation Area, ‘it is considered to fall within the
setting’. Beacon planning points to the Heritage England’s guidance document, The
Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), which 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. Beacon Planning therefore suggests that It is
reasonable to assume 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.
Furthermore, although the Heritage Assessment acknowledges that the wind turbine
would result in change Beacon Planning do not agree with the view that it would not
materially affect the significance of the Conservation Area. To the contrary they
consider that the appearance of a modern structure with moving blades in views
across the Conservation Area to the surroundings beyond would detract from the rural
setting of the village, and would distract from the glimpsed views gained of the castle.
This harm is considered to be less than substantial.
In response the applicant’s heritage consultant’s seek to clarify the point made by
Beacon Planning that as the turbine will be seen from the Conservation Area, and
should be considered to be within its setting. They state that their original assessment,
which stated that the wind turbine would be outside of the setting of the Conservation
Area was making the point that the ground on which the turbine will be located is
considered to be beyond the setting. Consequently, if significantly lower development,
such as a house/barn, was proposed in this location, it would be outside the setting of
the Conservation Area. However, in this instance, due to the height of the turbine, it will
be visible from the Conservation Area, and consequently is within the setting.
Therefore, the assessment was undertaken with full acceptance that the wind turbine
will be visible and therefore have a minor effect on the Conservation Area. This is a
less than substantial effect and therefore the NPPF para 234 test is relevant.
In response to the additional information Heritage England has reiterated its previous
concerns that the development would have a harmful impact upon the setting of the
Baconsthorpe Conservation Areas, and that the harm is less than substantial.
Beacon Planning stand by their previously raised concerns.
Officers consider that the turbine, which would be less that 1.6 km from the northern
edge of the Baconsthorpe Conservation Area, would be readily visible from this
heritage asset, being seen across open fields. As such there is likely to be less than
substantial harm to the setting of Baconsthorpe Conservation Area. In light of the duty
in section 72 of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm
to the character and appearance of the conservation area, and there is a presumption
against planning permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the character and appearance of the conservation
Development Committee
59
23 July 2015
area. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by
the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Hempstead Conservation Area (1.4 Km from the site at its closest point)
– The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…The village is inward looking with
views out from the Conservation Area being fairly limited and the wider countryside
has a limited contribution to its significance. The wind turbine would result in negligible
harm to the heritage significance of the asset.
Heritage England has not referred to the Hempstead Conservation Area.
Beacon Planning – Has made no a direct reference to the Hempstead Conservation
Area other than to indicate that there are a number of other heritage assets in proximity
to the site within the zone of theoretical view and that whilst there may be some impact
on these are considered to be limited.
Officers consider the turbine blades would be visible from the northern edge of the
Conservation Area as illustrated in Viewpoint 1 of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility
Analysis and would, due to the motion of the blades have a disturbing impact on the
appearance of landscape. As such the proposal would have some have a harmful
impact on this heritage asset. In light of the duty in section 72 of the LBCA Act 1990,
the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the character and appearance of
the Hempstead Conservation Area, and there is a presumption against planning
permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the
degree of harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The
Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public
benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area (820 m from the site at its closest point)
– The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…The wind turbine will be visible from
a number places within the Conservation Area. However, due to the distances
involved, it will have no effect on the significance of the vast majority of the
Conservation Area. It is only where the Conservation Area comes relatively close that
the wind turbine will have any effect at all on its significance.
Heritage England has not referred to the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
Beacon Planning notes that the Heritage Assessment acknowledges that the wind
turbine will be visible in views outwards from the Conservation Area, and suggests that
it is only from these locations that there would be any impact. Beacon Planning
suggests that the assessment has 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. However notwithstanding
the above, they consider that whilst the wind turbine 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.
Officers consider that the wind turbine would become the defining characteristic of this
landscape area, being visible from a considerable distance from a number of
viewpoints and would due to the motion of the blades have a disturbing impact on the
appearance of the landscape. As such the proposal would have some harmful impact
on this heritage asset. In light of the duty in section 72 of the LBCA Act 1990, the
statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the character and appearance of the
conservation area, and there is a presumption against planning permission being
granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to
Development Committee
60
23 July 2015
the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area. The
Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public
benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Sheringham Park (3.5 Km from the site)
Officers do not consider that the proposed turbine would have any adverse impact on
the setting of this asset which is screened from the west by a large conifer plantation so
that clear views of the turbine would be unlikely.
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
Having considered the applicant’s Heritage Assessment, as well as the advice from
English Heritage, County Council Historic Environment Services and the Council’s
appointed Heritage Consultants (Beacon Planning) and having taken account of other
material considerations, it is considered that the proposed turbine would result in a less
than substantial, but yet significant, level of harm to:
 the setting of Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe Hall), a
Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade I listed building (Castle), Grade II listed
building (Hall), an extensive and highly valued heritage asset. In officers’ view,
the harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a strong presumption
against the granting of planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that
there would need to be compelling public benefits in favour of the turbine to
override this presumption;
In addition, based on the information available it is considered that the proposal would
have a harmful impact on:-
 the setting of All Saints Church – Bodham, a Grade II* listed medieval parish
church. The location of the church is typical of many of the medieval churches
in the area. In officers’ view, the harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives
rise to a strong presumption against the granting of planning permission.
Officer advice therefore is that there would need to be cogent public benefits in
favour of the turbine to override this presumption;
 the setting of The Red House, Hempstead,
a Grade II listed building
farmhouse dating from the early C18. In officers’ view, the harm to the setting
of this heritage asset gives rise to a presumption against the granting of
planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that there would need to be
cogent public benefits in favour of the turbine to override this presumption;
 the setting of Baconsthorpe Conservation Area, arising from views of the
turbine from the conservation area. In officers’ view, the harm to the character
and appearance of this conservation area gives rise to a presumption against
the granting of planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that there
would need to be cogent public benefits in favour of the turbine to override this
presumption;
 the character and appearance of Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area,
arising from the view of the turbine from a number of viewpoints. In officers’
view, the harm to the character and appearance of this conservation area
gives rise to a mild presumption against the granting of planning permission.
Officer advice therefore is that there would need to be public benefits in favour
of the turbine to override this presumption;
Development Committee
61
23 July 2015
Furthermore, at the present time this part of North Norfolk the landscape is unaffected
by the scale or dimensions of man-made structures of this type. Currently and for
generations Baconsthorpe Castle, Hempstead Church and All Saints Bodham have
provided the main points of references or landmarks in what has become an historic
landscape. Should this proposal be accepted the turbine would dominate the setting
of the named assets above and this landscape.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The turbine would be sited in a predominantly rural area. The only property within
500m of the proposed turbine is Selbrigg Cottage, 280m to the north, which is owned
and occupied by the applicant, with a further 12 properties within a 1 km radius.
These are as follows:To the north of the site:
‘Highfield House’ at approximately 586m
‘Hurricane Farm Barn’ at approximately 684m
‘Hurricane Farm Bungalow’ at approximately 695m
‘85 Kelling Road’ at approximately 877m;
‘Hill House Farm Cottage’ at approximately 878m
‘Hill House’ at approximately 915m, and
‘86 Kelling Road’ at approximately 926m.
To the north north east of the site:
‘Church Farm Cottage’ at approximately 804m; and
‘Church Farm House’ at approximately 894m.
To the south south west of the site:
‘Red House’ at approximately 738m.
To the south east of the site:
‘Beckett’s Farm Cottage at approximately 848m, and
‘Beckett’s Farm’ at approximately 879m.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY – VISUAL INTRUSION
At present there are a number of vertical masts in the area including a 65m high lattice
tower to the east of the application site, known as Cock Point Radio Mast (located at
98m AOD) and a lattice telecommunications mast at Camp Farm approximately 35m
high, (located at approximately 94m AOD).
Notwithstanding the presence of the existing masts which sit on higher land at 98m
AOD compared with 62m AOD for the proposed turbine, the addition of a wind turbine
with a hub height of 50m and a height to blade tip of 78m would inevitably be visible to
a number of residents in the vicinity of the site. In addition, the prevailing winds would
be likely to present a significant proportion of the turbine blades to the closest residents
to the north and east along with the associated visual impact of rotating blades.
The closest residential property ‘Selbrigg Cottage” which is owned and occupied by
the applicant is situated to the north of the site and is screened from the site by a small
mature conifer wood. Other properties to the north including, Hurricane Farm Barn,
Hurricane Farm Bungalow, Highfield House, Hill House, Hill House Farm Cottage, 85
and 86 Kelling Road would be unlikely to see the turbine due to a large expanse of
woodland to the south of these properties, known as Old Decoy Plantation and The
Lows.
Development Committee
62
23 July 2015
To the north north east it is possible that the tip of the blades might be visible from
Church Farm and Church Farm House however again views would be partially masked
by tree cover at The Lows and Snow Hill.
Whilst from Red House to the south south west the upper half of the turbine would be
visible above Upper Fir Covert, even from here views from the main house would be
partially obscured by farm buildings immediately to the north of the house.
The principle views of the turbine would be from the south and south east. Those
properties at the junction of the Holt Road and Hempstead Street, some 1.2 km from
the site would see the upper half of the wind turbine. Whilst from Beckett’s and
Beckett’s Farm Cottage to the south east it is likely, that the with the exception of a
small section of the mast which would be screened by field hedging, the full extent of
the turbine would be visible.
In addition, it is possible that many of the other properties in the immediate vicinity
would also see the turbine but this view would, in many cases, be interspersed by
existing trees or would comprise a partial view of the turbine.
Whilst the turbine would be clearly visible to many local residents as a tall structure in
the landscape and could interrupt existing views, it is considered that the proposal
would not result in significant overbearing impacts, particularly given the general
distances from the turbine base to residential properties, the closest resident, with the
exception of Selbrigg Cottage being approximately 738m away.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - NOISE AND GENERAL DISTURBANCE
When considering issues relating to noise and general disturbance, the Committee is
advised to take account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and also
advice within Policy EN 13 (Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation) which
states:
‘All development proposals should minimise, and where possible reduce, all emissions
and other forms of pollution, including light and noise pollution…Proposals will only be
permitted where, individually or cumulatively, there are no unacceptable impacts on
[amongst other things] the natural environment and general amenity; health and safety
of the public; and the need for compliance with statutory environmental quality
standards.
Exceptions will only be made where it can be clearly demonstrated that the
environmental benefits of the development and the wider social and economic need for
the development outweigh the adverse impact’.
In respect of noise, paragraph 123 of the NPPF includes the general aim that planning
policies and decisions should avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse
impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development. Paragraph 124
goes on to seek that planning policies sustain compliance with and contribute towards
EU limit values and national objectives for pollutants (which may include noise). A
footnote refers to the national Noise Policy Statement for England (2010) (NPSE)
which seeks to promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective
management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable
development. Its aims seek to both avoid significant adverse impacts and to mitigate
and minimise adverse impacts. Its Explanatory Note refers to how significant adverse
effects might be defined but acknowledges that it is not possible to have a single
objective noise-based measure that is applicable to all sources of noise in all
Development Committee
63
23 July 2015
situations. No such measure is offered and further research is advised. In that context
the main national policy on control of noise from wind farms was previously set out in
the former PPS22 and its Companion Guide. However this was replaced in March
2014 with the online Planning Practice Guidance.
The Planning Practice Guidance sets out at Paragraph: 015 Reference ID:
5-015-20140306 that the ETSU-R-97 report – ‘The assessment and rating of noise
from windfarms’ ETSU for the DTI (1996) (ETSU) should be used by local planning
authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments. Good
practice guidance on noise assessments of wind farms has been prepared by the
Institute Of Acoustics. The Department of Energy and Climate Change accept that it
represents current industry good practice and endorses it as a supplement to
ETSU-R-97’.
ETSU-R-97 gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of
protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind
farm development. The ETSU report recommended limits to turbine noise as
summarised below:




Normally, 5 dB above background subject to lower limiting values of:
Daytime: 35 to 40 dBA in low noise environments (e.g. rural areas)
Night time: 43 dBA, assuming bedroom window(s) open
(Limiting values defined as LA90,10mins,free-field)
It follows that compliance with ETSU recommended noise limits should avoid noise
from giving rise to significant adverse impacts.
The applicant has submitted a noise assessment in relation to noise. A copy of the
Environmental Protection Officer comments are available at Appendix 13.
Whilst a number of residents have raised concerns about noise impacts and the
validity of using ETSU, together with concerns about its effectiveness as way of
minimising noise impacts in relation to larger wind turbines, until such time as
government guidance indicates otherwise, the ETSU guidance remains valid and is
used by the Planning Inspectorate when determining wind turbine appeals.
The Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed, subject to the imposition of
conditions, that the proposal complies with the requirements of ETSU-r-97.
Officers therefore consider that, in light of compliance with ETSU and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with CS
Policies EN 13 and the relevant section within CS Policy EN 7 in relation to noise
impacts.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - SHADOW FLICKER
The Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 5-020-20140306)
states:
Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may
pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring
properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the impact is known
as ‘shadow flicker’. Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to
the turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast long
shadows on their southern side.
Development Committee
64
23 July 2015
Modern wind turbines can be controlled so as to avoid shadow flicker when it has the
potential to occur. Individual turbines can be controlled to avoid shadow flicker at a
specific property or group of properties on sunny days, for specific times of the day and
on specific days of the year. Where the possibility of shadow flicker exists, mitigation
can be secured through the use of conditions.
Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, where proposals for wind
turbines could give rise to shadow flicker, applicants should provide an analysis which
quantifies the impact. Turbines can also cause flashes of reflected light, which can be
visible for some distance. It is possible to ameliorate the flashing but it is not possible to
eliminate it’
The proposed Selbrigg turbine would have a maximum rotor diameter of 56m (based
on PowerWind 500 turbine) and therefore, using the guidance within the PPS22
Companion Guide, only properties within 560m (10 x 56m) of the turbine and within
130 degrees either side of north would be likely to be affected. The only dwelling within
range is ‘Selbrigg Cottage” due north, at approximately 280m, which is owned and
occupied by the applicant. However due to small mature conifer woodland between the
site and Selbrigg Cottage and the separation distance involved the turbine would be
unlikely to result in adverse impacts from shadow flicker.
A Public Right of Way (Hempstead Footpath No.1) runs to the west of the turbine it is
possible that small sections of this footpath could fall within the shadow flicker area of
the turbine blades under certain conditions. However as the footpath is within Upper
Fir Covert Wood and the footpath is separated from the site by a boundary of trees
and hedges, whilst blade flicker could affect the users of the footpath this would be
fairly limited. Furthermore, as use of the public right of way would occur infrequently
and users could pass along the footpath through the shadow flicker area relatively
quickly, it is not considered that the impact of shadow flicker on the public footpath
would constitute sufficient grounds for refusal.
Officers therefore consider that the proposal would be unlikely to give rise to instances
of shadow flicker affecting neighbouring residential properties.
IMPACT ON TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
The Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 5-017-20140306)
states:
‘Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions (e.g. radio,
television and phone signals). Specialist organisations responsible for the operation of
electromagnetic links typically require 100m clearance either side of a line of sight link
from the swept area of turbine blades’.
In considering the impact of the turbine of television reception, the analogue signal was
switched off in this area in Nov 2011 and, in theory, the digital signal should be
stronger than the previous analogue signal. However, there is no information available
other than in relation to the analogue signal to assess the impact on current television
reception.
The applicants agent has indicated that an initial investigation via the digital UK
website, identified that in the vicinity of the site, dwellings are likely to receive digital
television signals from the West Runton and Tacolneston transmitters. A further
Assessment has been undertaken by Page Power which indicates that some high (red
shading) level interference may occur for those using the Tacolneston mast to the
immediate north of the proposed turbine location, and some medium (yellow shading)
level interference to the south west for users of the West Runton mast.
Development Committee
65
23 July 2015
In theory, the digital signal should be more robust and less susceptible to the
secondary signal interference caused by reflection of the TV signal. As such the
applicant suggests that mitigation measures are likely to be unnecessary. However, as
part of the submission mitigation measures are suggested including a pre-construction
terrestrial television survey to determine the quality of the terrestrial television service
prior to construction commencing. Following the erection of the turbine any dwellings
experiencing terrestrial television interference, as a result of the turbine, would then be
visited by a qualified engineer to resolve the issue. Any measures required would be at
the applicant expense.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the impacts on television reception, if the
Committee were minded to approve the application, Officers suggest that a suitably
worded condition should be imposed requiring the applicant to submit a scheme to
secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to TV and
radio reception caused by the operation of the turbine. This is common practice in wind
turbine decisions allowed at appeal.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY – OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Whilst the proposed turbine would be a significant addition to the skyline and would be
visible to a significant number of residents at a variety of distances from the turbine
base, given the distance from the closest residential properties it is not considered that
the turbine could be said to result in significant adverse overbearing impacts, is not
likely to result in significant adverse noise impacts, nor is it likely to result in instances
of shadow flicker. In addition, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the
proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on television or radio
reception. Therefore, in respect of impact on residential amenity, subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal is considered to comply with relevant
Development Plan policies.
IMPACT ON OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION
In respect of the impact of the proposed turbine on fixed link operators, formal
pre-planning consultations were undertaken with OfCom, JRC (Joint Radio Company)
and Atkins to identify microwave telecommunication and radio telemetry links within
500m of the proposed turbine. Ofcom responded to the consultation on 13 September
2014, identified no links within 500m of the proposed turbine location. The planned
telecommunications link by the Norfolk Constabulary, identified at the time of the
previous application in 2012, which was approximately 250m from the proposed
turbine position has not yet been installed or licensed. Anglian Water replied in place
of Atkins and confirmed that there should be no effect on Anglian Water Services.
Similarly JRC who analyse proposal on behalf of UK Fuel and Power Industry
confirmed no objection. The applicant has therefore indicated that there is no predicted
impact on telecommunication infrastructure.
However, as part of their consultation response Norfolk Constabulary has indicated
that in November 2014 a National digital Police Helicopter video downlink system was
been installed at Cock Point Radio Mast at Bodham which requirements for 360
degree coverage around the mast. In addition, there is also a Wireless Internet Service
Provider (WISP) operating from the mast to serve rural communities.
They suggest that both of these services are operating at very short wavelengths
(frequencies between 3 & 6 GHz) and will likely be adversely affected by any nearby
tall structures, particularly non-static ones such as wind turbines.
In response the applicant’s agent has submitted a Radio Communications Impact
assessment prepared by Pagerpower which concludes that the wind turbine would be
Development Committee
66
23 July 2015
some 2.781 km from the mast which is significantly greater than the 500m separation
distance which has been accepted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Furthermore only 0.004% of airspace would be affected by shadowing and the radio
systems are designed to tolerate interference. It is therefore unlikely that the wind
turbine would have any significant impact on radio services.
The applicant’s agent has also pointed to the fact that neither the National Police
Aviation Service or the Rural Broadband provider have objected to the application.
The further comments of the Norfolk Constabulary are awaited.
Officers consider that the Committee is entitled to afford some weight to the concerns
expressed by Norfolk Constabulary in respect of the impact of the turbine on both the
video downlink system and wireless broadband. In respect of the wireless broadband
this is provided by a private commercial interest and there are clearly wider public and
economic benefits through the availability of a decent reliable broadband service,
particularly as this can help support the creation of new businesses and economic
growth through the ability to undertake online transactions and/or reduce the need to
travel by allowing working at home. Therefore, careful consideration needs to be given
by the Committee to potential adverse impacts on the use of the mast when weighing
the harm resulting from the proposed turbine against any public benefits.
IMPACT ON WILDLIFE/ECOLOGY
When considering the impact on wildlife/ecology, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 9
(Biodiversity and Geology), which states:
‘All development proposals should:
 protect the biodiversity value of land and buildings and minimise fragmentation
of habitats;
 maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of
natural habitats; and
 incorporate beneficial biodiversity conservation features where appropriate.
Development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect to
nationally designated sites [including AONB] or other designated areas, or protected
species, will not be permitted unless;



they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm;
the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of
the site and the wider network of natural habitats; and
prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the nature
conservation interests of nationally designated sites will not be permitted.
Development proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance
biodiversity or geodiversity interests will be supported in principle.
Where there is reason to suspect the presence of protected species applications
should be accompanied by a survey assessing their presence and, if present, the
proposal must be sensitive to, and make provision for, their needs’.
Development Committee
67
23 July 2015
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) which specifically addresses the need for
conserving and enhancing the natural environment at paragraphs 109 – 125.
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states:
‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by:




protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation
interests and soils;
recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity
where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the
overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological
networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.’
In considering the application, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the likely
impacts of the proposed single wind turbine on wildlife and ecology are known and
understood to ensure that there are no likely significant adverse impacts on protected
species or other important flora and fauna either on the site or passing over the site.
In support of their proposal the applicants have submitted an Ecological Assessment
prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology which is the same survey report which
accompanied the previous application in 2012 and including an Extended Phase 1
Habitat Survey, Bat Activity Survey and Ornithology Survey.
Consultations were undertaken with statutory consultees and full copies are attached
at Appendix 11.
The British Standard for Biodiversity (BS 42020:2013) advises that the shelf life of any
given survey depends on the type of survey undertaken, environmental conditions at
the time of survey and the degree to which the conditions have altered. Since that
survey the most significant change around the turbine is the major restoration works to
Selbrigg pond which have resulted in changes to the aquatic habitats in the vicinity of
the turbine.
Several species of bats were recorded during the 2012 surveys at varying levels of
frequency. These surveys are just within the lifespan of recorded data in accordance
with BS 42020:2013. In line with Natural England’s advice contained within Technical
Information Note TIN051, the Survey recommends placing all parts of the turbine 50
metres or more from the nearest habitat features. The Ecological Report confirms that
the proposed siting exceeds this separation distance to all boundaries by at least 15
metres.
The Landscape Officer has indicated that although the Ecology Report is nearing the
end of its shelf life, is still deemed to be adequate and relevant to this proposal and
conforms to BS 42020:2013: Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and
development. However, as Selbrigg Pond has undergone significant restoration since
the last submission, any perceived impacts of the development on this altered
ecological baseline need to be assessed by a suitable qualified ecologist and
comments submitted.
Further information is awaited from the applicant’s Ecological consultants regarding
Development Committee
68
23 July 2015
any perceived impacts of the development on Selbrigg Pond since its restoration.
Natural England (NE) have raised no objections in respect of the proposed turbine.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) were consulted but no response
has been received.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, in respect of impact on wildlife and
ecology it is considered that the proposal would accord with Development Plan policy
and the wider aims of the NPPF.
IMPACT ON AVIATION
Consultations have been undertaken with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), National Air
Traffic Services (NATS En Route) and Norwich Airport. Subject to the imposition of
conditions, including the provision of aviation lighting, it is considered that the
proposed turbine would not give rise to safeguarding concerns nor would it cause
interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. The proposal
therefore complies with relevant Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY & PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
The applicants have set out the proposed route for the turbine components which
would arrive at site from the west on the A148 turning right onto Selbrigg Road at High
Kelling, continuing along this road before turning right in a southerly direction onto the
unclassified road which leads to the site entrance. Having considered the proposed
route, the Highways Authority has indicated that at the present time there is a lack of
information relating to junction sightline provision, liaison with statutory undertakers
and outcomes, and no indication of negotiations with the owner of third party land
required at the junction of Selbrigg Road/Kelling Road. Furthermore, there is no
information in respect of the highway boundary along Kelling Road from the junction
with Selbrigg Road through to the site access or information relating to negotiations
with landowners in respect of hedge/tree trimming, and cabling route.
Having considered the proposed route, subject to the imposition of conditions including
conditions relating to construction traffic management, the Highway Authority has
raised no objection to the proposal.
The Highway Authority has indicated that if permission is granted then consideration
needs to be given to the fact that the requirement to facilitate free passage along the
public highway would overrule any Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) protecting
overhanging branches.
Having taken the advice of the Highway Authority into consideration, no trees which
are likely to require removal or pruning are the subject of a TPO. It is therefore the
opinion of officers that although an Arboricultural Implication Assessment would be
required to fully assess the required clearance, the works would not have a permanent
detrimental visual impact on the rural lanes and wider landscape along the specified
route, and that any reinstatement measures or mitigation required could be secured by
way of planning condition.
In respect of the impact of the proposed turbine on Public Rights of Way (PROW), the
closest footpath is (Hempstead Footpath No.1) which follows the western boundary of
the site within Upper Fir Covert. Although the blades of the turbine would not pass
over the footpath, the path would be within some 100 metres of the base of the turbine.
As such, even in benign weather conditions the presence of the tower and turbine
could be quite overwhelming. However even in extreme conditions it is officers
Development Committee
69
23 July 2015
understanding that the likelihood of the turbine falling over or a blade shearing off is
very low and, in any event, turbines have to conform to set performance standards to
cope with such weather. Whilst the safety of members of the public is clearly
paramount, Officers consider that refusal on grounds of the overbearing impact of the
turbine on the adjacent footpath No. 1 or the potential for turbine failure to affect the
footpath could not be substantiated or justified. It is understood that the footpath would
remain open throughout the construction phase unless of course health and safety
requirements dictate otherwise and the proposal would not therefore have a significant
adverse impact on public rights of way.
In respect of matters relating to highway safety and public rights of way, subject to the
imposition of conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with Development Plan
policies.
IMPACT ON TOURISM & OTHER SECTORS
A number of representations have suggested that the proposed turbine would have an
adverse impact on tourism and this in turn would have an adverse economic impact on
the area. In addition it has been suggested that the addition of the turbine in the
landscape would significantly reduce the possibility of the area around the North
Norfolk coast being used by the Film and Television industry particularly for historical
works where an unspoilt landscape backcloth may be required. It has been suggested
that this could also have an adverse impact on the local economy.
Whilst there is no doubt that the addition of a turbine would have an adverse landscape
impact (see Landscape and Visual Impacts), a decision to refuse the turbine based on
its potential to reduce tourism in the area or to prevent the film and television industry
choosing this location in the future would be very difficult to substantiate without hard
evidence. Officers have not been made aware of any evidence to support a link
between the introduction of turbines and a reduction in tourism numbers and, in any
event, there are many factors outside the control of the Local Planning Authority which
would influence tourism in the North Norfolk Area. In respect of the impact on the wider
tourism offer and the image of North Norfolk as an unspoilt area are difficult to gauge.
In respect of the film and television industry, clearly the addition of a turbine in the
landscape could impact upon the authenticity of recreating a landscape in past times
but it is understood that, since the advent of Computer Generated Imagery (CGI), such
issues no longer present the same sort of challenges. In considering the impact on
tourism and the film and television industry, without firm evidence to substantiate a
significant adverse impact, officers would advise against refusal on those grounds.
GRID CONNECTION
The applicant’s agent indicates that the connection to the national grid would be under
the control of UK Power Networks and would be underground to the nearest
connection point which is envisaged to be an existing 11kV line, in the neighbouring
field, approximately 330m SE of the proposed turbine. There are no grid connection
issues which would give rise unacceptable adverse planning impacts.
BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Taking account of the requirement under CS Policy EN 7 that turbines above 15m
should ‘deliver economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly
related to the proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local
area’ and taking account of the advice within the NPPF that, when considering
renewable energy proposals, any identified harm should be weighed against the public
benefits of the proposal, the applicant has set out the following benefits attributable to
the proposed development.
Development Committee
70
23 July 2015
RENEWABLE ENERGY BENEFITS
In considering the renewable energy benefits of the proposal, the applicant’s
understanding of the likely electrical energy to be generated by a wind turbine of the
height proposed is set out in paragraphs 32 to 37 of the Planning Application
Documentation and Environmental report whilst the environmental benefits are
referred to in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 of the Planning Appraisal.
The applicant has indicated that the UK Wind Speed Database issued by the
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) provides a rough estimate of the
wind speed on the site at a height of 45m of approximately 6.6m/s. They therefore
suggest that the wind speed at the hub height can be anticipated to be higher. Using
the DECC Wind Speed data figure of 6.6m/s, based on the PowerWind 500 power
curve information, Engena predict an anticipated annual yield of approximately 1 6340
000kWh (to 3 S.F) based on a typical farmland terrain and assuming 10% electricity
loss. They therefore suggest that based on annual average domestic electricity
consumption for North Norfolk District the turbine would be able to provide the
equivalent electricity production for 343 households. The turbine therefore has the
potential to meet 70% of the Hempstead, High Kelling and Bodham household
electricity requirements.
In terms of the environmental benefits based on the output figure of 1 6340 000kWh
(net) the report suggests that not only would the turbine offset electricity generation
from other sources, based on a figure of 430g CO2 /KWh, utilised by Defra for CCL
Agreements and emission trading, the proposed turbine would offset 705 tonnes of
CO2 per annum. In addition, smaller offsets of other pollutants including sulphur and
nitrous oxide would also result from the scheme. It is suggested that this substantial
saving in carbon emissions should be given significant weight in determining the
proposal.
This would make a positive contribution towards renewable energy generation, and
could make a locally significant contribution, however these benefits need to be
weighed against the potential adverse heritage and landscape impacts of the proposal.
OTHER ECONOMIC / COMMUNITY / BENEFITS
The applicant has set out within their Planning Statement a range of benefits
associated with the proposal.
Economic benefits include:
Construction Phase Benefits Paragraph 433 of the Planning Appraisal sets out the local economic benefits and
suggests that materials and services would be sourced, where practical, from suitably
qualified local and regional contracts, Civil Engineering and construction companies,
Geotechnical ground investigation, Design and construction of on site contestable
electrical networks, Quarries and concrete suppliers, Road haulage and plant hire
companies.
Community benefit packages Community benefit packages are a well established part of onshore wind farm
developments, but it is generally recognised that such packages normally apply to
wind farm developments of more than 5MW, rather than single turbine schemes such
as this. The level and type of contribution can vary according to the discretion of the
developer. However, the wind energy trade body, Renewable UK, have now
Development Committee
71
23 July 2015
established a community benefit protocol which aims to formalise a baseline for a
share of benefits to be distributed to the communities surrounding onshore wind farms
(Renewable UK, 2011).
This protocol requires members to contribute community benefit support equivalent to
a minimum value of at least £5000 per megawatt of installed capacity per annum.
Whilst Selbrigg Farm are not members of Renewable UK and are proposing a project
that is substantially less than 5MW, the farm wishes to provide a substantial
contribution to local projects and the community throughout the operating lifetime of
the turbine. These contributions will be indexed linked to the Consumer Price Index.
It is currently intended to distribute these as follows:
1.
£1000/year - Holt Youth Project;
2.
£500/year - Toadwatch;
3.
£500/year - Parish Newsletter; and
4.
£2500/year - Hempstead Parish Council (approx. £30/home/annum)
For a 500kW, wind turbine this level of community benefit is double the level
recommended by Renewable UK members.
Whilst a charitable link to the community is to be welcomed, at this stage there is no
indication as to how this funding is to be delivered, which needs to be by way of
Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended).
In addition, it is also the intention of the developer to refinance part of the scheme via
“crowdfunding” and to prioritise applications for North Norfolk residents, widening the
community benefits across North Norfolk. This involves raising finance by asking a
large number of people each to invest a small amount of money into something they
believe in. Depending on the type of crowdfunding, investors can either receive their
money back with interest or money is exchanged for shares, or a small stake of the
business.
The applicant has indicated that the wind turbine project is integral to the farm plans to
restore Selbrigg Pond, providing a long term and sustainable source of funding,
which will ensure the high environmental value of the pond is maintained and available
to locals and visitors alike, including school visits. In addition, it is suggested that the
turbine itself would provide a valuable education resource for these visitors.
SUMMARY OF THE BENEFITS
The proposed turbine would deliver renewable energy benefits through the generation
of renewable electricity, enough to provide the equivalent electricity for 343 average
houses and which would make a valuable contribution towards meeting the national
legally binding reduction in carbon emissions of 80% by 2050 and the 30% national
target for renewable electricity production by 2020. Officers consider this benefit
attracts significant weight in favour of the application.
In addition, the proposal would also provide financial benefits of £2000/year to local
causes and £2500/year to the Parish Council.
Furthermore, the turbine would provide revenue to aid the restoration of Selbrigg Pond
with its unique and high environmental value which it is suggested is cherished by
Development Committee
72
23 July 2015
locals and visitors alike. Whilst the pond and turbine would provide a valuable
educational source for visitors and school alike.
The other economic benefits during the construction and operational phase are less
precise and quantifiable, although there is a probability that some local trades may
benefit in relation to the construction phase. In respect of the circle of money
associated with the turbine, it is possible that locally owned businesses may
redistribute wealth locally and there is a possibility but no certainty that this may be the
case with this proposal given its local ownership.
Whilst these contributions may undoubtedly be welcomed by the local community
receiving the monies, consideration has to be given as to whether the suggested
contributions comply with Government advice at paragraph 204 of the NPPF and CIL
Regulation 122 tests in respect that section 106 planning obligations “should only be
sought where they meet all of the following tests:
1.
2.
3.
Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
Directly related to the development; and
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”
Officers consider that Community Benefits fund outlined above cannot legally be
considered as a material consideration in the determination of the application and
therefore the Committee should not give any weight to the Community Benefits Fund
when determining the application.
ASSESSMENT UNDER POLICY EN7
The commitment to grant planning permission for renewable energy technology,
contained in Policy EN7, is not relevant to this proposal, since it will have significant
adverse effects on the landscape and historical assets. The committee must consider
the benefits of renewable energy gain, including the contribution to overcoming energy
supply problems, and balanced these benefits against the significant adverse effects
outlined above.
Officers consider that the benefits of renewable energy gain, including the contribution
to overcoming energy supply problems are outweighed by the adverse effects of the
proposal relating to landscape and historic asset impacts. As such it is considered that
the proposal does not accord with policy EN7.
OVERALL SUMMARY
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The proposal seeks to erect a single wind turbine with a hub height of 50m and a height
to blade tip of 78m on land at Selbrigg which is located at approximately 62m AOD.
Officers have sought to set out the relevant policy tests within this report and having
considered all of the evidence available, it is considered that the key planning issues
hinge on an assessment of the impact of the proposed turbine on the wider landscape
and on heritage assets, balanced against any public benefits (including renewable
energy benefits) that might arise as a result of the proposal. The Council is also
required to apply the statutory presumption against a grant of planning permission
where the proposed turbine would adversely affect the setting of a listed building or the
character and appearance of a conservation area, and consider whether this
presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable
energy benefits).
Development Committee
73
23 July 2015
Officers consider that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would
generally accord with Development Plan policy in relation to impacts on residential
amenity (including noise impacts), impacts on wildlife and ecology, aviation, highway
safety and tourism, as detailed above, such that refusal in relation to these matters
alone could not be substantiated or justified.
In relation to landscape impacts, there is no doubt that a turbine of the size proposed
would have an adverse impact on the wider landscape. The smooth lines of the turbine
and somewhat utilitarian appearance would create a degree of harm in this essentially
rural location with its smaller scale and more traditional forms of development which
rely to a large extent on local materials and are more easily absorbed by the natural
vegetation.
The Council’s appointed Heritage and Landscape Consultants Beacon Planning are of
the opinion that, contrary to the conclusions of the submitted LVIA, the proposed 78m
turbine would incur harm to the landscape (particularly TF3), parts of the Norfolk Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a number of heritage assets and their settings
that are intrinsic to those landscapes and to receptors within these landscapes and
Officers would concur with this view. The proposal therefore does not comply with
Policies EN1 and EN2, in that it has failed to demonstrate that its location, scale and
design will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the
area (including its historical character), visually sensitive skylines, hillsides and the
setting of and views from historic parks and gardens.
In relation to heritage assets, whilst the proposed development would not physically
result in loss of historic fabric it is considered that the proposal would undoubtedly
result in harm to the setting of historic assets, including Baconsthorpe Castle,
Baconsthorpe Conservation Area and All Saints Church Bodham, some of which are of
the highest designated category. In addition it would have some harmful impact on the
wider Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
Each listed building, and each conservation area, needs to be considered in order for
the Committee to fulfil its duty under sections 66(1) and 72 of the LBCA Act 1990 to
pay “special attention” to the “desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings,
and the character and appearance of conservation areas – ie apply a statutory
presumption. This is not a simple balancing exercise, but a question of whether there is
justification for overriding the presumption in favour of preservation. Accordingly, in
relation to each listed building and each conservation area, the Committee will have to
consider whether it accepts that there is harm and whether the presumption against
planning permission which arises as a result of any harm is outweighed by the public
benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy benefits). Officer advice is that, in
relation to the harm that the proposal will cause to the setting of Baconsthorpe Castle,
Baconsthorpe Conservation Area and All Saints Church Bodham and the wider Glaven
Valley Conservation Area there would need to be compelling public benefits in favour
of the turbine to outweigh the presumption.
The applicants have indicated that a turbine of the size proposed would generate
enough electricity to supply approximately 343 average homes, which equates to
about 70% of the homes in the Hempstead, High Kelling and Bodham parishes.
In addition, the proposal would also provide financial benefits of £2000/year to local
causes, £2500/year to Hempstead Parish Council and the restoration Selbrigg Pond
would benefit locals and visitors alike.
Development Committee
74
23 July 2015
Officers consider that Community Benefits fund outlined by the applicant cannot legally
be considered as a material consideration in the determination of the application and
therefore the Committee should not give any weight to the Community Benefits Fund
when determining the application.
The cumulative effect of these impacts on heritage assets and impacts on the wider
landscape are such that, notwithstanding the public benefits that can be attributed to
the turbine in the opinion of officers the benefits of renewable energy gain, including
the contribution to overcoming energy supply problems, are outweighed by the
adverse effects of the proposal relating to landscape and historic asset impacts. As
such it is considered that the proposal does not accord with policy EN7.
Furthermore, in terms of the Written Statement by the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government, relating to the determination of planning
applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines which
came into effect on 18 June 2015, the North Norfolk Local Development Framework
Core Strategy does not identify suitable areas for wind energy development. However,
the Landscape Character Assessment which is a supplementary planning document
does state that in the case of Landscape Character Type TF3 “some parts may be
suitable for small scale wind turbines siting taking care not to place them so
prominently that they are apparent for miles (i.e. near the Cromer ridge)”. Given that
the wind turbine would it is considered be in a prominent location on the Cromer ridge
and clearly has not addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local
communities the proposal does not have the backing of the Local Planning Authority.
Having regard to the proposal as a whole it is considered that there are insufficient
compelling public benefits to outweigh the identified harm.
Recommendation – Refusal
The proposal does not comply with the Development Plan in that it does not comply
with the following policies:
EN 1 - Norfolk Coast area of outstanding Natural Beauty and the Broads
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
EN 7 - Renewable energy
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
The proposed turbine would result in harm to setting of number of heritage
assets, some of which are of the highest designated category including
Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe Hall), St Mary’s Church Bodham,
Church of All Saints Hempstead, Barningham Hall and The Red House,
Hempstead. Whilst this harm is ‘less than substantial’ in terms of the NPPF, it is
still significant.
The statutory presumption in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Area) Act 1990 against planning permission being granted in light
of the effect of the proposal on the settings of the above identified listed
buildings is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, including the
renewable energy benefits. Furthermore, having regard to paragraph 98 of the
NPPF, the harmful impacts of the proposal are not and cannot be made
acceptable.
In addition the proposed turbine would adversely impact upon the character
and appearance of Baconsthorpe Conservation Area, Hempstead Conservation
Development Committee
75
23 July 2015
Area and the wider Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Whilst this harm is ‘less
than substantial’ in terms of the NPPF, it is still significant.
The statutory presumption in section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Area) Act 1990 against planning permission being granted in light
of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of Baconsthorpe
Conservation Area and the Glaven Valley Conservation Area is not outweighed
by the public benefits of the proposal, including the renewable energy benefits.
Furthermore, having regard to paragraph 98 of the NPPF, the harmful impacts of
the proposal are not and cannot be made acceptable.
In addition the proposed turbine would incur harm to the landscape (particularly
landscape character areas TF3) and parts of the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. Furthermore the proposed turbine would incur
individual and cumulative impacts on heritage assets within the landscape and
their settings that are intrinsic to those landscapes and to receptors within
these landscapes. These impacts are considered to be significant and contrary
to Policies EN1 and EN2.
Having regard to the above identified significant adverse impacts on landscape
and heritage assets it is considered that the benefits of renewable energy gain
(including the contribution to overcoming energy supply problems) do not
outweigh the identified harm and, as such, the proposal would not accord with
Policy EN 7.
In addition as required by Ministerial Statement issued by the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government, on 18 June 2015 the Local Planning
Authority are not satisfied that following consultation the proposal has
addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and
therefore has their backing.
(4)
HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill for
Mr Bradley
Target Date: 27 May 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
N/A
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the change of use from hairdresser (A1) to a pizza restaurant
(A3) at 4 Fish Hill in Holt.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the meeting of the 8 May 2015 for a site visit and
subsequently 8 June 2015 for further information.
Development Committee
76
23 July 2015
Previously at the request of former Cllr Baker due to the impact upon residential
amenity.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the application. There appear to be inadequate information on relevant
points such as vent system, provision for large trade bins, parking, danger of fire, hot
gas escaping and no vent system. This is not a change of use from a café and the
new use of a restaurant would have far reaching implications with regard to smell and
noise, and other properties in the town would be better suited to this kind of business.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, 13 representations have been received (12 objections/1 comment) raising the
following:
























Length of opening hours.
Concern with the impact of litter and request assurances that this will be
addressed by the operator the business.
More competition for existing A3 businesses in Holt.
Concerned with the potential for noise and disturbance with adjoining
residential flats, by virtue of the proposed business, small courtyard, extractor
unit and opening hours.
Concerned about the impacts upon the party wall.
A further food outlet would impact upon the existing character of the Georgian
town.
Holt needs more shop not food outlets.
Concern with respect to location of proposed commercial wheelie bins and
their proposed collection.
Concern with the impact of the proposed flue.
Questions whether the premised will serve alcohol and lack of information in
respect to this issue within the planning application.
Lack of parking proposed.
Potential fire hazard due to the small rear courtyard.
Concerned with the proposed wheelie bin being located within the public alley.
Confirmation of land ownership of land within the rear courtyard.
Concerns as to the impact of water, utilities and shared pipes of these older
buildings.
Concern as to adequate sound proofing.
Lack of information in respect to extractor fans, air conditioning and the impact
upon the listed building.
Concerns with the proposed location on the rear of the building and impact
upon existing window openings.
Questions whether gas bottles are being proposed.
Concern that no fire exit is shown.
Has taken legal advice, no right to install anything overhanging neighbour's
land.
Increase in variety of food outlets
Italian restaurant would be a positive addition to the town
Historical use of the rear courtyard in relation to previous use of shops and
flats.
A further letter was verbally updated at the meeting of the 28 May 2015 from a Solicitor
which confirmed the legal position for the owners of the courtyard.
Development Committee
77
23 July 2015
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways: Given the town centre location of the site in an area
covered by well controlled waiting restrictions, limited waiting parking bays and good
access to public transport links and public car parking, no objections are raised in
respect to highway safety.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to satisfying conditions relating to the
following: noise level insulation, noise level scheme to be submitted, and instillation of
an extractor/ventilation system, opening hours and noise from kitchen operations.
Further comments awaited on further information submitted by the applicant .
Building Control: Please note that the following advice from Building Control is
‘general’ in nature and is for information purposes only.
Whilst the application is a change of use under planning, the works do not constitute
such under the Building Regulations. Therefore, it is possible that we will not require
any application for what is essentially a shop-fit.
As a general rule flues to combustion appliances should be installed by competent
persons and specified as suitable for the location in which they are installed.
Consideration should be given to likely external temperature of the flue pipe and safe
separation distances from combustible materials and possibility of contact injury. The
heights of flues are controlled under the building regulations and associated guidance
again the height should be such as to ensure adequate draw and suitable clearance
above adjacent structures to allow safe disposal of any emissions, specific height and
separation distances between opening windows are also widely specified in legislative
requirements and associated guidance from competent persons schemes such as
HETAS, OFTEC and Gas-Safe.
If a flue is not installed by a competent person then an application may be required and
if the works are found to be non-compliant, only then could any Building Regulations
enforcement action be considered. The Building Regulations only requires a
minimum standard to be achieved this may fall below the expectations of other
interested parties and if so environmental health should be consulted on whether such
works constitute a nuisance.
In respect to fire resistance and separation, generally between a shop and flat 60
minutes fire resistance is required and adequate acoustic separation also, however in
this case a shop to restaurant is not a change of use under Building Regulations so
there are no powers to require any upgrades the best we could do would be to advise
they consider with the increased fire risk that some upgrades to the ceiling and
elements of structure would be a good idea if it currently falls below this standard.
The building owner/manager is responsible for providing an adequate revised fire risk
assessment and they could seek the advice of NFRS in regard to this.
A Building Regulations application will only be needed if internal alterations result in an
alteration that is material i.e. the building is altered in such a way as to worsen existing
levels of compliance with regard to structure, fire and access or if building work is
carried out.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
78
23 July 2015
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Change of use
 Residential amenity
 Highway safety
 Impact on listed building
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at committee 8 June 2015 for further information. The
applicant was requested to submit further details in respect to the function and
proportion of takeaway service which was detailed within the Catering Feasibility
Report, further information regarding oil disposal and grease traps and a plan/section
detailing the location of the flue to enable a fuller understanding of the impact upon the
listed building.
Location and principle of development
The vacant unit in question occupies the ground floor of a two-storey building located
within a group of buildings fronting Fish Hill, leading to the Market Place in the centre of
Holt town. The unit was formerly used as hairdressers, an A1 use. As the unit is
situated within the Town Centre policy designation for Holt, under Policy SS 5 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy, the use for retail and other uses compatible with the town
centre are deemed to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
Change of use - North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy EC 5
The site is within the Primary Shopping Area but it is not within a Primary Retail
Frontage where the policy seeks to protect premises for A1 (retail) shopping uses.
Therefore, the principle of change of uses from an A1 ‘Hairdressers’ to an A3
‘Restaurant’ is acceptable.
Development Committee
79
23 July 2015
National Planning Policy Framework - Town Centres
The government is taking an increasingly flexible approach to town centre uses.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities should 'promote competitive
town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer...'. Although a
number of restaurants/cafes already exist in the town, allowing this proposal will add to
competition and choice which will be of benefit to consumers. Competition with other
similar businesses is inevitable and is not a planning reason for refusal.
Paragraph 10 of the NPPF also states that 'Plans and decisions need to take local
circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for
achieving sustainable development in different areas.' Furthermore, paragraph 19 of
the NPPF states that 'Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an
impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on
the need to support economic growth through the planning system.' Taking the issue
of sustainable development into account, the proposal could be argued as sustainable
as it is located in the town centre, with good links to public transport and adjacent to an
existing car park. It also brings a vacant listed building back into use and therefore
represents a good opportunity to revitalise a sustainable brownfield site.
It is also worth noting that the flexible approach to town centres is also made clear
through the Government's recent changes to Permitted Development Rights relating to
retail units. Under these rights, it is possible to the change the use of the unit in
question to an A3 use for a temporary period of up to two years without planning
permission. Whilst this flexibility does not apply to statutory listed buildings, it is clear
from the changes in recent Permitted Development Rights that the exclusion of listed
building is to ensure that special historic or architectural interest of the heritage asset is
not compromised.
Design and appearance (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
The building lies within the Conservation Area of Holt and is a Grade II Listed Building.
Design and impact upon the Listed Building and Conservation Area
The application is simply for the change of use only and whilst indicative details have
been provided illustrating the proposed internal layout and seating plan, the application
has stated that no changes are proposed to the external façade fronting Fish Hill. In
respect to any proposed flue or ventilation system, no formal details were provided as
part of the original submission, however further details have been submitted as the
application has progresses to address concerns associated with noise and emissions.
In respect to the impact upon the listed building, the applicant provided indicative
details through a Schematic Drawing and Catering Feasibility report stating that the
flue will be routed internally through the building and situated on the flat roof extension
to the rear of the building. Whilst the Conservation Officer has informally advised that
routing the flue internally through the later, flat roof extension and the siting of the roof
hood on the flat roof extension would unlikely harm the overall significant of the Listed
Building or impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, no
formal scheme has been submitted. Further information has been requested from the
applicant in the form of a plan/section to enable a fuller understanding of the impact
upon the Listed Building.
In respect to the impact of sound proofing, if it principally involves the under drawing of
existing ceilings then this would unlikely cause concern.
The application seeks a change of use application only and in these circumstances, it
is considered appropriate to attach a note to any planning permission granted that the
Development Committee
80
23 July 2015
permission relates solely to the change of use of the building and that any internal or
external alterations to the building may require further Listed Building Consent and
Planning Permission. This would be to ensure that the development would preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of designated assets, in this case the listed
building and its setting through high quality, sensitive design and ensure that no
adverse impact would occur on the special historic or architectural interest of the listed
building.
As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 in
terms of the change of use.
Amenity
In respect hours of use and waste concerns, it is recommended that these can
effectively be resolved with conditions imposed for the hours of use, close of business
and storage of waste. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed waste will be
stored within the restaurant and removed daily to the applicants other premises where
full sized trade waste bins are available. This is now considered acceptable, however a
condition will be imposed on any planning approval to ensure that the waste disposal is
retained unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
The applicant has confirmed that the following can be conditioned to any planning
permission granted as advised by Environmental Health:


The opening hours as stated identified within the application of 08:00-22:30
from Monday to Saturday and 08:00 – 22:00 Sunday.
The closure of doors and windows from 9pm (except for access or egress) and
bins are not emptied between 11pm and 7am.
In respect to noise and emissions, whilst these can effectively be resolved with
conditions imposed for the prior approval of ventilation and extraction systems, this
information is being sought up front to ensure that residential amenity is not
compromised. The applicant submitted further information (received by the Local
Planning Authority on the 10 June 2015) which detailed the extraction unit going
internally through the flat above, with the vertical discharge being located externally on
the flat roof to the rear of the building. The applicant has confirmed that they will be
leasing the flat above (4a) where the owner of 4a raises no objections to routing the
flue internally. Notwithstanding this agreement, this work will be subject to Listed
Building Consent.
Environmental Health have indicated that the information received by the Local
Planning Authority on the 10 June 2015 regarding improvements to the kitchen
extraction including upgrading odour control measures and noise attenuation appear
satisfactory, however further assessment will be provided on these details.
The applicant has confirmed that with regard to grease traps, there would only be a
single sink and drain in the kitchen which would fit a stainless Steel grease tap
between the kitchen sink drain and the outside mains drain which would comply to the
standards BS EN 1825-1:2004 and designed in accordance with BS EN 1825-2:2002.
This would eliminate any risk of grease contamination in the mains drainage system.
Additionally, fried food is not an offer within the restaurant and there is no plans for oil
usage other than olive oil adding to boiling pasta and to salads/topping for Pizzas.
The food offer is principally, dough, pasta and salads. Environmental Health have
been re-consulted on this further information and a further comments are awaited.
The Environmental Health Officer has requested further notes attached to any
planning permission granted in association with trade waste and demolition.
Development Committee
81
23 July 2015
Building Regulations approval will be dependent on what works are proposed. Flues to
combustion appliances should be installed by competent persons and the heights of
flues are controlled under the building regulations where the height should be such as
to ensure adequate draw and suitable clearance above adjacent structures to allow
safe disposal of any emissions. Additionally, specific height and separation distances
between opening windows are also widely specified in legislative requirements.
In respect to fire resistance and separation, Building Regulations approval will be
dependent on whether the internal alterations result in an alteration that is material, i.e.
the building is altered in such a way as to worsen existing levels of compliance with
regard to structure, fire and access or if building work is carried out.
Building
regulation approval will be subject to a separate application process.
The restriction on anything projecting/overhanging neighbouring property is a civil
matter.
Access and Parking (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The building is located within the town centre and adjacent to existing car parks where
ample parking currently exists. The building is also within short walking distance of
public transport services. Furthermore, the Highway Authority have raised no
objection to the proposal in regards to parking and current flows of traffic and as
such, it is considered to be compliant with Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy SS
5, SS 9, EN 4, EN 8, EC5, CT 5 and CT 6.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve subject to the following conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
3. Before the use is commenced, the building shall be insulated in accordance
with a scheme to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. The extractor or ventilation equipment submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority on the X 2015 shall be installed and thereafter
maintained in accordance with the approved details.
5. Refuse will be stored within the restaurant and removed daily unless otherwise
agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
6. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following
times, 08:00-22:30 from Monday to Saturday and 08:00 – 22:00 Sunday.
7. All external doors and windows to the building shall be kept shut from 9pm
(except for access or egress) and bins are not emptied between 11pm and
7am.
Development Committee
82
23 July 2015
(5)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/15/0546 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling;
Green Farm House, The Street for Mr Hayes
Minor Development
- Target Date: 02 July 2015
Case Officer: Mrs E Starling
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19880657 PF - Erection of garages in association with barn conversions Approved 12/05/1988
PLA/19870174 PF - Conversion of barns and outbuildings to residential units Approved 01/05/1987
PLA/19830300 PF - Conversion of barn and ancillary buildings into residential unit
- Approved 18/03/1983
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks full planning permission to construct a detached two-storey
dwelling on a parcel of land in the garden of a grade II listed property known as Green
Farm House in Little Snoring. The site lies on the corner of Thursford Road and The
Street and is surrounded by a mixture of mature hedges and trees, providing screening
to the site when viewed from both roads.
The proposed dwelling would be constructed in brick and flint and clay pantiles and
would comprise of a living room, dining room, kitchen, study, utility room, wc and
attached double garage at ground floor level, with five bedrooms and three bathrooms
at first floor level. Access to the property would be served by the creation of a new
access off Thursford Road to the north, with the new dwelling served by its own
parking and garden areas. Access to the existing property known as Green Farm
House would remain off The Street as is the case at present.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Referred by the Head of Planning as the applicant is a relative of a District Councillor.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objection due to serious concerns relating to the location of the proposed
access/egress route for the following reasons;
1. Proposed entrance would be directly opposite an existing driveway.
2. Access would cross a pedestrian pavement specifically provided for school children.
3. Thursford Road is relatively narrow at this point with a sharp bend and junctions to
The Pastures and Green Farm Barns.
4. Number of trees need to be felled to create access.
The Parish Council would support the scheme if the access to the new property was
shared with the existing drive serving Green Farm House onto The Street.
Development Committee
83
23 July 2015
Additional comments have been also been received from the Parish Council raising
concerns in respect of the loss of two mature cypress trees which they consider should
be protected and retained like the sycamore was on the boundary when the footpath
was created a few years ago. Concerns relating to highway safety and the impact on
the safety of the users of the existed footpath have also been re-iterated.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, ten letters of objection have been received from local residents on the
following grounds;
 The creation of a new access as proposed onto Thursford Road and its impact on
highway safety and the users of the existing footpath, particularly school children.
 Suitability of Thursford Road in respect of the new access due to its proximity to the
bend in the road, traffic speeds and its restricted width.
 Consideration should be given to the new dwelling sharing its access with the
existing property Green Farm House.
 New access will impact on the character of this part of the village, introducing a
suburban feature in a rural part of the village.
 If it is considered that sharing the existing access would be detrimental to the
setting of the listed building, it should follow that the presence of the new dwelling
proposed would be detrimental to its setting also.
 Lack of supporting information given sensitivity of location.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions in
respect of the creation of the new access, visibility splays, installation of any gates and
details of on-site parking and turning provision.
Conservation and Design (Landscape) - No objection subject to conditions in respect
landscaping and tree protection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Development Committee
84
23 July 2015
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway impacts - access/parking/safety
3. Design and impact on settling of listed building
4. Impact on trees
5. Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site is located within the development boundary for Little Snoring where the
subdivision of the garden of the main property (Green Farm House) and constructing a
new dwelling as proposed, is considered acceptable in principle under Policy SS3,
subject to the complying with a number of other Core Strategy policies.
Design and impact on setting of adjacent listed building (Policies EN2, EN4 and EN8)
The proposed dwelling would be a detached two-storey five bedroom dwelling with an
attached garage. Whilst the proposed dwelling is relatively large in scale, given the
context of the surrounding development and the fact that it would be set within a
relatively large plot, this traditionally designed dwelling is considered acceptable in
terms of its design, scale and external appearance.
Furthermore, the degree of separation from Green Farm House (grade II listed) is such
the Conservation and Design Officer raised no concerns previously at pre-application
stage in respect of the setting of this listed building, and therefore this heritage asset
would be adequately protected in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF and
Policy EN8 of the Core Strategy.
Highway impact (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The main issues of contention with this application, raised by both the Parish Council
and local residents, relate to the creation of the new access to serve the proposed
dwelling, and its impact on highway safety, particularly to users of the section of
footpath along Thursford Road. Notwithstanding these concerns, the Highway
Authority have raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the conditions in respect
of access and visibility specifications, as well as the provision of onsite parking and
turning arrangements.
Consideration was given by the applicant's at pre-application stage to access to the
proposed dwelling being served off the existing access shared with Green House
Farm. However, concerns were raised by the Conservation and Design Officer to this
approach due to its potential impact on the setting of this grade II listed property,
resulting in the proposal to create a new separate access.
Impact on trees
Concerns have also been raised by the Parish Council relating to the loss of a number
Development Committee
85
23 July 2015
of trees on site. A Tree Survey plan has been submitted to accompany the
application. Whilst it is acknowledged that the siting of the proposed dwelling and the
creation of the new access would result in the removal of a number of prominent trees,
the scheme has been assessed by the Landscape Officer who has raised no
objections subject to the imposition of conditions in respect of landscaping and tree
protection.
Residential amenity
Whilst the site lies in a central location to the east of The Street and is surrounded by
existing residential properties, the scheme has been designed in a manner which
minimises its impact on the occupants of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of
privacy, light and outlook. The distances of separation between the proposed
dwelling and surrounding properties is also such that the scheme would exceed the
amenity guidelines contained within the North Norfolk Design Guide. Therefore, it is
considered that the scheme would adequately protect residential amenity in
accordance with the requirements of Policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
Conclusion
In summary, whilst the concerns of the Parish Council and local residents have been
taken into consideration, the Committee will note that the principle and design of the
proposed dwelling is considered acceptable. Given that no objections have been
received from either the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager or the Highway
Authority to the issues raised, it is therefore not considered that refusal of the scheme
can be justified in this instance. It is considered that the scheme would accord with
the relevant Development Plan policies for the reasons contained in the report, and as
such the application is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of specific conditions as listed below:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
3. Prior to the construction of any external walls of the development hereby permitted a
sample panel of external brickwork/flintwork shall be erected on or near the site. No
work shall commence until such time as the Local Planning Authority has inspected
and approved these details in writing. The development shall be constructed in
accordance with the approved details.
4. The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted, other than
the flint work referred to in condition 3, shall be in full accordance with the details
submitted in the planning application, unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
5. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the vehicular
access shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the
approved plan (drawing number 14.3345.042/PL02/A) in accordance with the highway
specification (Dwg.No.TRAD 1) attached. Arrangement shall be made for surface
water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not
discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.
6. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, any access gates,
Development Committee
86
23 July 2015
bollard, chain or other means of obstruction shall be hung to open inwards and set
back a minimum distance of 5 metres from the near channel edge of the adjacent
carriageway. Any sidewalls, fences or hedges adjacent to the access shall be splayed
at an angle of 45 degrees from each of the (outside) gateposts to the front boundary of
the site.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a 2.4m wide
parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent highway
carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the site’s roadside frontage. The
parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction
exceeding 0.225 metres above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
8. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the proposed
access, on-site car parking and turning area shall be laid out, levelled, surfaced and
drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for that
specific use.
9.Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an arboricultural
method statement (AMS) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The AMS shall provide details of the construction and
arboricultural supervision. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full
accordance with the agreed AMS details.
10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a landscaping
scheme shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
landscaping scheme as approved shall be carried out no later than the next available
planting season following the commencement of development or such further period
as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
11. No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the approved plan to be retained
shall be topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed, within ten
years of the date of this permission, without the prior consent of the Local Planning
Authority in writing.
12. Any new tree or shrub which within a period of ten years from the date of planting
dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during
the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the Local
Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval is given to any variation.
(6)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1399 - Change of use of land to carboot sales;
Davenports Magic Kingdom, Cromer Road for Davenports Magic Kingdom
- Target Date: 20 March 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Contaminated Land Buffer
LDF - Employment Area
Development within 60m of Class A road
Contaminated Land
LDF - Principal Routes
Development Committee
87
23 July 2015
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20011523 PO - Use of land for offices, diy/garden centre (plus ancillary office
and storage accommodation), plots for commerical, light industrial and storage and
distribution uses and coach park
Approved 13/08/2002
PLA/20030694 PM - Erection of retail store with access and internal estate road
Approved 24/07/2003
PLA/19781885 PF - Extension to factory
Approved 01/12/1978
PLA/20061867 PF - Refurbishment of offices and warehouse and erection of
two-storey office block
Approved 04/09/2007
PLA/19771151 PF - Office extension first floor maintenance block
Approved 19/08/1977
PLA/19770555 HR - First floor extension to existing offices
Approved 24/05/1977
PLA/19740390 PF - Extension to paint store
Approved 28/06/1974
PF/11/0212 PF - External cladding and use of industrial unit for D2 (entertainment
centre) comprising theatre/cinema, museum, cafe, shop, research centre/archive and
ancillary workshop
Approved 30/10/2012
PF/11/0813 PF - Change of use of land to a park and ride facility in connection with
projects at the Bacton Terminal Complex, including a security office; bus pick-up/drop
off, turning area and shelter; car, bus and motorcycle/cycle parking areas; fencing and
lighting; and associated works
Withdrawn by Applicant 10/01/2013
PF/13/0417 PF - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission reference:
11/0212 (requirement for construction of attenuation pond)
Approved 31/05/2013
PF/13/0962 PF - Formation of additional car park
Approved 24/12/2014
PF/14/1003 PF - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission ref. 13/0417
requiring the construction of attenuation pond
Approved 31/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the use of the existing land (approx. 0.4ha) behind Davenport's
Magic Kingdom for car boot sales. An email provided by the agent confirmed that the
car boot would be open between April and September on a Friday between 8am and
4pm. Following comments received by the Highway Authority, it has been further
confirmed that a total of 232 parking spaces would be provided, 50 spaces for sellers
and the rest for visitors/buyers.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr A Moore in regards to the possible impact on drainage and traffic.
TOWN COUNCIL
As car boot sales are defined as markets, it should be noted that North Walsham,
Town Council holds Market Rights covering any market held within a distance of 6 2/3
miles of the market cross, and therefore permission will need to be sought by the
applicant before this proposed programme of weekly car boot sales proceeds. The
matter has been referred to the Town Council's Development & Amenities Committee
for further consideration. Holding objection until further details are received regarding
Development Committee
88
23 July 2015
health and safety and drainage.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received, though concerns were sent by one resident
directly to the Environment Agency, which were subsequently passed to the planning
department. These concerns relate to drainage and the possible impact on a nearby
attenuation pond.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - having received further clarification from the
agent in regards to the steel frame and parking proposals, there is no objection subject
to conditions relating to the parking/turning area, number of spaces and hours of use.
Environmental Health - suggested that the stated opening hours are ok, however
recommending conditioning any approval so as to not allow opening outside of 8am 6pm on any given day. Further parking details provided are acceptable.
Environment Agency - no objection, subject further details being required in regards to
the provision of extra toilet facilities. Also require that should any catering facilities be
provided, the waste should be self-contained and disposed of away from the site.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of use
Drainage
Transport impact
Neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of change of use
The site lies within an employment area to west of, and on the edge of, North
Development Committee
89
23 July 2015
Walsham. Under Policy SS 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, within employment
areas, only employment generating proposals are considered to be acceptable.
The site for the proposed car boot sales is located to the rear of the building currently
occupied by Davenports Magic Kingdom. The land consists of a large area of concrete
hardstanding, on which an steel girder structure sits, attached to the existing
Davenports building. It is situated to the west of the main town, with Victory Housing
Trust offices and Waitrose store further west along Cromer Road, and industrial estate
to the rear of the site.
As stated above, the sales would be held one day a week on Friday between 8am and
4pm, and over the spring/summer months between April and September, with a
maximum of 50 parking spaces for sellers, the rest (182 spaces) for buyers.
Employment land - Planning Policy SS 5
The Planning Policy Manager considers that a temporary permission would be the
most appropriate approach. The reason for this is because the land is currently
designated as employment land under Policy SS 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy introducing an element of retailing onto the site, as this permission would, could
prevent employment uses locating onto the site. As such, a temporary permission
would allow the situation to be monitored and would not jeopardise the long term
availability of the land for employment purposes, whilst car boot sales would not
require the physical redevelopment of the land.
Neighbouring amenity (Policy EN 4)
The nearest residential dwellings are further along the Cromer Road to the west.
Although the extra vehicular traffic and more intensive use of the site could generate
an increase in noise, given the limited hours of use on Friday morning/afternoon (one
day a week), it is not considered that this would be significantly detrimental to
neighbouring amenity. Furthermore, no objections from neighbouring properties have
been raised to the proposed use.
Useability of site and drainage (Policy EN 13)
The agent for the application has confirmed that the existing metal structure on the site
is to be retained for structural purposes relating to the existing building. This was
queried with Environmental Health (and by the Highway Authority) in regards to the
practicalities of using the site for car boot sales and the need for vehicles to manoeuvre
around the structure. Environmental Health have subsequently confirmed that they
have no objection to the proposal, whilst the Highways Authority, following this
response, have no objection to the proposed use.
In regards to drainage, concerns have been passed to the planning department via the
Environment Agency from a local resident. The Environment Agency have confirmed
that they have no comments in regards to surface water drainage. They have,
however, requested a condition requiring details of a foul drainage, given the
possibility of the siting of toilet and catering facilities on the site. Having discussed this
with the applicant, they have indicated that the intention is to make use of the existing
toilet facilities within the Magic Kingdom building available for use. It has also been
confirmed that any catering stalls would be self-contained with waste disposed of away
from the site. The Environment Agency have confirmed that this arrangement is
acceptable. This matter has also been discussed at length with the Environmental
Health team who have confirmed that they have no concerns in regards to foul
drainage on the site in relation to the proposed use, particularly considering is is
Development Committee
90
23 July 2015
proposed on a temporary basis.
Traffic flows and parking (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposal, however they have
suggested that a temporary permission would be appropriate to allow the traffic flows
to and from the site to be monitored.
Conclusion
It is considered that, subject to a temporary permission due to the current planning
policy status of the site and to monitor drainage and the vehicular use of the site, the
proposal is acceptable and would not significantly conflict with adopted Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of specific
conditions listed below:
1. This permission shall expire (one year from the date of the decision) and unless
on or before that date application is made for an extension of the period of permission
and such application is approved by the Local Planning Authority,
(a) the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and
(b) any associated structures shall be removed from the site which is the subject of this
permission and
(c) there shall be carried out any works necessary for the reinstatement of the said land
to its condition before the start of the development hereby permitted as indicated in the
plans annexed to and forming part of this planning approval notice.
Reason:
In this instance the Local Planning Authority is only prepared to grant a temporary
planning permission, on a trial basis, to safeguard the future use of the designated
employment land, and to enable the effects of the use hereby permitted upon the
highway network and drainage to be properly established, in accordance with Policies
SS 5, EN 13 and CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2. The use to which this permission relates shall be carried out in strict accordance with
the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
Reason:
To ensure the use is carried out in accordance with the expressed intentions of the
applicant and to ensure the satisfactory use of the site, in accordance with Policy EN 4
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the proposed on-site car
parking areas shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plan and retained
thereafter available for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking / manoeuvring area, in the interests
of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
4. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted no more than 50 of the total
Development Committee
91
23 July 2015
available on-site car parking spaces shall be available to sellers with the remaining
spaces being available for general parking for visitors/buyers.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. The use of the land hereby permitted for car boot sales, including setting up of stalls
and pitches shall not take place except between the hours of 8am and 4pm on Fridays.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity, in
accordance with Policies EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as
amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
6. No additional toilet facilities shall be provided on the site, other than in accordance
with details to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order to protect the existing drainage system on and around the site, in accordance
with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7. Any temporary catering facilities provided on site shall be self-contained with any
waste disposed of away from the site.
Reason:
In order to protect the existing drainage system on and around the site, in accordance
with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(7)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/0311 - Erection of three car garage with games
room/gym above and link extension to existing dwelling; Glebe Farm, Marsh
Road for Mr & Mrs R Hall
- Target Date: 12 May 2015
Case Officer: Mr A Afford
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Designated Countryside
Flood Zone 2
1:1000 chance
Flood Zone 3 and Climate change
1:200 Chance
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20050331 PM - Erection of agricultural building
Approved 08/06/2005
PLA/20050053 NP - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural building
Refusal of Prior Notification 07/02/2005
PLA/20080684 NP - Erection of agricultural storage buildings
Approved 20/05/2008
PLA/20031450 PF - Use of land for siting mobile home for stockman
Refused 08/10/2003
Development Committee
92
23 July 2015
PLA/20030905 NP - Prior notification of intention to erect lean-to agricultural
building
Approved 26/06/2003
PLA/20060541 PF - Siting of mobile home as temporary agricultural worker's
dwelling
Temporary Approval 13/07/2006
PLA/20090313 PF - Continued use of land for siting mobile home
Approved 15/05/2009
PLA/19760251 HR - Conversion of existing building to office and store
Approved 07/04/1976
PLA/19750269 HR - Extension
Approved 14/03/1975
PLA/19841135 HR - Proposed extension to form day room for residential use
Approved 17/08/1984
PF/10/0228 PO - Erection of agricultural worker's dwelling
Approved 15/06/2010
PM/10/0734 PM - Erection of two-storey agricultural dwelling
Approved 28/01/2011
PF/13/0593 PF - Erection of livestock building
Approved 23/08/2013
PF/14/0236 PF - Erection of extension to livestock shed
Approved 09/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks to erect a three car garage with a games room above creating a
two storey building 6.9 m high with a length of 14.3 m, depth of 8 m.
The application also includes the erection of an extension that will link both the garage
and house, this will be one storey 4m in height and will be 5 m in length and 1.6 m in
width.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the previous committee to allow members the
opportunity to view the site.
The application was originally requested by Councillor Paul Rice due to the concerns
of access and unsightly overdevelopment raised by neighbours and the Parish council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objection, the proposal whilst primarily for residential usage is inappropriate
development on an area designed initially as a farm worker's living accommodation.
This is not in keeping with the initial approval and constitutes
over-development on a site which already encompasses 4 livestock buildings and a
farm house. This proposal would result in the "opening of the flood gates" for further
residential additions and usages on this area of land.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters of objection, raising the below points (summarised):
Objections:



Overdevelopment of the site to almost industrial site.
Not in accordance with previous application for farm workers living
accommodation that allows dwelling that is no larger than that required to meet
the functional needs of the enterprise.
Design is not sympathetic to surrounding landscape.
Development Committee
93
23 July 2015





Infrastructure i.e. roads is not suitable for increased traffic.
If approved this would open the flood gates for further residential additions and
new uses.
View from river is not very pleasant and contradicts EC3 as the extension will
be detrimental to the area’s character.
Underhand way of attaining another dwelling on site.
Increase to smell and noise from farm activities.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) Broadland - No Objection, provided garage is used for
intended use.
Conservation, Design and Landscape - No Objection, insufficient grounds for refusal
due to proposed garage being largely unseen behind hedgerows.
Broads Authority - No Comment
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS2 - Development in the Countryside
EN2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character
EN4 – Design
EN10 – Development and Flood risk
HO5 – Agricultural, Forestry and other Occupational Dwellings in the Countryside
HO8 – House Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
CT5 – The Transport Impact of New Development
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Size of dwelling as extended
3. Impact in Designated area of Countryside
4. Impact on Neighbouring Amenities
5. Flood risk
APPRAISAL
The site lies within, in the countryside policy area where proposals for extensions to
existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, providing compliance
with relevant core strategy policies including HO8, SS2 and EN4. As the proposal
involves the extension of an agricultural workers dwelling policy HO5 is also relevant.
Policy HO5 requires that any proposed dwelling should be no larger than is required to
meet the functional needs of the enterprise, nor to be unusually expensive to construct
Development Committee
94
23 July 2015
in relation to the income the enterprise could sustain.
The scale of the existing dwelling was considered under HO5 at the reserved matter
stage and was felt to be acceptable.
The link proposal is modest. No garaging was approved with the original proposal.
The applicant has stressed that the business is commercially viable and on balance
the proposal to primarily to provide covered parking with a games room/gym above is
considered acceptable under policy HO5.
The garage/games room will be well screened along the road and public footpath by
the existing hedge and treerows, with views to the garage at the site entrance blocked
by the other structures on site and future planting to be conditioned.
The only wider views of the garage would be from the adjacent fields to the north or
east which are not public land.
The proposal is considered to be an acceptable scale in relation to the existing
dwelling and has little impact on the wider landscape.
The design of both the garage and linkway is seen to be appropriate as both imitate the
style and materials of the host dwelling and neighbouring houses along Marsh Lane.
In terms of privacy and access to light the proposal poses no concern to the
neighbouring properties due to the secluded nature of the site.
The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to policy HO8 and EN4.
In terms of flood risk the proposed site falls within both flood zone 2 and 3 with both a
1:1000 and 1:200 chance of flooding to site, the application is however not deemed to
significantly increase risk or vulnerability due to the garage not being used for
habitation but storage on the ground floor.
In regards to increased traffic the highways have no objection to the proposal, it should
be noted that the garage will store vehicles currently on site and therefore not increase
traffic to and from site.
The proposal is considered to comply with policies of the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including landscaping and ancillary use to the dwelling.
(8)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/0312 - Erection of agricultural storage barn; Glebe
Farm, Marsh Road for Mr R Hall
Minor Development
- Target Date: 12 May 2015
Case Officer: Mr A Afford
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Designated Countryside
Flood Zone 2
1:1000 chance
Flood Zone 3 and Climate change
Development Committee
1:200 Chance
95
23 July 2015
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DEV21/07/223 ENQ - General purpose farm buildings
01/11/2009
PLA/20070923 PF - Erection of general purpose agricultural building
Withdrawn 28/04/2008
PLA/20050331 PM - Erection of agricultural building
Approved 08/06/2005
PLA/20050053 NP - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural building
Refusal of Prior Notification 07/02/2005
PLA/20080684 NP - Erection of agricultural storage buildings
Approved 20/05/2008
PLA/20031450 PF - Use of land for siting mobile home for stockman
Refused 08/10/2003
PLA/20030905
NP - Prior notification of intention to erect lean-to agricultural
building
Approved 26/06/2003
PLA/20060541
PF - Siting of mobile home as temporary agricultural worker's
dwelling
Temporary Approval 13/07/2006
PLA/20090313 PF - Continued use of land for siting mobile home
Approved 15/05/2009
PLA/19760251 HR - Conversion of existing building to office and store
Approved 07/04/1976
PLA/19750269 HR - Extension
Approved 14/03/1975
PLA/19841135 HR - Proposed extension to form day room for residential use
Approved 17/08/1984
PF/10/0228 PO - Erection of agricultural worker's dwelling
Approved 15/06/2010
PM/10/0734 PM - Erection of two-storey agricultural dwelling
Approved 28/01/2011
PF/13/0593 PF - Erection of livestock building
Approved 23/08/2013
PF/14/0236 PF - Erection of extension to livestock shed
Approved 09/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks to construct a barn for the storage of straw proposing a structure
7.5 m high and 30.5 m length x 15.2 m depth.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the previous committee to allow members the
opportunity
to view the site.
The application was originally requested for call into committee by Councillor Paul Rice
due to the concerns of access and unsightly overdevelopment raised by neighbours
and the Parish council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objection, this proposed large agricultural storage barn constitutes over-development
of the site, where there already exists 4 livestock buildings and a farm workers house.
In addition, the extra traffic movements generated by this development on an already
sub-standard, narrow access road will cause more disruption and hazards to other
road users and local residents. Positioning of another large agricultural building here
Development Committee
96
23 July 2015
would undoubtedly result in the area becoming another eye-sore to visitors and local
residents alike in this valuable rural setting.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters of objection, raising the below points (summarised):
Objections:






Overdevelopment of the site to almost industrial site.
Design is not sympathetic to surrounding landscape.
Infrastructure i.e. roads is not suitable for increased agriculture traffic.
If approved this would open the flood gates for further residential additions and
new uses.
View from river is not very pleasant and contradicts EC3 as the extension will
be detrimental to the area’s character.
Increase to smell and noise from farm activities.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) Broadland - No Objection, the number of vehicular
movements is not particularly excessive and clearly related to existing uses on site.
This is an agricultural area and such movements can be expected.
Broads Authority - No Comment
Environmental Health - No Objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape - No Objection, see response below.
Glebe Farm has been the subject of a succession of planning applications for storage
units and expansion since 2003. It is now a large scale complex of modern farm units
on the edge of the settlement that is out of scale with the predominantly domestic
ribbon development that typifies this eastern part of Potter Heigham. Marsh Road
hosts some traditional historic dwellings, interspersed with new infill.
VISUAL IMPACT
The location of the proposed storage barn, directly adjacent to one of the existing
barns does retain the new build within the existing farm complex. Although large in
scale, the proposed barn is of the same proportions as Barn 2 adjacent and a mature
hedge along the site boundary with Marsh Road provides some visual screening. In
consideration of a previous application (PF/14/0236) for a larger farm unit, the view
was expressed that the unit would be more successfully accommodated if it was sited
adjacent to Barn 2, exactly where this latest barn is proposed. For various reasons at
the time, this was not considered viable by the applicant and additional landscape
planting was negotiated along the west boundary of the barn. Given the existing
vegetation along the southern boundary, the wider visual impact of this
latest proposal cannot be deemed to be significant. There can therefore be no
substantial grounds for objection on grounds of visual impact.
Previous applications for modern farm units on this site have been granted subject to
the imposition of a scheme of landscape planting to provide visual mitigation in the
wider landscape. The majority of the planting was in conjunction with a 2010
application and it should therefore be well established by now. This is clearly not the
case. I note that only some of this planting has been implemented to date, what has
been planted is very small stock and it has also been planted very recently. This
constitutes a breach of previous consents, in particular PF/10/0734 and PF/14/0236.
Development Committee
97
23 July 2015
LANDSCAPE IMPACT
The site lies within the Landscape Type known as Settled Fen, SF1 Stalham, Ludham
& Potter Heigham as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment
(SPD June 2009). An open arable flat landscape with small pockets of pasture close
to settlement and farmsteads characterises the area.
The Assessment notes that paddocks and small fields around settlements make up the
only areas of ecological value within the Type (Table 9.2) and contribute to the rural
character. Changes to their usage and development on these sites is seen as having a
markedly negative effect on the landscape character. Changes which retain and
enhance the main ecological and traditional rural character are cited as making a
positive contribution towards maintaining the prevailing landscape character. This
development, together with the cumulative effect of previous development on this site
could not be assessed as preserving or enhancing this aspect of the landscape
character. However, given the close siting of this latest unit within the existing layout, it
would be hard to justify refusal on these grounds.
The site lies 300m from a sensitive European designated landscape known as the
Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which contains the Upper Thurne Broads
& Marshes SSSI. Any impacts on this highly significant environment must be given
special consideration. This is one of the finest examples of an unreclaimed wetland
complex in Britain and the area is of national and international importance for nature
conservation. It supports a wide range of wetland plant communities and associated
animal species. The stretches of open water are surrounded by extensive areas of
reed bed and species-rich sedge fen, with significant areas of associated grazing
marsh and fen meadow which host breeding grounds for birds such as snipe, lapwing
and redshank and are important feeding areas for the large numbers of wintering
wildfowl. Glebe Farm and its surrounding arable fields are directly adjacent to this
grazing marsh habitat. The siting of this latest storage unit within the existing farm
layout does not significantly increase the impact of the operation as a whole on the
surrounding designated landscape. That said, the applicant should demonstrate that
any drainage and run-off issues will be wholly contained within the site.
CONCLUSION
By virtue of the location of this additional barn unit within and close to other existing
buildings making up the whole farm complex and the mature hedging along the
boundary with Marsh Road, I conclude that the landscape and visual impacts of this
particular proposal can be mitigated by a comprehensive landscape planting scheme
that specifies number, size and location of all tree and shrub species. It should be said
that the cumulative impact of this expanding farm does give rise to concern in relation
to impact on the prevailing landscape character. This building should therefore form
the limit of development within this site, as it would be difficult to justify any additional
farm units under CS Strategy EN2: Protection & Enhancement of Landscape and
Settlement Character.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
98
23 July 2015
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
SS2 - Development in the Countryside
EN2 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character
EN4 – Design
EN9 - Biodiversity and Geology
EN10 – Development and Flood risk
EN13 – Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation
EC3 – Extensions to Existing Businesses in the countryside
CT5 – The Transport Impact of New Development
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Landscape impact
3. Impact on Neighbouring Amenities
4. Impact on broads special Area of Conservation
5. Impact on Highways
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the countryside policy area where proposals for expanding
agricultural businesses are considered to be acceptable in principle (SS2), providing
compliance with relevant core strategy policies including EN2, EN4, EC3, EN9, EN10,
EN13 and CT5.
With regard to likely impact on the visual amenities of the area and the surrounding
landscape, the proposal is seen to be coherent in scale and design to the existing
complex of buildings which are reflective of many modern agricultural buildings found
within the surrounding countryside. The landscape officer has raised no objections and
requested conditions as well as existing hedge/tree rows will ensure the barn is
shielded from view in relation to the surrounding landscape.
Providing these hedgerows are established the barn will not be visible from outside the
curtilage of Glebe farm, this hedgerow will also control any further development as it
will provide a visible boundary. It should also be noted that the presence of similar
agricultural complexes are within the vicinity such as Hall Farm.
The proposal is considered acceptable under policies EN2 and EN4.
In terms of overdevelopment and further expansion of the site, the building will be
comfortably located within the complex.
In terms of privacy and access to light the proposal poses no concern to the
neighbouring properties due to the secluded nature of the site. The proposal is
acceptable under policy EN4.
In terms of flood risk the proposed site falls within both flood zone 2 and 3 with both a
1:1000 and 1:200 chance of flooding to site, the application is however not deemed to
significantly increase risk or vulnerability due to the barn not being used for habitation
but storage. The proposed is acceptable under policy EN10.
In regards to increased traffic the highways have no objection to the barn due to the
fact that the barn will be used to store hay which is already transported to site in
Development Committee
99
23 July 2015
concurrence with the existing piggery business. The use does not require frequent
traffic with activity only occurring once year at harvest which within these occasions will
involve 20 trips back and forth at the most, and collection of used straw occurring 4
times within the year which requires at most 5 pickups each time. It should also be
noted this is not a through road and not heavily used. The proposal is acceptable under
policy CT5.
In terms of protecting the interests of the Broads Special Area of Conservation (Policy
EN9), further information has been requested to determine that drainage and run-off
will be dealt with within the site.
The proposal is considered to comply with policies of the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to receipt of
acceptable drainage details and imposition of appropriate conditions including
landscaping.
(9)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0326 - Demolition of single-storey front extension and
erection of part two-storey and part single-storey front extension; 2 Sand Pit
Cottages, Sandpit Lane for Mr & Mrs Chamberlin
- Target Date: 07 May 2015
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030936 PF - Erection of detached double garage
Approved 24/07/2003
PF/14/1431 HOU - Demolition of single storey extension and erection of two storey
front extension and erection of single storey rear extension
Withdrawn - Invalid 08/01/2015
PF/15/0330 HOU - Erection of detached double garage
Approved 06/05/2015
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks permission to demolish an existing single storey front extension
and replace it with a part two storey and part single storey front extension (south west
elevation). A two storey section would extend 3.7m from the front elevation, with a
single storey section extending an additional 2.7m. In addition a single storey glazed
section would be sited adjacent to the two storey section, extending 3.3m from the
main house.
An amended plan was discussed with the agent, and received, which reduced the
length of the two storey extension from 4.7m to 3.7m and replaced a pitched roof on
one of the single storey sections with a flat roof. As this reduced the scheme's impact
this was not re-advertised. Re-consultation only occurred with Conservation and
Design.
The porch shown on the plans falls under Permitted Development and does not
therefore require planning permission.
Development Committee
100
23 July 2015
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Sue Arnold with regard to the impact upon the impact upon
neighbour's residential amenity.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Thorpe Market Parish Council (same response for both PF/15/0330 and PF/15/0326) –
objects and considers both applications are over-development of the site.
Members think there are right of way issues and careful consideration should be given
to the immediate neighbours.
The development is also extremely close to boundary lines and the height appears to
be disproportionate in this location.
We are asking for Sue Arnold to call this in for a site visit as Cllrs consider there are
various issues to be ironed out before proceeding.
REPRESENTATIONS
There have been no representations received.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design – confirmed the response remains the same for both the
original plans and amended plans.
The site lies within the designated Thorpe Market Conservation Area. Sand Pit
Cottages are a row of three traditional early 19th century cottages which represent a
good example of the local vernacular. The cottages are very much characterised by
their architectural value as a group, along with their traditional pallet of materials,
coursed flint work and detailing. Whilst not being 'listed' they do make a significant
contribution to the character and appearance of the area.
In regards to the proposal, the rear (north-east) elevation of 2 Sand Pit Cottages
remains relatively in-tact. There has been little in the way of later addition alterations to
the fabric of the building, leaving the flint work as the dominating feature. The building
was subject to a previous application Ref PF/14/1431 which was withdrawn - C&D had
reservations over the design and impact of the proposed extensions on the character
of the host building and wider context of the Conservation Area. In particular, the flat
roof form of proposed rear extension which cut across the full length of the elevation
which would have permanently obscured those key features outlined above.
This latest proposal has addressed these concerns and represents a significant
improvement on the original submission. The large extension to the rear has been
entirely removed from the scheme and a simple porch is now proposed instead. As a
result of this, the principal flint elevation remains in-tact and retains its original
character and detailing.
In terms of the front (south-west) elevation, the unsightly single-storey flat roof will be
demolished which C&D most certainly welcome. The extension will be replaced with a
two-storey addition which due to its traditional form and pastiche design sits much
more comfortably in terms of architectural context and local distinctiveness. Whilst
there is a significant increase in scale, height and footprint, the extension remains
subservient to the host building, the ridge height is set down and there is clear
definition between new and historic periods of construction.
Development Committee
101
23 July 2015
Overall, C&D consider the proposals will not harm the setting of the Conservation Area
or the character of the host building. In the event of the application being approved the
following conditions should be attached:


“Prior to their use of site, details of the brick, tile and coping shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the LPA. The work shall then be carried out only in strict
accordance with the approved details.”
“Prior to their installation, full details of the roof lights shall be submitted to and
agreed in writing by the LPA. The roof lights shall then be installed only in strict
accordance with the approved details.”
“Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA, all rainwater goods shall be
finished in black.”
Note The applicant is advised that all repairs and making good of historic masonry
shall be carried out using a cement-free lime mortar.
By virtue that the proposal will not harm the significance of the heritage asset, C&D
raise no objection to the application.
Environmental Health - Please can I advise the following advisory notes:
N36 - Asbestos Removal: The applicant/agent is advised that any removal of asbestos
from the site should be in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006,
under which the applicant/agent has a duty of care. Holders of this duty must prevent
escape of the waste whilst it is under their control. For further help and advice in
respect of asbestos removal the applicant/agent is advised to contact the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) on 0845 345 0055 (www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos)
N43 - Demolition of buildings: The applicant/agent is advised that no person should
begin demolition of any building that has a cubic content of more than 49.55m3 (1750
cubic feet) unless the Local Authority has given notice under Section 81 of the Building
Act 1984, and, either the Local Authority has given notice under Section 81 of the
Building Act 1984 or the relevant period has expired. The details to be submitted with
the notice shall include a scheme for the method of demolition and means of
controlling noise and dust during demolition.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
Development Committee
102
23 July 2015
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact upon neighbour's residential amenity
3. Overdevelopment of the site
APPRAISAL
The dwelling is a relatively small 3 bed mid terrace sited between the unadopted road
Sandpit Lane and the A149. It's main vehicular access is from the A149, with what
appears to be a right of way over land adjacent to Primrose Cottage. A long narrow
garden is located to the south west (separated from the dwelling by a shared pathway)
and a relatively large driveway area is sited to the north east. Application PF/15/0330
recently granted planning permission for the erection of a double garage in this
driveway.
The adjacent neighbour to the south east (1 Sand Pit Cottages) has one single storey
extension to their side elevation and the neighbour to the north west has a two storey
linked extension to their side, extending slightly beyond the front elevation of the row of
terraces.
A previous application by the applicants was withdrawn after officers advised that the
application would be refused (PF/14/1431). Following discussions with the agent and
applicants a revised scheme was submitted (this application). After further discussions
an amended plan was submitted that aims to reduce the impact the design would have
upon 1 Sand Pit Cottages' residential amenity.
Policy SS 2 and Policy HO 8
Sited within the Countryside appropriate residential extensions are considered
acceptable in principle under both policies.
Under Policy HO 8 extensions shouldn't result in a disproportionately large increase in
the height or scale of the original dwelling or materially increase the impact of the
dwelling upon the wider Countryside.
The largest part of the extension would replicate the footprint of the existing extension,
at 6.4m long and 3.3m wide. The increase in footprint is considered to be relatively
minimal, at 9 square metres. The extension would not be readily visible from the wider
Countryside due to the amount of surrounding vegetation and built form. Whilst the
extension represents a relatively significant extension in terms of size for the original
dwelling, it is designed to be subordinate and would sit 1.1m lower than the main ridge
height. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies SS 2 and HO 8.
Policy EN 4
The aim of Policy EN4 is that development should be designed to a high standard,
reinforce local distinctiveness and should not have a significantly detrimental effect on
the residential amenity of nearby occupants. The revised design is considered to be
consistent with the style of the 3 cottages.
The removal of the existing single storey flat roof front extension is to be supported as
the extension does not preserve the character or quality of either the area or host
dwelling. The design of the replacement extensions is considered to be an
Development Committee
103
23 July 2015
improvement, and would serve to help preserve the character and quality of both the
host building and wider area.
The amended plans have reduced the length of the two storey section by 1m, changed
a single storey section to a flat roof and removed a kitchen window in the south east
elevation. All of these serve to minimise the impact upon neighbours, reducing any
overlooking, overshadowing and overbearance.
The impact on the neighbour to the north west is considered acceptable. No windows
face towards them so there are no concerns regarding overlooking. The single storey
kitchen section and two storey section would create some additional overshadowing.
However the two storey section would lie 2.8m away from their boundary and 11m
from their own extension. This neighbour's property lies north west with the area due
south of them open allowing a significant amount of sunlight to reach this part of their
dwelling. As such the additional overshadowing is considered to be acceptable.
The neighbour to the south-east would be impacted more, although due to the
orientation, the overshadowing would be limited to selected times of the day. It is
considered that the amended plans have reduced the impact of the scheme enough to
recommend an approval, with the two storey section extending 3.7m out rather than
4.7m. The amended plans have not been re-advertised as they reduce the scheme’s
impact, and no representations were received on the original proposal.
Whilst the development would constitute a relatively significant increase to the size of
original dwelling, the visual impact would be reduced by the design, and when viewed
in terms of the size of the curtilage it is relatively small. Application PF/15/0330 granted
permission for a double garage to the rear (north-east) of the dwelling. The Parish
Council have raised concerns that the cumulative impact of both applications would
constitute overdevelopment. Whilst these are two separate applications it is worth
noting that the cumulative impact has been minimised from PF/14/1431. This
application now focuses all the development to the dwelling itself to the front elevation,
with the garage to the rear. In doing so the overall developments would not result in a
cramped form of development. The extensions to the dwelling are considered to be of
an appropriate scale and mass, and would not result in overdevelopment of the site.
With appropriate conditions regarding the materials and preventing any new windows
within the south-east elevation Policy EN 4 is considered to be complied with.
Policy EN 8
Policy EN 8 states that developments should preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area through high quality, sensitive design. Proposals
which would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area's special historic or
architectural interest will not be permitted.
In relation to of the Conservation Area the demolition of the existing single-storey flat
roof extension is also encouraged. The extension would be replaced with a part single
storey and part two-storey development which would relate far better to it's host
dwelling and surroundings, due to its sympathetic design and more traditional form.
As acknowledged above the size is relatively large. However it would clearly be
subservient to the host building and easily recognised as a later addition. As such the
proposal is considered to comply with Policy EN 8 as it would not harm the
Conservation Area or host dwelling.
Development Committee
104
23 July 2015
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposal complies with the adopted Development Plan policies
and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
1
Approve, with the conditions below added;
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section
91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing numbers
CHAMB-03-15-PL Rev A, CHAMB-04-15-PL Rev A and CHAMB-06-15-PL Rev B)
received by the Local Planning Authority on 2 June 2015.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Prior to their first use of site, details of the facing bricks, roof tiles and coping shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall
then be carried out only in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4
Prior to their installation, full details of the rooflights shall be submitted to and agreed in
writing by the LPA. The rooflights shall then be installed only in strict accordance with
the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the rooflights to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 and Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA, all rainwater goods shall be finished in
black.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the rooflights to be used will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 and Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order
with or without modification) no window shall be inserted in the south east elevation of
Development Committee
105
23 July 2015
the extension hereby permitted unless planning permission has been first granted by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraphs
3.3.9 to 3.3.11 of the Design Guide.
10.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following application.
The application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/15/0467 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling,
Green Farm, Holt Road for Executors of Estate of E W Jay and Y U Watts
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning prior to the consideration of a full report at a
future meeting in order to assess highways implications in respect to the following
application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
11.
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
April to June 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal
outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 14) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the first quarter of 2015/16.
14 major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 101 minor
applications and 232 other applications, a total of 347 applications, a increase of 83
compared with the previous quarter.
The most recent quarter saw 7 of the 14 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, i.e. 50%. Down from the 87.5% for the previous quarter, the
cumulative figure for 2014/15 at 74.42% was however comfortably above the 40%
figure set for special measures by the Government.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance decreased by 10.36% to 36.63% over
the previous quarter, as against the Council’s target of 70%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance increased by 2.25% to
61.21%, below the Council’s target of 70%.
Development Committee
106
23 July 2015
Members will appreciate that performance has again dropped in 2 areas over the last
quarter in respect of “majors” and “minors”.
Pre-application enquiries were up on the previous quarter. Discharge of Condition
applications were down. ‘Do I Need Planning Permission’ enquiries were up. Duty
Officer Enquiries were significantly down from 843 to 768.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went up to 93.14%.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 3
decisions were made, 1 allowed and 2 dismissed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 606 were submitted and handled during the
quarter, a increase of 42 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the first quarter of the new year has seen a dip in performance in respect
of “majors” and “minors”, as the Service continues to experience a period of staff
turnover, coupled with completing the re-structuring. Although the restructuring is
almost complete (1 full time and 1 maternity cover post still to be recruited into) the two
new members of staff recently recruited did not start in their Development
Management posts until late in May, some improvement is expected
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager ext 6149)
12.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PF/15/0590 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, conversion
of garage/store/utility to ancillary accommodation, installation of pitched roof
and cladding; Broad Acre, Holt Road, Aylmerton, Norwich, NR11 8QA for Mr &
Mrs Sadler
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/15/0530 - Erection of rear porch; Hayletts, Staithe Road,
Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8AZ for Mrs Greenwood
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - LA/15/0531 - External alterations to facilitate erection of rear
porch; Hayletts, Staithe Road, Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8AZ for Mrs
Greenwood
(Listed Building Alterations)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0568 - Removal of condition 8 of planning permission
ref: 14/1575 to delete Code Level 3 requirement; Sandywood, Sheringwood,
Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8TS for Mr Mackenzie
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0254 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection
of replacement one and a half-storey dwelling and detached garage; Field Fare,
Church Close, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9QY for Mr S Dallimore
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
107
23 July 2015
BINHAM - NMA1/14/0607 - Non-material amendment request to permit omission
of first floor window to east elevation and insertion of velux to east roofslope; 14
Langham Road, Binham, Fakenham, NR21 0DW for Mr M Jeffrey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BODHAM - PF/15/0423 - Conversion of barns to five holiday accommodation
units, swimming pool building/office and installation of tennis court; Rookery
Farm, The Street, Bodham, Holt, NR25 6NN for Arthur Wilson Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BRININGHAM - PU/15/0666 - Prior notification of intention to convert agricultural
building to two (C3) dwellinghouses; Hall Farm, Dereham Road, Briningham,
MELTON CONSTABLE, NR24 2QJ for Briningham Farms Ltd
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
BRISTON - NMA1/13/1505 - Non material amendment request to permit omission
of south side elevation window, revised doors and windows arrangement to
north, east and west elevations; Land adjacent 104 Hall Street, Briston for Mr K
Sturman
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BRISTON - PF/15/0734 - Erection of side and rear extensions to form annexe,
demolition of existing garage/store and erection of garage to rear; Fir Grove
House, 132 Fakenham Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2HG for Mrs E
Sperry
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - NMA1/15/0095 - Non material amendment request to permit retention
of former ground floor garage window and revised size of ground and first floor
windows to north elevation; The Rectory, Fenside, Catfield, Great Yarmouth,
NR29 5DB for Mr A Berry
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CATFIELD - NMA1/14/0486 - Non-material amendment request to permit insertion
of first floor window to rear elevation extension; Rose Cottage, Fenside, Catfield,
Great Yarmouth, NR29 5DD for Miss R Barry
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - PF/15/0156 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of 2
single-storey dwellings; 7 Colne Place, Cromer, NR27 9DR for Mr Quercia
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LD/15/0544 - Demolition of rear boundary brick/flint wall; 2
Chesterfield Villas, West Street, Cromer, NR27 9EW for Mrs M Denton
(Listed Building Demolition)
CROMER - PF/15/0502 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
to 27 Shipden Avenue, Cromer, NR27 9DW for Mr & Mrs Peart
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/0676 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and alterations;
93 Station Road, Cromer, NR27 0DY for Mr and Mrs Tabecki
(Householder application)
Development Committee
108
23 July 2015
CROMER - NMA1/14/0543 - Non material amendment request to permit the
retention of four rooflights and one ground floor window to rear elevation; 9
and 11 Church Street, Cromer, NR27 9ER for Mr & Mrs Greenwood
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/15/0678 - Demolition of detached garage and erection of
two-storey side and single-storey rear extensions; 21 Harbord Road, Cromer,
NR27 0BP for Mr and Mrs M Pegg
(Householder application)
EAST BECKHAM - PF/15/0690 - Variation of conditions 2 and 3 of planning
permission ref: 13/1465 to reduce the width of garage, to extend rear and change
materials from brick and flint to brick; Easter Cottage, 4 The Loke, East
Beckham, Norwich, NR11 8RP for Mrs S Burridge
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/0368 - Erection of porch and one and a half-storey side
extension and insertion of front dormer window; 1 The Cottages, Holt Road,
Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2RP for Mr Gay
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0456 - Erection of two detached one and a half-storey
dwellings and detached double garages; 188 Norwich Road, Fakenham, NR21
8LX for Haller Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0461 - Installation of replacement ATM; 36 Market Place,
Fakenham, NR21 9DA for HSBC Bank Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AI/15/0518 - Installation of illuminated hanging sign and non
illuminated signs; 4 Market Place, Fakenham, NR21 9BA for RBS
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - LA/15/0519 - External alterations to facilitate installation of signs; 4
Market Place, Fakenham, NR21 9BA for RBS
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0535 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Bungalow 1,
The Old School, Constitution Hill, Fakenham, NR21 9EF for Mrs Guest
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0641 - Installation of two windows to south elevation;
Ambulance Station, Garrood Drive, Fakenham, NR21 8NN for East of England
Ambulance Service
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0730 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 2 Garden
Court, Fakenham, NR21 8HL for Mr & Mrs Riseborough
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/14/0217 - Non material amendment to permit revised
elevations and exclude stair towers; Kinnerton (Confectionary) Co Ltd,
Oxborough Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8AF for Kinnerton Confectionary Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
109
23 July 2015
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0085 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions; Creswick
House, 77-79 Norwich Road, Fakenham, NR21 8HH for Jeesal
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PM/15/0477 - Erection of three dwellings; Beech House, Hayes
Lane, Fakenham, NR21 9EP for Bobyk Developments
(Reserved Matters)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0581 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension; 9 Ratcliffe
Road, Fakenham, NR21 8AY for Mr Westwood
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0653 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Flintstones,
1 Buckenham Close, Fakenham, NR21 8AG for Mr Ridge
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - AI/15/0700 - Installation of illuminated and non-illuminated signs;
18 Norwich Road, Fakenham, NR21 8AZ for Aldi Stores Ltd - Chelmsford
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FELBRIGG - PF/15/0325 - Replacement of flat roof with pitched roof to facilitate
conversion of garage to residential annexe including accommodation in roof
space; Run-sally-run, Metton Road, Felbrigg, Norwich, NR11 8PJ for Mr Connelly
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/15/0570 - Conversion of detached garage/workshop to holiday
cottage; Drift Cottage Farm, The Driftway, Felbrigg, Norwich, NR11 8PL for Mr &
Mrs Read
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - NMA2/14/0310 - Non-material amendment request to replace
honeycomb brickwork with a side hung casement window to western elevation
of unit 1; Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road, NR25 7AS for Blue Tile Farm Barns
Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
GIMINGHAM - PF/15/0492 - Retention of new vehicle access and gates; 1 Harvey
Estate, Gimingham, Norwich, NR11 8HA for Mr Mayes Jnr
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - HN/15/0605 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original wall by 5 metres, which would
have a maximum height of 3.5 metres and an eaves height of 2.2 metres; Lewelen
House, Chequers Road, Gresham, Norwich, NR11 8RQ for Mr & Mrs Wilson
(Householder Prior Notification)
GRESHAM - PF/15/0566 - Erection of detached ancillary annexe; 17 Cromer
Road, Lower Gresham, Norwich, NR11 8RF for Mrs Dennis
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - NP/15/0785 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Hall Farm, Field Dalling Road, Bale, Fakenham, NR21 0QS for
Mr H Carter
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
Development Committee
110
23 July 2015
GUNTHORPE - PF/15/0409 - Erection of part first floor, part two-storey rear
extension; The Angel And Oak, Sharrington Road, Bale, Fakenham, NR21 0QY
for Dr Wall
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/15/0599 - Retention of temporary lifeboat station; RNLI, Cart
Gap Road, Happisburgh, Norwich, NR12 0QL for Royal National Lifeboat
Institution
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/15/0411 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 66 The
Street, Helhoughton, Fakenham, NR21 7BP for Mr Mack
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - HN/15/0682 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey
rear extension which would project from the original wall by 5 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 2.5 metres and an eaves height of 2.4 metres;
Brialey, Raynham Road, Helhoughton, Fakenham, NR21 7BH for Mr C Armstrong
(Householder Prior Notification)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/15/0737 - Change of use of detached annex to holiday unit;
Annexe At, Selbrigg Farm, Kelling Road, Hempstead, Holt, NR25 6NF for Mr F
Feilden
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - LA/15/0612 - Part repair, part reconstruction of hall following fire
damage; The Hall, Town Street, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0AZ for Mr Ellis
(Listed Building Alterations)
HICKLING - PF/14/1508 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and single-storey
side extension with balcony above; Brambley Hedge, Stubb Road, Hickling,
Norwich, NR12 0BW for Mrs J Simmance
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/15/0583 - Remove one set of gates and erect replacement
wall; Beck Farmhouse, 123 The Street, Hindolveston, Dereham, NR20 5DD for Ms
Headicar
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - LA/15/0584 - External alterations to facilitate the removal of
gates and erection of boundary wall; Beck Farmhouse, 123 The Street,
Hindolveston, Dereham, NR20 5DD for Ms Headicar
(Listed Building Alterations)
HINDOLVESTON - LA/15/0733 - Installation of conservation rooflight in south
elevation roofslope; Whitehouse Farmhouse, 68 The Street, Hindolveston,
Dereham, NR20 5DF for Mr T Walsh
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/15/0328 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Garden of 5 The
Fairstead, Holt, NR25 6JE for Mr and Mrs D Power
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
111
23 July 2015
HOLT - LA/15/0500 - Installation of replacement of front and rear windows and
new rooflight to rear extension; 20 New Street, Holt, NR25 6JH for Green Street
Property Development Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/15/0580 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2 The Fairstead,
Holt, NR25 6JE for Mr Collier
(Householder application)
HOLT - NMA1/14/0901 - Non-material amendment request to change size of
window on east elevation to 900mm x 750mm; Thornwood, Thornage Road, Holt,
NR25 6ST for Mr S Smith
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOLT - PF/15/0534 - Demolition of single storey garage/store/toilet link, part
demolition of pitched roof to kitchen and erection of single-storey side/front
linked extension; 24 St Andrews Close, Holt, NR25 6EL for Derek Foreman House
Builders Limited
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/15/0718 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 2 Norwich Road,
Horning, Norwich, NR12 8LW for Mr & Mrs Smith
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/15/0654 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension
and installation of 2 velux windows to roofslope on west elevation; Meadow
Song, 13 Two Saints Close, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8QP for Mr & Mrs Backhurst
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/15/0490 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Pheasant Hotel,
Weybourne Road, Kelling, Holt, NR25 7EG for Kelling Estate LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - NMA1/14/1677 - Non material amendment request to permit
insertion of velux to front roofslope, enlarge velux to north/east roofslope and
omit ground floor windows to north/east elevation and roofslope; Byfields, The
Street, Kettlestone, Fakenham, NR21 0JB for Mr P Hall
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LESSINGHAM - PF/15/0525 - Creation of new vehicle access and drive; Church
Farm, Coast Road, Lessingham, Norwich, NR12 0SG for G L Anderson
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/15/0656 - Erection of single-storey
side extension; 5 Post Yard, Thornage Road, Letheringsett, Holt, NR25 7JQ for
Mr J Melrose
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/15/0052 - Conversion of existing mill and erection of replacement
single-storey building to residential dwelling.; High Mill, High Mill Hill, Yarmouth
Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5QZ for Mrs M Rayner
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
112
23 July 2015
MELTON CONSTABLE - AI/15/0565 - Installation of replacement illuminated and
non-illuminated signs; 71 Briston Road, Melton Constable, NR24 2AP for East of
England Co-op
(Advertisement Illuminated)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/15/0494 - Erection of single-storey side extension to
storage building and installation of cladding over two elevations; Marriott Way,
Melton Constable, NR24 2BT for The Big Prawn Co Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/15/0726 - Raise roof by 1.75m on existing timber
outbuilding and erection of single-storey rear extension to dwelling; Meadow
House, Craymere Beck, Melton Constable, NR24 2LR for Mrs J Daniels
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - NMA1/02/0564 - Non material amendment request to permit
revised size and position of double garage/workshop.; The Field Cottage, King
Street, Neatishead, Norwich, NR12 8BW for Mrs Carlton
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0529 - Erection of first floor rear extension and porch;
1 Meeting House Cottages, Mundesley Road, North Walsham, NR28 0RF for Mr &
Mrs Harmer
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0560 - Erection of front, side and rear single-storey
extensions; 25 Skeyton Road, North Walsham, NR28 0BT for Mr & Mrs Cutting
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0275 - Change of use of retail shop (A1) to dwelling
(C3); 20 Kings Arms Street, North Walsham, NR28 9JX for Ms L Bass
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/14/1271 - Non-material amendment request to permit
revised design to ground floor window to north elevation and French doors to
upper ground and first floor of building B; Ebridge Mill, Happisburgh Road,
White Horse Common, North Walsham, NR28 9NH for Barn Owl Conversions Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0550 - Erection of first floor side extension; 29 Hamlet
Close, North Walsham, NR28 0DL for Mrs Stoker
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0696 - Erection single-storey side extension; 39
Thirlby Road, North Walsham, NR28 9JB for Ms S Giles
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0719 - Erection of rear extension to existing garage;
16 Foxglove Close, North Walsham, NR28 9XP for Mr & Mrs T Isherwood
(Householder application)
PLUMSTEAD - PF/15/0659 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
Sunningdale, Cherry Tree Road, Plumstead, Norwich, NR11 7LQ for Mr and Mrs
Carpenter
(Householder application)
Development Committee
113
23 July 2015
RAYNHAM - PF/15/0564 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
13/0286 to permit revised design to accommodate boot room, utility room and air
source heat pump; Trees Field Farm, Heath Road, West Raynham, FAKENHAM,
NR21 7DP for Mrs Agnew
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PU/15/0592 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to 2 dwellinghouses (C3); Uphouse Farm, Swaffham Road,
South Raynham for Mr N Joice
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0553 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension;
Ember Cottage, Heath Lane, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8NB for Mr & Mrs Platton
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PO/15/0058 - Erection of 9 dwellings; Roughton Motor Co, Chapel
Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8AF for Dove Jeffery Homes
(Outline Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/15/0136 - Erection of greenhouse/shed; Adjacent to Sunray, Thains
Lane, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9PD for Mr S Withers
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0648 - Demolition of conservatory, erection of single storey
rear extension and detached double garage with log store.; Genesis, The
Meadow, Station Road, Great Ryburgh, Fakenham, NR21 0DX for Mr Daniels
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - NMA1/14/1334 - Non material amendment request to permit
construction in two phases, erection of sub-station to eastern boundary,
alterations to wooden post spacing for deer fencing, revised positioning and
height and tilt of solar panels.; Former RAF Coltishall, Lamas Road, Scottow,
NR10 5LR for Scottow Moor Solar Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0319 - Erection of first floor rear extension and installation
of stairs to first floor and walkway to rear; 16a High Street, Sheringham, NR26
8JR for Mr Jackson
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0551 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2-8
Augusta Street, Sheringham, NR26 8LA for Mr Parks
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0188 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
12/1126 to permit to raise first floor extension roof by 300mm; Flat 2, Old Bakery
Mews, Co-operative Street, Sheringham, NR26 8DX for Mrs J Gardner
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0509 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 34 Brook Road,
Sheringham, NR26 8QE for Mr and Mrs Norton
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
114
23 July 2015
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0016 - Demolition of two semi-detached dwellings and
outbuildings and erection of two replacement detached two-storey dwellings; 35
Beeston Common, Sheringham, NR26 8ET for Mr & Mrs Howe
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0376 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
13/0766 to allow to move proposed dwelling by 1.7m north and 0.3m west to
create larger turning area, insertion of chimney to south elevation and patio
doors to rear and removal of condition 6 in respect of Code Level 3 compliance;
Land adjacent 20A Weston Terrace, Sheringham, NR26 8ER for Mr J Bunyan
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0772 - Erection of single storey rear extension; 31 The
Rise, Sheringham, NR26 8QB for Mr J Little
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0633 - Installation of spiral staircase from existing balcony
and replacement of timber balustrade with glass, insertion of window to west
elevation and increase size of window to east elevation; 10B Nelson Road,
Sheringham, NR26 8BU for Ms S McCann
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0717 - Erection of side conservatory; 25 De Morley Garth,
Sheringham, NR26 8JG for Mr J Laws
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0732 - Enclosure of amenity land, subject of Article 4
direction, to west of 3 Hillside, with 1.2m timber post and wire fence; 3 Hillside,
Sheringham, NR26 8DB for Mr & Mrs P Busby
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/14/0199 - Non material amendment request to permit
change of external material to feather edge boarding to proposed extension; 43
Beeston Road, Sheringham, NR26 8EJ for Mr J Gilbert
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0697 - Ground floor extension (part retrospective) and
creation of car parking area; 8 Rushmer Way, Sheringham, NR26 8YA for Mr R
Hooker
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0750 - Erection of single-storey front/side extension; 4
Weston Terrace, Sheringham, NR26 8ER for Mr G Colman
(Householder application)
SMALLBURGH - PF/15/0363 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling and
double garage with annexe above; Oak Lodge, Norwich Road, Smallburgh,
Norwich, NR12 9NS for Mr J Englestone
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - PF/15/0556 - Erection of detached car-port/store; Hawthorns,
Union Road, Smallburgh, Norwich, NR12 9NH for Mr H Grand
(Householder application)
Development Committee
115
23 July 2015
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/0507 - Erection of single-storey side extension and front
porch; Lodge Barn, St James Court, Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8NZ for Dr and
Mrs Waddington
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PM/15/0624 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Adjacent
Welholme Cottage, Yarmouth Road, The Green, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9QF for
Mr P Tompkins
(Reserved Matters)
STALHAM - PF/15/0658 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 2 Old
Yarmouth Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9QW for Mr and Mrs Kemp
(Householder application)
STALHAM - HN/15/0754 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 6 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 4 metres and an eaves height of 3 metres;
Cedar House, St Johns Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9BE for Mr T
Ross-Benham
(Householder Prior Notification)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0563 - Widening of existing shared vehicle access;
Primrose Cottage, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TF for Mrs A
Parsons
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0613 - Creation of small pond and wetland area on site
of redundant pond; Pitt Cottage, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11
8TU for Ms Carey
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - DP/15/0782 - Prior notification of intention to demolish a terrace
of 3 cottages; Bottledene, Rotunda Flat and Rotunda Cottage, Loop Road,
Trimingham, Norwich, NR11 8EQ for Mr J Pank
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
TRUNCH - PF/15/0217 - Conversion of two agricultural barns to two residential
dwellings and creation of new access and drive (part retrospective); Barns at
Millers Farm, Mundesley Road, Trunch, NR28 0QB for Mr & Mrs Bagguley
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/0579 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Rose Farm
Barn, Market Street, Tunstead, NORWICH, NR12 8EL for Mr Neale
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - HN/15/0727 - Notification of intention to erect rear extension which
would project from the original rear wall by 5.05m and which would have a
maximum height of 3.5m and an eaves height of 2.3m; 5 Council Houses, Ostend
Road, Walcott, Norwich, NR12 0PG for Mr D Garrett
(Householder Prior Notification)
WALSINGHAM - LA/15/0611 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
re-organisation of ground floor Mill room to be used as entrance; The Old Mill,
Cokers Hill, Walsingham, NR22 6BN for John Gurney Charitable Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
116
23 July 2015
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0614 - Retention of bin-store/storage/smoking
area and erection of oak portal and installation of 1m glass screen to top of
existing brick wall; The Golden Fleece, The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AH
for Mr Brundle
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA
LA/15/0615
Retention
of
detached
bin-store/storage/smoking area, erection of oak portal and installation of 1m
glass screen to existing brick wall; The Golden Fleece, The Quay,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AH for Mr Brundle
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0805 - Single storey rear extension and decking
to rear; 29 Waveney Close, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HU for Mr & Mrs Lynch
(Householder application)
WIGHTON - PF/15/0506 - Erection of single-storey side extensions; Wighton Halt,
Clipper Lane, Wighton, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1PJ for Mr Green
(Householder application)
WIGHTON - PF/15/0664 - Demolition of part of rear wall and single-storey rear
extension, removal of front door to No. 2 Church Cottages and installation of
window and flint/blockwork; 1 Church Cottage, Kirkgate Lane, Wighton,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1PL for Mr & Mrs Brown
(Householder application)
WITTON - NMA1/14/0998 - Non material amendment request to raise eaves height
to single-storey side extension, insertion of first floor window to side elevation
and re-location and increase size of rooflight to rear elevation; Meadow View
Cottage, Mill Common Road, Ridlington, North Walsham, NR28 9TY for Mr & Mrs
Ashmore
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WITTON - PF/15/0498 - Erection of detached outbuilding/store; Selfs Carr,
Stonebridge Road, Witton, North Walsham, NR28 9BF for Ms Mole
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/15/0510 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Park Farm, Well
Street, Witton, North Walsham, NR28 9TR for J E Owles Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/15/0702 - Erection of single-storey detached garden room;
Courtenay Lodge, Heath Road, Ridlington, North Walsham, NR28 9NZ for Mrs
Blythe
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - HN/15/0710 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey
rear extension which would project from the original rear wall by 6 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 3.3 metres and would have an eaves height of 3
metres; Paddock View, Blacksmiths Close, Wood Norton, Dereham, NR20 5UA
for Mrs Tipper
(Householder Prior Notification)
Development Committee
117
23 July 2015
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0640 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/1009 to allow alternative facing brick and window styles; Windy Ridge,
Meeting Hill Road, Meeting Hill, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9LT for Mr W
Nash
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0341 - Erection of two-storey extension, increase in height of
section of roof and conversion of outbuilding to additional living
accommodation; Lilac Farm, Meeting Hill Road, Meeting Hill, Worstead, North
Walsham, NR28 9LR for Mr P Slack
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0729 - Demolition of rear conservatory/utility and erection of
replacement single-storey link extension; Two Ways, Low Street, Sloley,
Norwich, NR12 8HD for Mr Thomsett
(Householder application)
13.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0408 - Erection of replacement dwelling (two storey); Ashley,
69 Morston Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7BD for Mr Bean
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/15/0352 - Erection of twelve shared ownership dwellings with
garages; Holly House, The Lane, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JX for
Options for Homes Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/0533 - Installation of front elevation first and second floor PVCU
bay windows to replace existing timber bays; 28 High Street, Cromer, NR27 9HG
for Mrs Russell
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/0419 - Erection of single and two-storey rear extensions;
Annandale Cottage, Ramsgate Street, Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2AX for
Mr and Mrs S Smith
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - NMA1/14/0913 - Non material amendment request to permit
revised size, design and appearance of front conservatory; Hill Farm, Sandpit
Lane, Gimingham, Norwich, NR11 8HH for Dr Burford
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0655 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 57 Sea View Road, Mundesley, NR11 8DJ for Mr Somers
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - PF/15/0451 - Erection of detached one and a half-storey dwelling
and detached double garage; Street Hill Farm, The Street, Neatishead, Norwich,
NR12 8XG for Mr and Mrs C Loveday
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
118
23 July 2015
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0522 - Installation of cladding insulation and
rendered finish to front side and rear elevation; Luggar Cottage, 14 Theatre
Road, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1DS for Mrs Barrett
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/13/1067 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and attached
double garage to 25 Pine Walk,Weybourne; 25 Pine Walk, Weybourne, Holt, NR25
7HJ for Mr T McCarthy
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
APPEALS SECTION
14.
NEW APPEALS
No items
15.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 July 2015
16.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road, Aylmerton
for Mr D Oliver
SITE VISIT:- 09 June 2015
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1015 - Change of use of domestic shed to commercial
gymnasium with new access track and retention of two caravans for holiday
use.; The Whins, The Downs, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PN for Mrs L Massingham
BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room; Primrose
Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington, MELTON CONSTABLE, NR24 2PN for Mr L
Kidd
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park and
ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9JJ
for Crematoria Management Ltd
SITE VISIT:- 09 June 2015
HOLT - PF/14/1139 - Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached and 1 detached
two-storey dwellings; Land Adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead, Holt, NR25 6JE for
Primrose Developments (Anglia) Ltd
SHERINGHAM - PO/14/1126 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling;
Threeways, 47 St Austins Grove, Sheringham, NR26 8DF for Ms J Rayner and Ms
S Thirtle
Development Committee
119
23 July 2015
HAPPISBURGH - ENF/14/0009 - Siting of residential caravan; Beach Road,
Happisburgh
17.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BRISTON - PU/14/1390 - Prior notification of intention of change of use of
agricultural building to three dwelling houses (C3); Barn at Boundary Farm,
Reepham Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JN for Mr & Mrs Berwick
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
HAPPISBURGH – PF/14/0120 – Formation of caravan park to provide pitches for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area with office/warden
accommodation and amenity building at Land South of North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh for Mr Chris Lomax
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Planning application PF/14/0120 was for the proposed relocation of Manor Caravan
Park, Happisburgh. The application was considered by the Development Committee
and subsequently refused on 29 April 2014.
An appeal was made against the refusal of planning permission and heard on 12 and
13 May 2015. At the hearing an application for costs was made against the District
Council.
The appeal was allowed and permission granted to relocate the caravan park, subject
to the conditions set out in an annexe to the Inspector’s decision dated 25 June 2015
(copy attached, Appendices 15 & 16). The application for costs was refused.
Both the application and subsequent appeal were locally controversial and the
Inspector’s decision is significant for North Norfolk and indeed for other coastal
authorities dealing with the issue of relocating facilities likely to be lost to coastal
erosion. Of particular note is that in her comprehensive decision on this appeal, the
Inspector has undertaken the balancing exercise required by paragraph 134 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF). The Inspector has identified the local
heritage assets (see paragraph 7) and stated that she is mindful of the statutory duties
to which the decision-maker is subject. She has then assessed the impact of relocating
the caravan site on those assets and found at paragraph 31 “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.”
Having identified harm to the nearby heritage assets and the consequent
non-compliance with policy, the Inspector has undertaken the balancing exercise
required by the NPPF at paragraphs 48-51 of the decision, under the heading
“sustainable development.” The Inspector here repeats her earlier findings from
paragraph 31 that the appeal proposal would cause harm to the identified heritage
assets but finds the degree of harm to be “less than substantial.” However in
paragraph 50 the Inspector refers to the “substantial public benefits” which she has
identified in previous paragraphs and which flow from the relocation of the caravan
Development Committee
120
23 July 2015
park.
The test in paragraph 134 of the NPPF is thus engaged. This requires that “Where a
development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a
designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of
the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. “The Inspector has applied
this test in paragraph 51 of the decision, concluding 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.”
The appeal decision is reported to the Development Committee for information
although officers are considering the possible implications of the Inspector’s decision
on other areas identified as being liable to coastal erosion.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager, Ext. 6016)
18.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report
Development Committee
121
23 July 2015
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