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