OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 23 JUNE 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
This report outlines the need to establish a Judging Panel for this year’s Graham
Allen Award for Conservation and Design and to agree the proposed dates for the
judging and presentation of the awards.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design was inaugurated in 1982 as a
memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk District
Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the scheme
considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment within
the District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of historic
properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make innovative use
of traditional building forms and detailing and thereby reflecting the character of the
district’s built heritage.
A Judging Panel has to be set up to consider, evaluate and judge submissions under
the award scheme, and make awards accordingly. Membership of this Panel will be
drawn from the Development Committee; it does not need to be politically balanced.
The Panel normally comprises nine Members (one of whom will be elected
Chairman) and Mr Edward Allen, Graham Allen’s eldest son, who once again has
kindly agreed to be the permanent representative from the Allen family. The closing
date for entries is 30th June 2011.
It is suggested that the Judging Panel convenes on 28th July 2011 at the Council
Offices to consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will
commence with a short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by
a tour of those short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the
Council Chamber on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with members
of the Judging Panel voting on the entries. The awards will then be presented at a
ceremony later in the year. At the time of writing this report, the possible date
proposed (pending confirmation of Edward Allen’s availability) is 13th October 2011,
after the Development Committee meeting to be held on that day.
RECOMMENDATION:1.
That Members nominate a total of nine Councillors from the
Development Committee to form the Graham Allen Award Judging
Panel, one of whom will be elected Chairman.
2.
That the date for judging the entries be accepted and that the date for
the presentation be noted pending final confirmation.
(Source: Paul Rhymes, Extn: 6367 – File Reference: GA Award)
Development Committee
1
23 June 2011
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE
This is the quarterly report covering that part of the Planning Service which deals
with applications and appeals for the period from January to March 2011 and
includes outturn figures for the financial year 2010/11. It covers the turnround of
planning applications, workload and appeal outcomes.
Table 1A (Appendix 1) sets out performance for the fourth quarter of 2010/11.
Only two major applications were cleared during the quarter, although similar
numbers of minor and ‘other’ applications were cleared compared with the previous
quarter. Speed of determination for minor applications fell slightly during the quarter,
but in terms of ‘others’, i.e. householder and other small developments, 8% fewer
applications were dealt with within the statutory periods.
In terms of the year 2010/11 as a whole, when compared with 2009/10 it will be
noted that a far greater number of major applications was determined during the year
(23 compared with 5), but that speed of performance fell below 35%, well short of
Council and Government targets. During this period significant efforts were made to
clear up a historic backlog of old cases, but this of course means that performance
figures were significantly worse.
In terms of both minor and ‘other’ cases, there were significant increases in
applications determined in both categories, of 112 and 89 respectively, but
performance fell significantly in these categories, by 13.5% in the case of minor
decisions and 9.27% in the case of ‘other’ decisions.
It is hoped that the new Council will agree revised performance targets which better
match the resources which are available for the service, which better reflect the new
priorities of the Council and, it is suggested, with a greater emphasis on output
performance rather than simple processing times, which no longer directly affect the
resources made available to the service from the Government.
Table 1B (Appendix 1) covers workload. 434 applications were submitted, a rise of
79 compared with the previous quarter and there were significant rises in informal
pre-application enquiries “Do I need planning permission?” questions and duty officer
consultations.
In considering the year as a whole, a major factor is the increase in core workload.
Figures for the year indicate a rise by more than one-third in applications submitted,
demonstrating significant additional pressure on the service.
In terms of delegation of decisions to Officers, the rate remained stable throughout
the year with the outturn figure being 93%. It is suggested that this reflects good
practice in enabling those applications to come to Committee which are required by
Members, leaving Officers to handle the majority of non-controversial and non-policy
critical cases.
Table 2 (Appendix 1) sets out the situation in terms of appeal outcomes and
indicates that during the quarter 25% of appeals were allowed. For the year as a
whole, 34% were allowed, close to the national average and significantly worse than
Development Committee
2
23 June 2011
for the previous six years. The first two quarters of 2010/11 were particularly
disappointing in respect of outcomes, but the situation has been largely redressed for
the final two quarters, so it is not suggested that there is evidence of a long term,
adverse trend although the situation will continue to be monitored.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control, ext 6135)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
PF/09/1270 – Installation of Buried Electrical Cable System in Connection with
Off-shore Wind Farm – Land at Weybourne to Great Ryburgh.
To carry out a site visit on 14 July 2011, prior to meeting to give further consideration
to the application submitted seeking permission for the proposed buried cable route
in connection with the Dudgeon Off Shore Wind Farm.
This is a particularly complex application for the installation of a buried electrical
cable system in connection with the Dudgeon Off-Shore Wind Farm. The cable route
would run through the District of North Norfolk from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh at
a distance of some 27.7km.
The application was originally deferred by the previous Development Control
Committee at a meeting on 8 July 2010, following the resolution of the Committee to
be minded to refuse the application on grounds of loss of amenity, possible risk to
health, inadequate mitigation measures to address all of the environmental impacts
which have been identified, significant adverse impact on the landscape and
environment and long term adverse impact on a significant amount of agricultural
land.
The reason for deferral at that time was in order for Officers to obtain expert legal
advice on the possible reasons given for refusal and also to explore with the
applicants the possibility of an alternative offshore route.
The application was referred back to a meeting on 18 November 2010 when
determination of this application was also deferred in view of 16 letters and emails of
objection being received in the two days before the meeting. These submissions
required further time to consider and required further expert and legal advice and
responses from the applicant.
It is now proposed to hold a site visit on the morning of 14th July 2011, with a view to
holding a special Committee meeting, if appropriate, on the afternoon of the same
day, or at another time and date to be confirmed.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit on 14 July
2011, prior to reconsideration of the application at a special meeting of the
Committee, at a time and date to be confirmed.
(Source: Jo Medler, Senior Planning Officer, ext 6128)
Development Committee
3
23 June 2011
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/09/0561 - Retention of Three Timber Storage Sheds
and LPG Storage Tank; Cley Windmill, The Quay for Dr Godlee
Minor Development
- Target Date: 31 July 2009
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
See also application PF/10/0945 below
CONSTRAINTS
Flood Zone 3
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II*
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19830034 PF - Change of use to guest house and holiday studio accom.
Approved 22/04/1983
PLA/20081659 PF - Conversion of garage to office/laundry and enlargement of
dining room
Approved 12/02/2009
THE APPLICATION
The application has been amended in respect of partial burial of the two LPG tanks
and the creation of earth mounding around them. One of the tanks has been there for
some years and so the proposal is for the one additional tank. They would be sited
adjacent to the public footpath which runs along the south-eastern boundary of the
site. A shallow plastic lid would be visible at the top of the mound to allow access to
the tanks below. This would sit at approx 0.5m above the natural surrounding ground
level.
Three timber sheds would be retained sited along the south-eastern boundary of the
site, these being used for storage in association with the Mill.
A flint wall would be erected along part of the boundary with the footpath to the southeast for some 10m along the boundary. A yew hedge would form the remainder of the
boundary to the rear of the three sheds.
A tree would need to be removed from the site to accommodate the burying of the
tanks. A replacement tree is proposed closer to the northern boundary of the site.
The removal of the tree and its proposed replacement have already been approved
under a tree works application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Young having regard to the following planning issue:
Visual impact
Development Committee
4
23 June 2011
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection but would like to make the following comments:
The sheds are not very pretty in a picturesque setting.
Brown would blend in with the landscape or a darker colour more suitable
Ensure sheds are to be used for storage only and not used as accommodation in the
future.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 letters of objection received on the following grounds:
1. The sheds are inappropriate for the setting of the Listed building.
2. The sheds are inappropriate in their visual appearance and are visible from the
coastal path.
3. The sheds would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area.
4. The sheds are being used to store tables and chairs for the mill.
5. Concern that the sheds will be used for entertainment for use of the guests at the
mill which would increase noise and disturbance already experienced by neighbouring
residents as a result of guests of the mill using the garden late at night.
6. The additional fuel tank is unsightly and could constitute a fire risk as is not
screened from either the public footpath or the guests of the mill.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) I have no objection to the retention of the three timber storage sheds. These are
essentially temporary structures which will have no permanent impact on the setting of
the Grade II* listed mill. Of a garden pavilion style and with a muted colour finish, they
are appropriate for such a garden setting and are positioned within mature vegetation.
The burying of the LPG tanks with an earth mound would have no adverse impact on
the setting of the listed building or on the Conservation Area.
All of the above structures, the sheds and the tanks are tight against the south east
boundary of the mill garden, immediately adjacent to a public footpath. A timber post
and wire fence currently forms a rather inadequate boundary to the property with the
result that these structures are all the more prominent. More substantial boundary
treatment such as a walling, timber fencing and or hedge would screen the structures,
better define the boundary and provide more garden privacy for mill residents.
Further comments awaited in respect of the amended plans showing the proposed
boundary treatment and replacement tree location.
Environmental Health - No objection to the amended proposal for the burying of the
LPG tanks.
Environment Agency - Has confirmed that no Flood Risk Assessment necessary and
did not wish to be consulted.
Building Control Manager - comments on the original scheme:
Strictly the position of the new tank should be 2.5m from buildings or boundaries.
HSE will control.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - No objection to the amended proposal for the
burying of the LPG tanks.
Development Committee
5
23 June 2011
English Heritage - Recommend that the application should be determined in
accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist
conservation advice.
Norfolk Fire Service - No observations to make regarding the granting of retrospective
permission for this application. Any fire risks posed by the introduction of additional
buildings and LPG storage should be reflected in the risk assessment required under
the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
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):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Impact on the Conservation Area and setting of the Listed Building.
3. Impact on the AONB.
4. Health and safety.
5. Impact on neighbouring residential amenity.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Core Strategy where policies, SS2 and EN4 are particularly relevant. The site also
lies in the designated Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
where policy EN8 and EN1 are applicable.
Policy SS2 is permissive of the principle of extensions to existing businesses in the
countryside. The principle of the storage sheds is therefore acceptable subject to
compliance with other Core Strategy policies.
Policies EN 4 and EN 8 require that all development will be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness, and that design which fails to have regard to local
context and does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of an area
will not be accepted. In addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental
Development Committee
6
23 June 2011
effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should
provide acceptable residential amenity. Policy EN1 seeks to ensure that proposals do
not detract from the special qualities of the AONB.
The scheme as amended proposes to part bury, part mound the tanks under earth. In
addition a boundary wall would be erected behind the siting of the tanks. The buried
tanks would be unobtrusive and would therefore have no adverse impact on the
setting of the listed building nor on the character or appearance of the Conservation
Area nor on the special qualities of the AONB. Furthermore the mounded tanks would
be screened from wider views by the proposed boundary wall and this would also
therefore improve the general appearance of the public footpath to the mill.
The three sheds to be retained, whilst somewhat domestic in their appearance, would
be screened from the adjacent footpath by the proposed yew hedge and as such are
not considered to result in any adverse impact on the Conservation Area or AONB. In
respect of the impact on the setting of the Listed Building, the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager has advised that as the sheds are essentially temporary
structures which will have no permanent impact on the setting of the Grade II* listed
mill, and of a garden pavilion style and with a muted colour finish, they are appropriate
for such a garden setting and are positioned within mature vegetation. It is therefore
considered that their retention would result in no adverse harm to the setting of the
listed building.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, the sheds are intended for storage purposes only
for the mill and as such it is not considered that the approval of these tanks would
increase the use of the business at the Mill or its garden and as such would not result
in any increased noise or disturbance to adjacent residential properties.
In respect of health and safety issues, the application has been amended to bury the
tanks and partially mound them with earth. The Environmental Health Officer has no
objection, ensuring that the tanks not would result in health and safety concerns.
It is considered that the proposal would comply with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection from
neighbouring residents or Parish Council in respect of the amended plans, no
objection from the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager in respect of
the proposed boundary treatments and the amended scheme and subject to the
imposition of conditions, including restricting the use of the sheds to storage in
association with the use of the mill complex only, erection of the boundary wall
and planting of the boundary hedge within three months of the date of
permission, planting the replacement tree within the next available planting
season and any other conditions required by the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager.
Development Committee
7
23 June 2011
5.
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0945 - Change of use from B1 (office) to a mixed
use of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) on ground floor and B1 (office) on first floor; Cley
Windmill, The Quay for Dr J Godlee
Target Date: 11 October 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Flood Zone 3 1:200 chance sea/1:100 chance river
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II*
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
See also PF/09/0561 above
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20081660 LA - Conversion of garage to office and enlargement of dining room
Approved 13/02/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the change of use of an outbuilding in the grounds of Cley Mill from an office to a
mixed use of office, retail and cafe.
The ground floor of this building would be used for retail and cafe purposes
(approximately 60 sq.m) and the mezzanine floor at the rear of the building would be
the office area.
The retail use has commenced and has for sale general nik-naks in addition to a small
counter for the sale of hot and cold beverages and cakes.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Young having regard to the following planning issues:
Traffic generation and highway safety.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection on the following grounds:
Tables and chairs for the cafe use are fairly modest at present but concern this will
significantly increase and impact on the amenities of the nearby residents by virtue of
noise and disturbance.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - There are no adverse Environmental Health concerns;
therefore no comment.
County Council Highways - Given the varied uses on this site and the synergy
between the B&B, cafe and the retail unit, it would be unlikely to engender any
significant change in the traffic patterns and therefore would not adversely affect the
access, parking provision or manoeuvrability within the site, I would not wish to raise
any objection to this proposal on highway grounds.
Environment Agency - Comments awaited.
Development Committee
8
23 June 2011
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):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for
converting buildings for non-residential purposes).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the retail use on the site
2. Highways and parking
3. Neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
Under Policy EC5 proposals for retail development in the Countryside will not be
permitted unless they comply with other Development Plan policies. In this instance
the proposal involves an economic re-use of a building in accordance with Policy EC2.
Furthermore, given the limited floor area (approx 60 sq.m) it is not considered that the
proposal would have any adverse impact on the vitality or viability of retail units on the
High Street in Cley. The principle of the uses is therefore considered to be acceptable
in this location.
In terms of transport impact of the development, County Highways have advised that
given that the proposal is unlikely to engender any significant change in traffic
patterns, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on highway
safety or parking, in compliance with policies CT5 and CT6.
Neighbour concern has been raised regarding the increased noise and disturbance
which has resulted from the use of the tables and chairs outside at the front of the mill
which are used in association with the sale of hot and cold drinks and cakes within the
shop. With regard to neighbouring amenity, given that the area of retail is limited in
floor area and well related to the mill, the proposed retail use is unlikely to significantly
Development Committee
9
23 June 2011
increase the number of customers above that to which the Mill currently attracts. In
addition given that the external tables and chairs are limited in number and would only
be in use during the opening times of the shop cafe during the day, it is considered
that the current proposal and operation results in little adverse impact on neighbour
amenity in terms of noise and disturbance. However, the comments from the Highway
Authority are based on the synergy of the existing uses and the limited retail element
is also linked to the Mill complex as a whole. On that basis it is considered that a
temporary permission would be appropriate in the first instance to enable the future
levels of traffic generation and potential impacts on neighbours' amenities to be
monitored.
Accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including 2 year
temporary permission.
6.
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0280 - Erection of single-storey side extension and porch;
Dollys Cottage, Holt Road for Mr Major
- Target Date: 03 May 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
The proposed side extension would be L-shaped, comprising three linked elements at
varying ridge heights and would be of flint, red brick and clay pantile construction.
It would be sited on the north east elevation of the dwelling to the side of a former
extension on the property.
The porch would be sited to the front extension of the main part of the house and
would be of red brick and clay pantile construction. Amendments have been proposed
to its proportions.
The flint wall along the northern boundary would be demolished and the new
extension would sit on and form the boundary.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Scale of the extension
PARISH COUNCIL
Object - The extension is too large, considering the existing footprint of the property.
Simply put the Council feel the proposed extension is too much.
Development Committee
10
23 June 2011
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of comment received from the adjacent dwelling advising no objection to the
proposal; the size and design are considered appropriate for the property.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) - No objection to L-shaped
extension. Would not harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Concerns regarding proportions of the porch - requests amendments.
Comments awaited on amended plan.
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 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 the development
2. Scale
3. Impact on the Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Core Strategy where policies, SS2, EN4 and HO8 are particularly relevant. The site
also lies in the designated Conservation Area where policy EN8 is applicable. Policy
SS2 is permissive of extensions to existing dwellings subject to compliance with Policy
HO8 which seeks to ensure extensions to dwellings in the countryside are not
disproportionate in height or scale to the host dwelling and that they would not
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside.
Policies EN 4 and EN 8 require that all development be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness and that design which fails to have regard to local
context and does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of an area
will not be accepted. In addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental
effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should
provide acceptable residential amenity.
Development Committee
11
23 June 2011
In respect of Policy HO8, proposals should not result in a disproportionately large
increase in the height or scale of the original dwelling and would not materially
increase the impact of the dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
In this instance the increase in floor area would be approx 69 sq.m which is a 69%
increase in the original floor area of the dwelling. The combined floor area of the
proposed and previous single-storey extension would result in an increase in floor
area of the original dwelling by approximately 100%. However, the proposal is singlestorey with materials of flint, brick and clay pantile which would help reduce its impact
in the Countryside. Furthermore, the proposal is L-shaped with a variety of ridge lines
which would help to break up the massing. It is considered that the development
would not be disproportionately large in respect of the original dwelling, the design
would help to reduce the visual impact and the impact on the wider surrounding
landscape would be limited. The proposal is considered to be acceptable under policy
HO8.
In respect of the impact on the Conservation Area, the design of the side extension
with its three elements at varying ridge heights would ensure that the elevation is
sufficiently broken up. As such, it is considered that the proposed side extension is of
an appropriate design for its setting and would enhance the appearance and character
of the Conservation Area. Similarly, the design of the porch has been amended to
steepen the pitch of the roof. As such the scale, mass and proportions of the porch
along with the use of matching materials are considered appropriate for the
Conservation Area.
In respect of the relationship with neighbouring properties, due to the separation
distance, there would be no amenity issues either in terms of overlooking or loss of
light.
The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager on the amended plan and to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
7.
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0361 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Briar
Patch, 8 Sculthorpe Road for Mrs K Harris
Minor Development
Target Date: 13 May 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090661 - Erection of one single-storey dwelling and two semi-detached twostorey dwellings
Approved 01/09/2009
PM/10/0144 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and two semi-detached two-storey
dwellings
Development Committee
12
23 June 2011
Approved 01/04/2010
PF/11/0063 - Erection of detached one and a half-storey dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 10/03/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a split level dwelling having a total floor area of some 115
square metres, within part of the front garden area of No. 8 Sculthorpe Road.
The dwelling which would be "L" shaped in form would abut the western boundary of
the site and consist of a two storey element to the north, closest to No. 8 Sculthorpe
Road, which would provide a bedroom at first floor whilst the remainder of the
accommodation which would incorporate a second bedroom, kitchen sitting room and
hallway would be single storey. The dwelling would be 'semi barn like' in its
appearance, utilising a mix of red brick and timber boarding to the external walls,
under a clay pantile roof.
To the frontage of the site the existing access driveway serving No. 8 Sculthorpe Road
would be blocked and a new central access created closer to the junction with the
Wells Road which would serve both properties, with separate car parking and turning
areas.
A new garden area would be created to the front of the proposed dwelling having an
area of some 106 sq metres and a frontage hedgerow would be planted to match the
remainder of the boundary with Sculthorpe Road. To the north of the proposed
dwelling there would be a small walled patio area. The garden to the rear of No. 8
Sculthorpe Road which has an area of some 200 sq metres would be retained for use
by that property.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and the design not
being in keeping with other properties in the area. In addition, they suggest that the
infrastructure of the area is inadequate for both surface water and sewage and
another dwelling would only exacerbate the problem.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised).
1. Overdevelopment of the site and out of character with the area.
2. The development would necessitate the excavation of a considerable amount of
earth which could adversely affect our property.
3. The proposed dwelling would have a major and detrimental impact on an existing
property and would cast a shadow on the rear garden area, where there is
currently a patio and sitting out area.
4. Moving the access closer to the junction with Wells Road, which is heavily used by
HGV’s, buses and other vehicles would adversely affect highway safety,
5. Could result in increased car parking problems in the area with guests and visitors
parking on Sculthorpe Road.
6. The proposed dwelling would not enhance the appearance of Sculthorpe Road
and would be a carbuncle on the landscape.
7. The development would put extra demands on the existing water and sewage
systems.
Development Committee
13
23 June 2011
8. The proposed dwelling would considerably reduce the land around the existing
dwelling.
9. Lack of turning space for No. 8 Sculthorpe Road.
10. This area of Sculthorpe Road consists mainly of large houses with mature gardens
and open vistas and the erection of the proposed dwelling would not site
comfortably with the building lines and adjacent properties.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions and considers that a
new, relocated shared access, would result in significant improvement to visibility over
the current access to No. 8 Sculthorpe Road.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
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 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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design/impact on character and appearance of area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Parking and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting in order to allow Members to visit the
site.
The site is located within the development boundary for Fakenham as defined by the
adopted Core Strategy in an area primarily in residential use, where in principle the
proposed development would be acceptable subject to compliance with Policies EN4,
CT5 and CT6.
Development Committee
14
23 June 2011
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, have regard to
the North Norfolk Design Guide, and be of a scale and massing that relates
sympathetically to the surrounding area in terms of its density and character and at the
same time makes efficient use of land. In addition, innovative and energy efficient
design will be particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local
context and does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not
be acceptable. Proposals should also not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that adequate vehicle parking facilities will be provided
by the developer to serve the needs of the proposed development and that the
proposal is capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without
detriment to the amenity or character of the locality.
This area of Fakenham consists of a mix of architectural styles and periods of
buildings with dwellings to either side of the Wells Road being set in fairly large plots
with extensive gardens. At the eastern end of Sculthorpe Road, until the recent
development of the rest of the site, No. 8 Sculthorpe Road was also situated in a fairly
large plot. However as a result of that development there are two semi-detached twostorey dwellings to the east, adjacent to Wells Road, with a bungalow to the north. To
the west of the site is a modern two storey dwelling, No. 10 Sculthorpe Road.
However on the southern side of the Sculthorpe Road there is a mix of cottages and
other buildings dating from the 19th Century, some of which abut the back edge of the
footpath, and which have fairly modest rear gardens. Almost directly opposite the site
is a barn like building which runs parallel to the road which is on the frontage of No. 1
Sculthorpe Road.
Given the mix, scale and period of buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site, it is
considered that although the dwelling would be set some 4 metres forward of No. 10
Sculthorpe Road it would not be out of keeping in the street scene, especially as it
would have a 15 metre deep garden area to the frontage of the site. In addition, in the
longer term its impact would be softened by the proposed hedgerow on the frontage.
Furthermore, due to the combination of a single storey hipped roofed wing to the
frontage, two storey pitched roof element to the rear and utilisation of levels across the
site, when compared to the adjoining properties the overall height of the dwelling
would be some 2.5 metres lower. As such the overall scale and massing of the
proposed dwelling are considered to be acceptable. Elevationally the use of a mix of
red brick and timber cladding to the walls under a clay pantile roof, although
presenting a building having a barn like appearance, would it is considered, make a
positive contribution to the mix of architectural styles in the area.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, with the exception of No. 8
Sculthorpe Road, the only other dwelling potentially affected is No.10 Sculthorpe
Road. This two storey property is situated immediately to the west and has a gable
end with a ground floor lounge window situated approximately 3.4 metres from the
boundary which is formed by a double row of Leylandii, some 2.5m in height, which
extend back some 28 metres into the site from the edge of the carriageway. The rest
of the boundary to the north which encloses the rear garden of No. 10 is formed by a
close boarded fence some 1.8m in height.
The scheme as proposed would involve the removal of the row of Leylandii within the
site and their replacement with a close boarded fence. Although the proposed dwelling
at its closet point would be within 700mm of the boundary the eaves height of the
single storey element due to the levels would only be 1.8m. Given the height of the
Development Committee
15
23 June 2011
existing Leylandii and the fact that the roof would slope away from the boundary at an
angle of 30 degrees it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would increase the
incident of loss of light to the ground floor window.
Furthermore, given that the overall height of the two storey element would only be
some 6m and the roof would slope north/south and the dwelling would be to the east
of the neighbouring property, it is not considered that there would be any significant
loss of light to the rear garden area of No 10. The only roof lights which would have
the potential for overlooking the rear garden of the neighbouring property would serve
the stairs and shower room. However again, due to the levels within the building,
these would be set at a high level. As far as the issues raised by the neighbours
regarding damage to their property from the excavation of the site are concerned,
although the development would involve the removal of soil within the area of the
building this is likely to be no more than 1 metre at the maximum point.
As far as the relationship between the proposed dwelling and No. 8 Sculthorpe Road
is concerned, due to the proposed layout combined with the change in levels the only
possible overlooking of the site from No. 10 would be from the front first floor windows,
but from here the main view would be of the car parking and turning area. It is
therefore considered that the dwelling as proposed would not result in any adverse
amenity issues to either property. In terms of the amenity area for the proposed
dwelling a garden area in the region of 106 sq metres would comply with this amenity
criterion in the North Norfolk Design Guide.
As far as the car parking and turning area is concerned, in the case of both the
existing and proposed dwellings this would comply with the parking standards
contained in the Core Strategy and it would be possible to turn within the site and
enter the highway in a forward gear. In respect of the proposed new access the
Highway Authority has indicated this to be an improvement in terms of visibility.
It is therefore considered that whilst this is a close-knit form of development, in this
particular case it would not be out of character with the area and would provide an
interesting and innovative style of development which would contribute positively to
the street scene. Furthermore the development would not significantly affect the
amenities of neighbouring properties, and would provide adequate amenities and
parking for both dwellings. The development would therefore accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including the
removal of permitted development rights restricting any further extension of the
dwelling.
8.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0201 - Installation of Automated Teller Machine; 2
Church Street for Bankmachine Limited
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 April 2011
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II
Development Committee
16
23 June 2011
Conservation Area
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19830865 LA - Internal alterations and new entrance doors from new road
Approved 22/07/1983
AI/11/0202 AI - Display of illuminated advertisement
LA/11/0235 LA - Installation of automated teller machine
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to install an automated teller machine (ATM) within an existing shop
window.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Peter Moore having regard to the following planning
issues:
The proximity of the ATM to a junction and the width of the adjacent pavement.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of the width of the adjacent pavement, proximity to a junction
and the possible congestion caused from unauthorised parked cars in the adjacent
disabled and unloading bays.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from a resident of North Walsham raising the following
concerns (summarised):
Footpath adjacent to the site is too narrow. As it is already a busy path the installation
would result in queues of pedestrians being forced into the road
There are already 8 ATMs in the town
There is already an ATM within the shop
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection. The width of the adjacent public
foot way is considered acceptable and the proposed ATM would be located clear of
the junction of Market Place and Church Street which is also considered acceptable.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) - By its very nature, an ATM is
an alien feature within the host Grade II Listed Building. However a refusal cannot be
substantiated due to the following reasons:
Existing shop front is of no particular historic or architectural merit
Glass to be replaced is a relatively modern insert
The ATM would not impact upon the structure of the building and could easily be
removed and reversed
The proposal is also considered not to harm the appearance of the wider
Conservation Area.
North Norfolk Safer Communities Partnership - ATMs are being targeted across the
country by organised groups of criminals. Different methods are employed, including
'shoulder surfing', where a criminal stands close to the user of the ATM to view the
PIN being entered. The danger is then that the user will have their card stolen. In 2009
and 2010 cases were recorded in Sheringham.
Development Committee
17
23 June 2011
Several considerations should/are given to the installation of ATMs in terms of its
impact upon local crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour including; safety of the
machine, user safety and safety of the cash in transit. At this site they include:
Safety of the machine
What is the crime risk of the area where the machine is to be located. Risk of ramraiding to steal the machine as the width of the path from road to machine is narrow;
Will anti-ram bollards be fitted? Not possible due to the narrowness of the path.
Is a tracker going to be fitted to the machine?
Is an ink dye note-staining system going to be fitted?
User safety
The area suffers from anti-social behaviour that could affect users of the machine.
The ATM should be located away from road crossings, doorways or any location
where people may legitimately congregate.
A privacy box should be painted on the floor at the front of the machine so as to create
a defensible space for the user – this is not possible due to the narrowness of the
path.
Safety of the cash in transit personal
Is the cash transit vehicle able to park nearby? There is a loading bay just before the
proposed location, however, there is no guarantee that this will be available for the
vehicle, thus there will be a need for it to be parked at the junction. This will cause an
obstruction to both pedestrians wishing to cross the road and vehicles at the junction.
The location of the proposed ATM is unsuitable due to the narrowness of the footpath
at this point which will cause pedestrians to walk around any people who are queuing
at the ATM. This will place them into the road at a busy junction causing both a
physical and visual obstruction to drivers. If only one person was using the machine
and one person queuing, there would not be sufficient space for them to pass without
going into the road.
Based on the above information, it is recommended that this application is refused on
the grounds of preventing crime.
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
See comments from the North Norfolk Safer Communities Partnership
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
18
23 June 2011
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. Insertion of ATM within a Grade II Listed Building
2. Location of ATM in connection to the adjacent pavement
3. Location of the ATM to the junction of Market Place and Church Street
APPRAISAL
No. 2 Church Street is part of a 3 storey Grade II Listed building. The property is on
the corner of Church Street and Market Place within North Walsham Town Centre.
The site also falls within North Walsham's Conservation Area and Primary Shopping
Area.
Applications LA/11/0235 and AI/11/0202 deal more specifically with the impact upon
the Grade II Listed property and the advertisement regulations respectively, and will
be dealt with under delegated powers following the determination of this application..
Alterations to the property are considered acceptable in principle. The property is both
a Grade II Listed building and falls within North Walsham Conservation Area. Under
Policy EN 8 consideration must be given to the impact upon the host building and its
architectural and historic merit, as well as the wider conservation area. The existing
shop front is not part of the original property and is a relatively modern addition with
little architectural interest. The replacement of a glazing panel on the west elevation
with an ATM and surrounding glazing raises no real historic or architectural concerns.
The impact upon the Conservation Area is considered minimal and the proposal would
preserve its character.
Policy EN 4 is also considered to be complied with in that the design is considered
appropriate for a shop front of this style within a Town Centre.
The proposed ATM would be sited just over 8m from the corner of the building, and
just over 9m from the road to the south, which forms part of the junction with Market
Place and Church Street. The road adjacent to the proposed site is Church Street,
which is one way at this location. There are two loading bays and a disabled bay
located just north of the site. The width of the pavement immediately adjacent to the
site is 2m, and this is relatively continuous both immediately north and south. Under
policy CT 5 the transport impact of new development must be considered. In terms of
highway safety County Council (Highways) have no objection, concluding that both the
distance to the junction and the width of the immediate footpath are acceptable.
Whilst the concerns of the North Norfolk Safer Communities Partnership are noted,
several of their concerns relate to the location close to the junction and the width of
the path. However, the primary advice on matters of highway safety rests with the
Highway Authority (Norfolk County Council) who are raising no objection. As
discussed Policy EN 8 is considered to be complied with, and in light of Norfolk
County Council’s (Highways) advice, Policy CT 5 is also considered to be complied
with.
As far as policy EN4 is concerned, the design of the ATM is considered to be
acceptable. In terms of community safety and crime prevention, the suggestion of
including bollards is considered to be inappropriate in this location in the Conservation
Area and a number of the concerns expressed by the Safer Communities Partnership
are for the operators to consider. Concerns regarding public assembly are noted and
Development Committee
19
23 June 2011
whilst a case could be advanced for refusal on this basis it is pointed out that this is a
highly visible location in the town centre.
On balance the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
9.
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/11/0393 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Land adjacent 1 Queensway for Mr & Mrs BurtonPye
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 May 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/10/1370 PO - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused 24/01/2011
THE APPLICATION
Involves the erection of a single storey dwelling with rooms in the roofspace. Matters
of access and scale are included for determination. The site forms part of the garden
of an existing dwelling and is approximately 9m wide and 29m deep.
Two parking spaces are to be provided on land to the west accessed by a pedestrian
path at the rear of the plot.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Gay having regard to the following planning issues:
Amount of site coverage (overdevelopment) and loss of garden.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects as overdevelopment of the site and concerns regarding the parking and
turning areas. Also request a site visit.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter from a neighbour objecting on grounds of loss of light and privacy, another
house would exacerbate existing sewerage problems, highway safety, out of keeping
with the ambiance and character of the area, lack of detail to identify effects on
neighbouring property, and the development of properties opposite should not be seen
as a precedent.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection; requests conditions.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to a Code for Sustainable Homes
Level 3 condition
Development Committee
20
23 June 2011
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 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 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. Plot coverage
2. Residential amenities
3. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a residential area within the development boundary for North
Walsham where new development is in principle acceptable subject to normal
considerations of character, highway safety, amenity, and design.
A previous application for a two-storey dwelling on this site was refused for reasons of
loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and on highway safety grounds, since the
Highway Authority objected to the then proposed access onto Queensway because of
its restricted visibility, lack of turning area and proximity to the junction with Cherry
Tree Lane.
The current application includes the scale of the new dwelling for determination at this
time, and shows a single storey dwelling with one bedroom and bathroom in the roof
space. The bedroom would be served by a single dormer window in the front
elevation which would preserve the neighbour's amenity though it would be necessary
to condition any approval removing permitted development rights for windows in the
rear and side roof elevations because of the proximity to neighbouring rear gardens
and potential for overlooking and loss of privacy to those properties.
A window in the side of the existing bungalow would mean that any dwelling would not
comply with the North Norfolk Design Guide Basic Residential Amenity Criteria for
distances between dwellings. However this is not considered sufficient reason by
itself to refuse this application. Any such windows would be in the ground floor.
The access proposed for this dwelling is rather unusual as it would be from Park Road
to the west, with two parking spaces fronting Park Road and a pathway leading to the
rear garden of the new dwelling. The Highway Authority has raised no objections to
Development Committee
21
23 June 2011
this arrangement subject to conditions, although it would be prudent to condition that
there should be no direct vehicle access to the rear garden of the new property to
avoid disturbance to 3 Park Road from an access alongside its boundary and further
reducing the already limited amount of private rear garden to the existing dwelling.
Bearing in mind the previous refusal it is considered that permitted development rights
should also be removed for the provision of a vehicular access to the site frontage at
any time in the future.
The proposed dwelling follows the pattern of development in the area, and although it
would have a smaller garden than others in the vicinity (depth of approx 11m) it would
comply with the North Norfolk Basic Residential Amenity Criteria guidelines for
minimum garden size.
However, because of the small garden size, which is
surrounded by private gardens on three sides and the proximity to those other
dwellings, it is recommended that permitted development rights for extensions and
curtilage buildings are also removed.
The existing dwelling would be left with a rear garden depth of approximately 6m, but
it would also retain a side garden. It is not considered reasonable to introduce a
reason for refusal based on overdevelopment grounds since this did not form part of
the reason for refusing application PO/10/1370. The current proposals are considered
to have overcome successfully the reasons for refusal given in that case.
Taking into account the prevailing character density of the area, together with the
improved access arrangements, and with the restrictive conditions recommended, it is
considered that the proposed dwelling is acceptable and would contribute to the mix of
smaller properties needed within North Walsham.
The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the
removal of permitted developments rights for windows in the roof space, the
provision of extensions or curtilage buildings and no vehicular access directly
through to the rear garden of the new property or from the site frontage.
10.
STALHAM - PF/11/0374 - Increasing roof height and erection of single-storey
and first floor rear extensions; Mile Stone, Ingham Road for Mr A Allanson
- Target Date: 17 May 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20040304 PF - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions and detached
garage
Approved 30/03/2004
THE APPLICATION
Is to increase the height of the roof by approximately 0.5m and a shallow pitch box
Development Committee
22
23 June 2011
dormer would be erected at this new ridge height at the rear of the dwelling. This
dormer would then extend for the whole width of the house.
The existing single storey extension which runs perpendicular to the main house
would have its pitched roof removed, be widened from 2.7m to 5m wide and a shallow
mono-pitch roof would be added. The projection of the extension from the rear of the
house would be 7m.
The single storey extension would have a fibre glass sheet roof and render finish to
the walls.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Grove-Jones having regard to the following planning
issue:
Design in relation to the character of original dwelling.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling on the following
grounds:
1. Loss of privacy to rear patio and garden.
2. Concern the upstairs is to be used as a separate bed sit.
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.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application 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 exemptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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 extensions in the Countryside policy area, including scale and design
2. Neighbouring amenities
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Core Strategy where policies, SS2, EN4 and HO8 are particularly relevant. Policy
SS2 is permissive of extensions to existing dwellings subject to compliance with Policy
Development Committee
23
23 June 2011
HO8 which seeks to ensure extensions to dwellings in the countryside are not
disproportionate in height or scale to the host dwelling and that they would not
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside. Policy
EN4 requires that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly encouraged.
Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve or enhance
the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable.
In respect of the scale of the extensions, whilst the proposal seeks to increase the
height of the dwelling, it is not considered that the increase in height of 0.5m, or in fact
the scale in terms of increased footprint of approx 20sqm, is disproportionately large
compared to the original dwelling. The positioning of the dormer on the roof slope and
its massing however would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
surrounding countryside. In this respect therefore the proposal fails to comply with
Policy HO8 of the Core Strategy.
In terms of design, the proposed dormer, by virtue of its position on the roof slope at
the ridge line, box-form and width, would result in an extension which would be illproportioned and whose bulk, mass and scale would be inappropriate for its host
building and context and, as the property is highly visible to the street scene, (as is
one of only two dwellings on this side of the road along this stretch), would be
detrimental to the street scene.
The application also proposes to remove the roof of the existing pitched roof rear
extension, widen it by 2m and to add a mono-pitch roof. By virtue of its projection and
shallow mono-pitch roof, the proposed single storey extension would be incongruous
in relation to the host dwelling. Furthermore the proposed material for the roof is fibre
glass roof sheeting; these materials are not considered appropriate for the host
dwelling and its context and contribute to the inappropriateness of the proposed single
storey extension. The design therefore fails to comply with policy EN4 of the Core
Strategy.
In terms of neighbouring amenity, the proposed windows in the dormer, particularly
that on the eastern end of the rear elevation, given its position in relation to the
neighbour’s garden area, would result in overlooking of a private patio garden area of
the adjacent dwelling to the east which would be significantly detrimental to their
amenities. The window further west along the elevation would not raise such an issue
as only views at an oblique angle would be possible. In terms of neighbouring
amenity therefore the proposal is considered unacceptable and would fail to comply
with policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reasons:
The positioning of the dormer on the roof slope and its massing would
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside
contrary to the aims of policy HO8 of the Core Strategy.
Furthermore the proposed dormer by virtue of its position on the roof slope at
the ridge line, box form and width, would result in an extension which would be
ill-proportioned and whose bulk, mass and scale would be inappropriate for its
host building and context, contrary to the aims of policy EN4 of the Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
24
23 June 2011
In addition, by virtue of its projection and shallow mono-pitch roof coupled with
the use of inappropriate materials, the proposed single storey extension would
be incongruous in relation to the host dwelling, contrary to policy EN4 of the
Core Strategy.
In addition, the proposed dormer would result in overlooking of the private patio
garden area of the adjacent dwelling to the east which would be significantly
detrimental to its occupiers’ amenities, contrary to policy EN4 of the Core
Strategy.
11.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0456 - Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit, three
flats and one maisonette; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
Minor Development
- Target Date: 06 June 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
See also applications LE/11/0458 (application site) and PF/11/0509 & LA/11/0510 &
LE/11/0513 (adjacent site)
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Primary Shopping Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Town Centre
EA Flood Zones 2 and 3
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19841554 HR - Extensions to provide additional living space & garaging
Approved 31/12/1985
PLA/19841553 HR - Bedroom & garage block extension
Approved 31/12/1984
PLA/19961189 PF - Conversion of part of ground floor to restaurant and part of first
floor to restaurant manager's accommodation
Approved 03/02/1997
PF/10/1235 PF - Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit, three flats and one maisonette
Withdrawn by Applicant 20/01/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish all buildings on site and replace with a three and four storey
development comprising A1 (retail) and A3 (cafe), parking for four vehicles, bin
storage and access to residential units at ground floor, three number 2/3 bed flats on
each of the first, second and third floors and, at the rear, a one bed dwelling set
across the second and third floors.
In respect of design, the applicant proposes a contemporary scheme with a mixture of
external materials including brick, flint and timber elevations, profiled steel roof,
aluminium/stainless steel windows and doors and gravel parking areas to the rear.
The elevation to The Quay proposes a gable above a vehicular access on the western
side with balconies to the central section (glazed at third floor level) and timber clad
gable to the east. The western gable would be approximately 13m high, the eastern
Development Committee
25
23 June 2011
gable 12.4m high with the remainder of the front elevation being 10.8m high to eaves
and 11.8m high to ridge. To the rear a wing would project at 12.5 m high to ridge,
stepping down to 9.2m high to ridge adjacent to Catesby Court.
An associated application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the
existing buildings on this site is also on this agenda (11/0458).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application - In order to expedite this matter, this Council is prepared to
support the proposal provided that the height shown in the plans is strictly adhered to.
We would like it made clear that any increase in height will not be regarded as "an
acceptable building tolerance" and will need to be corrected.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection have been received.
Summary of objections:
1. The proposal is out of scale with its surroundings;
2. The addition of the third floor cannot be justified;
3. The proposal is not a significant revision;
4. The proposal does not accord with the Design Brief;
5. Parking provision is inadequate;
6. Where will visitors park;
7. The proposal would overpower adjacent development;
8. The proposal will have a very significant and detrimental impact on Catesby Court
(Grade II listed);
9. The proposal will create a significant overbearing relationship;
10. The proposed use of the archway for access is a matter of contention (civil matter);
11. The use of the courtyard would reduce parking space for Catesby Court;
12. Significant additional pedestrian use of the archway would present a significant
hazard to users;
13. Windows would overlook adjacent properties;
14. This is overdevelopment of the site;
15. The proposal should match the height of the building on the corner of Staithe
Street;
16. The proposal will not meet local needs and will be second homes;
17. The proposal does not help reinforce local distinctiveness;
18. Materials are inappropriate;
19. No affordable housing is proposed.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions restricting the erection
of gates etc, that no part of the structure overhangs the highway and subject to
parking and turning areas being made available before the new development is first
used.
Environment Agency - Have provided detailed advisory comments, a copy of which is
attached at Appendix 3
Further comments awaited in respect of a report from the agent.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions.
Development Committee
26
23 June 2011
Community Safety Manager - No objection.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - In our previous recommendations for this
development site we have highlighted that the site may include important heritage
assets with archaeological interest (buried archaeological remains relating to the
development of the town and its quayside) as well as having implications for
designated heritage assets (the conservation area and listed buildings). The heritage
statement submitted does not address the potential for buried archaeological remains
to be present at the site and the impact that the proposed development may have on
these heritage assets. In order to fully address the implications of the development for
the historic environment we reiterate our recommendation that an archaeological
desk-based assessment should be submitted in accordance Policy HE6.1 of PPS5.
We advise that the applicant contact the Historic Environment Service for a brief which
will detail the requirements of the desk-based assessment. As previously advised (and
in accordance with Policy HE6.1 of PPS5) the desk-based assessment may highlight
the need for a programme of archaeological evaluation to be carried out before the
planning application is determined.
Emergency Planning Officer - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
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 SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 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).
Development Committee
27
23 June 2011
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 5: Public realm (proposals should enhance the appearance and usability of
these areas).
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 EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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).
Also relevant is the "Outline Development Brief for The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea"
approved by Cabinet on 4 May 2010, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 2.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location
2. Flood risk implications
3. Highway safety considerations
4. Design, height and scale of proposed development
5. Impact on Conservation Area
6. Impact on adjacent Listed Buildings
7. Archaeological impact
8. Impact on neighbouring amenity
9. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
APPRAISAL
On 24 January 2005 the application site and adjoining buildings to the east were the
subject of a serious fire which caused substantial damage to both properties. The
buildings are located in a prominent position next to one of the most photographed
buildings in Wells-next-the-Sea (The Granary) and since that date the buildings have
remained in a derelict fire-damaged state and have continued to detract from the
character and appearance of The Quay. Members of Committee have visited the site
in order to appreciate the context of the development.
1. Principle of development
The site is located within the development boundary of Wells-next-the-Sea and the
Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area where there would be no objection to the
principle of erecting residential and commercial development, subject to satisfactory
compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
2. Flood Risk
In respect of flood risk considerations it is understood that the application site is shown
to fall within Flood Zone 3a on the Flood Zone Map and has a 0.5% (1 in 200 year) or
greater annual probability of flooding from the sea. The Environment Agency (EA) has
asked the Local Planning Authority to carry out a Sequential and Exception Test in
accordance with PPS25: Development and Flood Risk. A copy of the assessment
Development Committee
28
23 June 2011
produced by the District Council as Local Planning Authority is attached at Appendix
3.
The EA has provided lengthy comments in respect of the proposed development,
copies of which are attached at Appendix 3. In summary, the EA has commented in
respect of the application of the Sequential Test and has advised the Council that it is
the responsibility of the Emergency Planning Officer, amongst other things, to ensure
the safety of the development in a flood event in respect of flood evacuation and
response plans proposed by the applicant.
There are also still a number of issues/areas where the EA requires further
clarification. An additional report has been produced by the applicant which has been
forwarded to the EA for further comment. At the time of writing this report the final
comments of the Environment Agency were still awaited. Committee will be updated
orally.
The comments of the Council's Emergency Planning Officer (EPO) were still awaited
at the time of writing this report. Committee will be updated orally.
Provided that both the Environment Agency and Emergency Planning Officer are
satisfied with the submitted information and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions it is considered that the proposed development would generally accord with
the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 10.
3. Highway Safety
Having taken account of the historic uses at the site prior to the fire the Highway
Authority has indicated that the shortfall in parking (9 spaces) is unlikely to have a
detrimental effect on the highway as the surrounding road network is well controlled by
means of a comprehensive scheme of various waiting restrictions. The Highway
Authority therefore considers there to be no sustainable highway objection to the
proposed development, subject to the imposition of conditions restricting the erection
of gates, etc, parking and turning areas being made available before the new
development is first used. No development should overhang the highway.
Whilst the representations regarding the suitability for further intensification in use of
the access are understood, Committee will have visited the site and will have noted
that the access is narrow. Nonetheless, in view of the lack of objection on highway
safety grounds from the Highway Authority, refusal on grounds of the narrowness of
the access would not, in the opinion of Officers, be sustainable.
4. Design, Height and Scale
In considering the proposal the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager has
commented that: "...the general form, scale and massing of the development proposed
is acceptable...[and]...by picking up on some of the characteristics of the buildings
along The Quay, including the end-on gables onto the street and use of common
materials, the design can be considered to be acceptable in principle. There is also a
strong vertical emphasis and the ‘sub-division’ of the front elevation evokes a sense of
‘organic’ built form".
Some representations have commented that the proposed buildings are taller than the
maximum height indicated in the Outline Development Brief produced by the Council
and should be refused. The Outline Development Brief for The Quay, Wells-next-theSea was approved by Cabinet in May 2010 and this document sets the context and
framework explaining how the Council envisaged redevelopment of these fire
damaged buildings. Whilst there are elements of the building that would sit above the
Development Committee
29
23 June 2011
indicative 11m maximum height threshold outlined in this document, the development
brief did not preclude development above that height and stated that "there will be
flexibility to alter the ridgelines in the interests of creating attractive townscape". The
key policy tests within Core Strategy Policy EN 4 and which are echoed within the
Outline Development Brief are to ensure that the proposed development is suitably
designed for the context within which the site is set and to ensure that the scale and
massing of the buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area.
In this respect, subject to the imposition of conditions regarding materials and
detailing, there are no objections to the proposal in respect of design, height and scale
and the proposal would broadly comply with Policy EN 4 of the Core Strategy and the
aims of the Outline Development Brief.
5. Conservation Area
The derelict buildings in their current form detract from the area. The proposed
buildings, although taller than the structures they replace would be likely to enhance
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, particularly with the right
choice of external materials and appropriate detailing.
6. Listed Buildings
With regard to impact on adjacent listed buildings, the closest of these is the Grade II
listed Catesby Court, which is situated immediately south of the application site with
the Grade II listed Crugmeer located to the east behind and physically attached to the
adjacent burnt out buildings being considered under application ref: PF/11/0509. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager does not consider that the proposal
would significantly affect the setting of either of the adjacent listed properties.
7. Archaeology
In respect of archaeological impacts, whilst the concerns of Norfolk Landscape
Archaeology are noted, given the importance of seeking redevelopment of this and the
adjoining fire-damaged buildings there is no support from Officers in respect of the
suggestion that the current applications be withdrawn whilst an archaeological deskbased assessment is undertaken. It is considered that, should Committee be minded
to approve the applications, suitable planning conditions should be imposed to ensure
that the archaeology of the site is understood, documented and recorded in
accordance with a brief to be agreed with Norfolk County Council Historic Environment
Service.
8. Neighbours' Amenities
In respect of the potential for loss of amenity, overbearing impacts and loss of
daylight, concern has been expressed by the owner of adjacent Catesby Court
regarding the height of the proposed development and the overbearing impact and
loss of daylight that would result. Catesby Court currently has 10 windows facing the
application site, four ground floor being primary windows serving sitting and dining
rooms and six windows at first floor level serving two bedrooms and an en-suite
bathroom.
When considering the previously withdrawn application (ref:PF/10/1235) there was
some concern about the scale of the building and the number of windows facing
towards Catesby Court. The applicant has made some significant changes to the
window layout compared with the previous scheme such that it would now be very
difficult to substantiate a significant objection to the proposal on grounds of loss of
privacy. The windows facing south towards the neighbouring properties would be
approximately 30m away. Those facing west would be at a minimum distance of
approximately 8m but would be at an angle. In respect of height, whilst the proposal
Development Committee
30
23 June 2011
would sit higher than the previous structures on site by approximately 3m-4m at the
front adjacent The Quay and by more than 6m in places at the rear, the height and
scale of the buildings proposed in this application have been reduced slightly
compared with the previous application and, when taken together with the window
layout changes, would, it is considered, make it difficult to substantiate an objection to
the proposal on the basis of significant overbearing impact or loss of daylight, provided
that appropriate conditions are imposed to ensure the window designs do not change
so as to permit further overlooking.
9. AONB
In respect of impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), it is
considered that the proposed development would be viewed against the backdrop of
existing development within Wells and therefore the proposal would have negligible
impact on the special character of the AONB.
10. Retail Impact
The proposed would provide approximately 55sqm of retail/cafe space. Given that the
site is located within the defined Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of Wells
and in view of the amount of retail floor space proposed, in planning terms the site is
considered to be the best sequentially available for A1 (retail) purposes in accordance
with Core Strategy Policy EC5 and guidance contained within PPS 4.
11. Cumulative Impact
In respect of cumulative impact considerations in relation to the applications on the
adjoining site( 11/0509, 11/0510 and 11/0513), whilst the two schemes have distinctly
different characters, the floor levels within each scheme would broadly align and the
use of appropriate materials could help create a sense of unity. This said, whilst the
schemes are considered satisfactory in themselves, a better related scheme may
have resulted had the two schemes been designed together, particularly in respect of
form. Nonetheless, given the imperative need to see the fire-damaged sites
redeveloped and taking account of the varied character of The Quay, the cumulative
impact of both schemes is considered to be acceptable.
Summary
In making its decision the Committee has to consider a wide variety of planning
issues. The site and adjoining land have been in a derelict condition since the fire of
January 2005 and considerable efforts have been made by the Council to try and
ensure that appropriate redevelopment takes place as quickly as possible.
There are many factors and issues which make redevelopment of this site extremely
complicated and which have served to delay the desire to reach a positive planning
outcome. The Council retains the option to pursue Compulsory Purchase powers but
in view of the applicant's willingness to redevelop the site it is likely that there would be
no need for any formal action to be taken by the Council and the vitality and viability of
this part of Wells can be reinvigorated through redeveloping the burnt out buildings.
Whilst the principle of development is considered acceptable in this location, the
proposed scheme does not strictly comply with Development Plan policy in respect of
parking and the Basic Amenity Criteria. However, given the significant importance to
the town and visual prominence of this site on The Quay, it is considered that there
are substantive material considerations in favour of approving the application and
redeveloping the site which should be afforded considerable weight to justify approval
of the application and outweigh the concerns in respect of the strict non-compliance
with Development Plan policy.
Development Committee
31
23 June 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to satisfactory resolution of the flood risk issues
raised by the Environment Agency, no objection from the Council's Emergency
Planning Officer and agreement on the way forward in respect of the
archaeological concerns raised by the Planning Archaeologist and subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those relating to external
materials.
12.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/11/0458 - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged
building; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
- Target Date: 03 June 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Conservation Area Demolition
See also applications PF/11/0456 (application site) and PF/11/0509 & LA/11/0510 &
LE/11/0513 (adjacent site)
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19961190
LA - Alterations to facilitate conversion of part ground floor to
restaurant and part of first floor to restaurant manager's accommodation
Approved 24/01/1997
LE/10/1236 LE - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged building
Withdrawn by Applicant 20/01/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish all existing buildings on site and replace with a three and four
storey development comprising A1 (retail) and A3 (cafe), parking for four vehicles, bin
storage and access to residential units at ground floor, three number 2/3 bed flats on
the first, second and third floors and, at the rear, a one bed dwelling set across the
second and third floors.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - In our previous recommendations for this
development site we have highlighted that the site may include important heritage
assets with archaeological interest (buried archaeological remains relating to the
development of the town and its quayside) as well as having implications for
designated heritage assets (the conservation area and listed buildings). The heritage
statement submitted does not address the potential for buried archaeological remains
to be present at the site and the impact that the proposed development may have on
these heritage assets. In order to fully address the implications of the development for
the historic environment we reiterate our recommendation that an archaeological
Development Committee
32
23 June 2011
desk-based assessment should be submitted in accordance Policy HE6.1 of PPS5.
We advise that the applicant contact the Historic Environment Service for a brief which
will detail the requirements of the desk-based assessment. As previously advised (and
in accordance with Policy HE6.1 of PPS5) the desk-based assessment may highlight
the need for a programme of archaeological evaluation to be carried out before the
planning application is determined.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions regarding demolition
methodology and advice note regarding asbestos
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 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
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
Risks associated with demolition
APPRAISAL
On 24 January 2005 the application site and adjoining buildings to the east were the
subject of a serious fire which caused substantial damage to both properties. The
buildings are located in a prominent position next to one of the most photographed
buildings in Wells-next-the-Sea (The Granary) and since the date of the fire the
buildings have remained in a derelict fire-damaged state and have continued to
detract from the character and appearance of The Quay. Members of Committee have
visited the site in order to appreciate the context of the development.
The appearance of the buildings affected by the fire has significantly detracted from
the character and appearance of the area and has impacted on the setting of adjacent
listed buildings and the wider Conservation Area. The proposed redevelopment
proposal also on this agenda for consideration under ref: PF/11/0456 is considered to
be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
Should Committee be minded to approve the demolition, a demolition method
statement and associated risk assessment would need to be prepared so as to ensure
localised collapse of buildings on the adjacent site does not occur.
Development Committee
33
23 June 2011
It is considered that it would be more effective and efficient to demolish buildings on
both fire-damaged sites at the same time and this option will be discussed with each
applicant although this is clearly subject to agreement with owners of both sites.
Subject to the Committee approving application PF/11/0456 above, the proposal is
considered acceptable and to accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to conditions including one requiring that demolition should
not begin until a contract has been let for re-development works.
13.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0509 - Erection of 2 A1 retail units, 1 A1 retail
unit with ancillary first floor office/store and 9 flats; Festival Amusements, The
Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 June 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
See also applications LA/11/0510 & LE/11/0513 (application site) and PF/11/0456 &
LE/11/0458 (adjacent site)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Listed Building Grade II
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/1235 PF - Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit, three flats and one maisonette
Withdrawn by Applicant 20/01/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish all buildings on site and replace with a two and four storey
development comprising 3 no. A1 (retail)units (one of which includes ancillary
office/storage at first floor level), parking for nine vehicles, bin storage, ancillary
storage areas and access to residential units at ground floor, four number 2-bed flats
on the first floor, two 2-bed flats and one 1-bed flat on the second floor and two 2-bed
flats on the third floor.
The proposed building would be broadly C-shaped in plan with four storeys facing
onto The Quay and projecting rear two-storey elements. The elevation to The Quay
proposes a central gable with an eaves height of 10.8m and a maximum height of
approximately 13m with lower parapet walled sections either side with a height above
ground level of 9.6m and a maximum roof height of approximately 11.3m. Solar
panels are proposed on top of the roof. To the rear the two storey projects would have
a typical eaves height of 5m and a height to ridge of 7.2 with the exception of the
element which is part of the grade II listed building knows as Crugmeer. This would
Development Committee
34
23 June 2011
have a ridge height of approximately 9.1m to match that of the main part of the grade
II listed building.
Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be gained from The Quay via Croft
Yard through a 4.2m wide and 2.2m high splayed access. Customer access to the
retail units would be directly from The Quay, with back-up space having direct access
to the rear courtyard area.
External materials include brick, flint and timber elevations, slate and dark clay roofing
materials and aluminium or timber windows and doors.
The proposed retail units would have net sales areas of 57, 73 and 34 sq.m.
respectively, with unit one having approximately 65sqm of ancillary office/storage
space. The units are designed with non-load bearing dividing walls which would give
greater flexibility in their layout and offer the opportunity to combine units to create
larger retail spaces. In theory the largest retail unit possible would have a net sales
area of approximately 170sqm plus 65 sq.m. of ancillary storage/office space.
In respect of the residential units, these would range in size from 45sqm (Flat 6) to
87sqm (Flat 1) with the top floor flats having additional outdoor space.
Amended plans have been received which, amongst other things, have removed the
eastern facing glazing from projecting windows adjacent The Granary, amended
window head details and sought to demonstrate that vehicles can enter Croft Yard
without risk of building strike.
Associated applications for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the
buildings on this site and for Listed Building Consent for works to the listed building
are also on this agenda (11/0511 and 11/0513).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application - In order to expedite this matter, this Council is prepared to
support the proposal provided that the height shown in the plans is strictly adhered to.
We would like it made clear that any increase in height will not be regarded as "an
acceptable building tolerance" and will need to be corrected.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twelve letters of representation have been received, 9 in support and 3
commenting/objecting.
Summary of objections:
1. The proposal is out of scale compared with the previous buildings;
2. There is no justification for a building of this height;
3. The plan does not allow for pedestrian access to The Quay as indicated on my
title deeds (civil matter);
4. The height exceeds that indicated in the design brief;
5. Proposed parking is likely to be inadequate;
6. The use of Croft Yard will increase the use of a narrow access and this could be
dangerous for both vehicles and pedestrians alike;
7. The proposed roof materials are uncharacteristic of the area;
8. The plans appear to omit windows on the neighbouring Granary building and this
could be misleading in respect of the potential impacts such as loss of light and
overlooking issues;
Development Committee
35
23 June 2011
9. Very concerned about demolition and how this would impact nearby residents;
10. The proposal would have a very significant impact through overlooking /lack of
privacy due to the close relationship of the proposed building with The Granary;
11. Windows should be obscure glazed on the eastern elevation;
12. The proposal is higher than the Golden Fleece;
13. The projecting windows on the east elevation would restrict the width of Croft
Yard;
14. There is little or no visitor parking provision on site and this could add pressure on
other parking spaces nearby;
15. The narrow access might prevent easy access in the event of a fire;
16. There are utilities serving The Granary under Croft Yard and the driveway should
be reinforced and resurfaced to protect it from damage;
17. Storage doors should open inwards and not onto Croft Yard;
18. The building line should be set back to ease access onto Croft Yard;
19. Inappropriate parking should be enforced against;
20. The height of the building will reduce light to lower floors of The Granary;
21. Restrictions need to be put in place to ensure appropriate retail occupiers and
hours of use conditions;
22. The proposal does not include affordable housing;
23. The proposal would not reinforce local distinctiveness;
24. The dwellings would be for second-home owners only;
25. Views of the harbour will be lost;
26. The proposed access is not safe and would lead to potential conflicts;
Summary of comments:
1. Would like assurances that there would be no "vertical creep";
2. Is the colour of the roof appropriate in a predominantly orange pantile area;
3. Local residents need assurances that demolition will be carefully managed
particularly as there is asbestos;
4. Whilst I agree that change is necessary, maintaining the historical heritage of the
town should be paramount in any new development;
5. The Maltings, the Fleece and the Granary are iconic buildings that reflect the
character of our town and they should not be overshadowed by new developments;
6. Hours of building work should be controlled so as not to have any adverse impacts
on tourism;
7. Lorries and deliveries also need to be controlled and managed;
8. The listed building roof should be restored and the house walls rebuilt to their
original size keeping to the existing curtilage;
9. The existing two mullion windows should be replaced in their original positions on
the north and west walls
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions
preventing physical overhang of buildings onto the highway and subject to the parking
and turning areas being made available prior to the first use of the flats.
Environment Agency - Have provided detailed advisory comments, a copy of which is
attached at Appendix 4.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - The proposed development is located on the
historic quayside at Wells and has the potential to impact on heritage assets with both
archaeological and historic interest. There is potential that this will include buried
archaeological remains relating to the development of the medieval and post medieval
town and quayside as well as designated heritage assets (the conservation area and
listed buildings). Whilst the Heritage Statement submitted with the application
Development Committee
36
23 June 2011
acknowledges that the proposed development site will affect designated heritage
assets (both the conservation area and the listed building ‘Crugmeer’) it does not fully
address the implications of the proposed development for the historic environment as
a whole. In particular the statement that, “It is fair to say that the site at present cannot
be regarded as being a Heritage Asset” cannot be supported.
We therefore ask that the applicant withdraw the application and resubmit with a
Heritage Statement which includes an archaeological desk based assessment in
accordance with Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment
(2010) Policy HE6.1. The desk-based assessment should examine the impact of the
proposed development on the historic environment including the potential for buried
archaeological remains and justification for any impact on the setting of designated
heritage assets (listed buildings and the conservation area).
The desk based assessment should be submitted to Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Service prior to its submission with the planning application in case its
results highlight a requirement for pre-application archaeological evaluation. Norfolk
County Council Historic Environment Service will provide a brief for the archaeological
work on request.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection in principle subject to conditions and some design amendments
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
Emergency Planning Officer - Response Awaited
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
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).
Development Committee
37
23 June 2011
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 5: Public realm (proposals should enhance the appearance and usability of
these areas).
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 EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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).
The other document of importance in the consideration of this application is the
"Outline Development Brief for The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea" as approved by
Cabinet on 4 May 2010, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 2.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development in this location
2. Flood risk implications
3. Highway safety considerations
4. Design, height and scale of proposed development
5. Impact on Conservation Area
6. Impact on adjacent Listed Buildings
7. Archaeological issues
8. Impact on neighbouring amenity
9. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
10. Retail Impact
APPRAISAL
On 24 January 2005 the application site and adjoining buildings to the west were the
subject of a serious fire which caused substantial damage to both properties. The
buildings are located in a prominent position next to one of the most photographed
buildings in Wells-next-the-Sea (The Granary) and since the date of the fire the
buildings have remained in a derelict fire-damaged state and have continued to
detract from the character and appearance of The Quay. Members of Committee have
visited the site in order to appreciate the context of the development.
1. Principle of Development
The site is located within the development boundary of Wells-next-the-Sea and the
Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area where there would be no objection to the
principle of erecting residential and commercial development which is subject to
satisfactory compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies.
Development Committee
38
23 June 2011
2. Flood Risk
It is understood that the application site is shown to fall within Flood Zone 3a on the
Flood Zone Map and has a 0.5% (1 in 200 year) or greater annual probability of
flooding from the sea. The Environment Agency (EA) has asked the Local Planning
Authority to carry out a Sequential and Exception Test in accordance with PPS25:
Development and Flood Risk. A copy of the assessment produced by the District
Council as Local Planning Authority is attached at Appendix 4.
The EA has provided lengthy comments in respect of the proposed development,
copies of which are attached at Appendix 4. In summary, the EA has commented in
respect of the application of the Sequential Test and has advised the Council that it is
the responsibility of the Emergency Planning Officer, amongst other things, to ensure
the safety of the development in a flood event in respect of flood evacuation and
response plans proposed by the applicant.
There are still a number of issues/areas where the EA requires further clarification and
its comments have been forwarded to the applicant for further consideration. At the
time of writing the further comments of the applicant were awaited and further
comment will need to be sought from the Environment Agency once these are
received. Committee will be updated orally in respect of progress on this matter.
At the time of writing this report the final comments of the Emergency Planning Officer
were still awaited. Committee will be updated orally.
Provided that both the Environment Agency and Emergency Planning Officer are
satisfied with the submitted information and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions it is considered that the proposed development would accord with the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 10.
3. Highway Safety
The representations regarding the suitability for further intensification in use of the
private road known as Croft Yard are understood. Committee have visited the site and
will have noted that the access is narrow and less than 4m wide in places.
Nonetheless, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed use of
this access nor has it objected to the proposed access into the site. No objections
have been raised to the proposed number of parking spaces (shortfall of 20 spaces)
subject to the imposition of conditions and to the parking and turning areas being
made available prior to the first use of the flats. No overhanging of the highway
should be permitted.
The concerns of residents regarding projecting windows on the eastern elevation have
been brought to the applicant's attention but, in view of the lack of objection on
highway safety grounds from the from the statutory consultee, it is not considered that
refusal on highway safety grounds could be substantiated or supported by officers,
particularly as the windows are understood not to overhang the highway. The
applicant has indicated that vehicles striking the building in the manner described in
representations would be highly unlikely and have submitted plans to support this
opinion.
4. Design, Height and Scale
In considering the proposal the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager has
commented that: "whilst I have no objection in principle, I am not convinced by the
style of architecture envisaged. This is not just about taste. The architects have
chosen to ‘mimic’ and ‘mirror’ the style of The Granary. This form of ‘pastiche’ is
Development Committee
39
23 June 2011
nearly always a disappointment. This is an opportunity to produce a striking and
innovative infill building in a location and setting which is one of the best in North
Norfolk. I consider that there needs to be a greater distinction of design and
appearance between the building proposed and The Granary. The general theme,
which is one of ‘industrial quayside warehouse’, is fine but a more contemporary and
modern architectural idiom would be a better design approach. There certainly needs
to be a re-assessment and re-consideration of the fenestration and detailing and
materials".
In respect of design, height and scale, many representations have commented that
the proposed buildings are taller than the maximum height indicated in the Outline
Development Brief produced by the Council and should be refused. The Outline
Development Brief for The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea was approved by Cabinet in
May 2010 and this document sets the context and framework explaining how the
Council envisaged redevelopment of these fire damaged buildings. Whilst there are
elements of the building that do sit above the indicative 11m maximum height
threshold outlined in this document, the development brief did not preclude
development above that height and stated that "there will be flexibility to alter the
ridgelines in the interests of creating attractive townscape". The key policy tests within
Core Strategy Policy EN 4 and which are echoed within the Outline Development Brief
is to ensure that the proposed development is suitably designed for the context within
which the site is set and to ensure that the scale and massing of the buildings relate
sympathetically to the surrounding area.
In respect of design, whilst it is acknowledged that the design of the building has
drawn heavily from the design of the adjacent Granary building, the scheme as
submitted would offer a traditional design solution but with a contemporary twist in
certain areas. Some changes have been made to the scheme to try and give the
building a sense of its own character following the comments of the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager. These will need to be further considered.
5. Conservation Area
The derelict buildings in their current form do detract from the area. The proposed
buildings, although taller than the structures they would replace, are considered to
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, particularly with the
right choice of external materials.
6. Listed Buildings
With regard to impact on adjacent listed buildings, the closest of these is the Grade II
listed Crugmeer, which sits to the south of the site and is physically attached to
buildings on the application site. The condition and structural integrity of Crugmeer is
significantly dependent upon the physically adjoined buildings on the application site.
Currently, according to the owner of Crugmeer, because of the poor condition of
adjoining buildings and because of pigeon smells, noise and weather ingress, three
rooms in the building are currently unusable. The proposed development would help
ensure the structural integrity of the Crugmeer is maintained and bringing back into
use the parts of the listed building within the ownership of the applicant would enable
the three rooms currently unused in Crugmeer also to be brought back into beneficial
use. It is therefore considered that, subject to the use of appropriate materials and
subject to very careful demolition and reconstruction, the proposed development
would have a positive impact upon the listed building known as Crugmeer.
In respect of the Grade II listed building known as Catesby Court (to the west), whilst
it is considered that the proposed development would undoubtedly have some impact
on its setting, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager does not consider
Development Committee
40
23 June 2011
that the proposal would seriously affect the setting of either of the adjacent listed
properties.
7. Archaeological Issues
In respect of archaeological impacts, whilst the concerns of the Norfolk Landscape
Archaeology are noted, given the importance of seeking redevelopment of this and
the adjoining fire-damaged buildings there is no support from Officers in respect of the
suggestion that the current applications be withdrawn whilst an archaeological deskbased assessment is undertaken. It is considered that, should Committee be minded
to approve the applications, suitable planning conditions should be imposed to ensure
that the archaeology of the site is understood, documented and recorded in
accordance with a brief to be agreed with Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Service.
8. Neighbouring Amenity
In respect of impact on neighbouring amenity, the closest neighbours are those living
at Crugmeer to the south, The Granary to the east and properties to the south/west
including Catesby Court and North Cottage/Star Cottage. In respect of impact on
Crugmeer, the current situation regarding the condition of the building is described
above. Subject to an appropriate method of demolition and reconstruction it is
considered that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the amenity of
the occupiers of Crugmeer and would actually be likely to have positive benefits to the
occupiers of this property. In respect of impact on the occupiers of residential flats
within The Granary, representations have raised concern about the close relationship
of existing windows in The Granary and those windows proposed on the east
elevation of the new building and how this could have the potential for overlooking and
loss of amenity to occur. Having been made aware of these concerns the applicant
has submitted amended plans which change the design of the projecting windows so
that there would now only be views available from these windows in a north or south
direction and no glazing to their eastern face. On balance therefore, as a result of the
amendments to the eastern windows, it is considered that there would no longer be
any significant adverse overlooking or loss of amenity concerns sufficient to justify
refusal.
In respect of impacts on dwellings to the south/west of the site, whilst the proposed
buildings to the front of the site would be taller than those currently on the site and this
would increase their visibility, it is not considered that there would be any significant
loss of daylight, sunlight or overlooking concerns.
Whilst representations have indicated the potential existence of civil matters relating
to access rights, these matters are matters outside the control of the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme makes provision for pedestrian access from The Quay across
the application site via Croft Yard and up to Star Yard.
9. AONB
In respect of impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), it is
considered that the proposed development would be viewed against the backdrop of
existing development within Wells and therefore the proposal would have minimal
impact on the special character of the AONB.
10. Retail Impact
In relation to retail impact, the proposed would provide 164sqm of retail space set
across three units with individual net sales areas of 57, 73 and 34 sqm respectively
with unit one having approximately 65sqm of additional ancillary office/storage space.
Given that the site is located within the defined Town Centre and Primary Shopping
Development Committee
41
23 June 2011
Area of Wells and in view of the amount of retail floor space proposed, in planning
terms the site is considered to be the best sequentially available for A1 (retail)
purposes in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EC5 and guidance contained within
PPS 4.
11. Cumulative Impact
In respect of cumulative impact considerations in relation to the applications on the
adjoining site, whilst the two schemes have distinctly different characters, the floor
levels within each scheme would broadly align and the use of appropriate materials
could help create a sense of unity. This said, whilst the schemes are considered
satisfactory in themselves, a better related scheme may have resulted had the two
schemes been designed together, particularly in respect of form. Nonetheless, given
the imperative need to see the fire-damaged sites redeveloped and taking account of
the varied character of The Quay, the cumulative impact of both schemes is
considered to be acceptable.
Summary
In making its decision the Committee has to consider a wide variety of planning issues
and material considerations. The site and adjoining land have been in a derelict
condition since the fire of January 2005 and considerable efforts have been made by
the Council to try and ensure that appropriate redevelopment takes place as quickly
as possible.
There are many factors and issues which make redevelopment of this site extremely
complicated and which have served to delay the desire to reach a positive planning
outcome. The Council still has the option to pursue Compulsory Purchase powers but,
since the announcement of the applicant's intention to redevelop the site and the
willingness to proceed despite the identified difficulties, it is hoped that there will be no
need for any formal action to be taken by the Council and the vitality and viability of
this part of Wells can be reinvigorated through redeveloping the burnt out buildings.
Whilst the principle of development is considered acceptable in this location, the
proposed scheme does not strictly comply with Development Plan policy in respect of
car parking. However, given the significant importance to the town and visual
prominence of this site on The Quay, it is considered that there are substantive
material considerations in favour of approving the application and redeveloping the
site which should be afforded considerable weight to justify approval of the application
and outweigh the concerns in respect of the strict non-compliance with Development
Plan policy.
Further consideration is being given to the detailed design changes but this does not
affect the principle.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to final agreement of design details highlighted by
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, satisfactory resolution of
the flood risk issues raised by the Environment Agency, no objection from the
Council's Emergency Planning Officer and agreement on the way forward in
respect of the archaeological concerns raised by the Planning Archaeologist
and subject to the impositions of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
42
23 June 2011
14.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0510 - Partial demolition and internal and
external works of repair and reinstatement to facilitate redevelopment of the
site.; Festival Amusements, The Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
- Target Date: 14 June 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Listed Building Alterations
See also applications PF/11/0509 & LE/11/0513 (application site) and PF/11/0456 &
LE/11/0458 (adjacent site)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
LE/10/1236 LE - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged building
Withdrawn by Applicant 20/01/2011
THE APPLICATION
Works to listed building to include partial demolition to facilitate redevelopment of the
adjacent site (see 11/0509 also on this agenda).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter has been received although the matters raised do not relate to listed
building elements of the proposal.
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage - The Festival Amusements building occupies an important quayside
site within the Wells-next-the-Sea Conservation Area. The current building is a
negative feature to the conservation area, due in part to its semi-derelict appearance,
but also the strong horizontal emphasis resulting from the first floor balcony, poor
proportions of window openings etc. The opportunity to replace this building with
something more appropriate to its context is therefore to be welcomed
The success of the design proposal will in many respects be down to the quality and
execution of the detailing and material selection and in the event that the Local
Planning Authority is minded to approve the application English Heritage strongly
recommend that appropriate conditions are included to control these matters
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions
Ancient Monuments Society - No objection subject to conditions which ensure the
special character of the building are protected
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
Development Committee
43
23 June 2011
Council for British Archaeology - No response
Georgian Group - No response
Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings - No response
Twentieth Century Society - No response
Victorian Society - 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 Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
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
Whether the proposal would have any adverse impact on the special character of the
listed building.
APPRAISAL
On 24 January 2005 the application site and adjoining buildings to the west were the
subject of a serious fire which caused substantial damage to both properties. The
buildings are located in a prominent position next to one of the most photographed
buildings in Wells-next-the-Sea (The Granary) and since the date of the fire the
buildings have remained in a derelict fire-damaged state and have continued to
detract from the character and appearance of The Quay. Members of Committee have
visited the site in order to appreciate the context of the development.
The fire has left part of a listed building in a very unstable condition and remediation
works to help stabilise the building were carried out under the guidance of
Environmental Health.
The proposed works involve, amongst other things, significant repair through
upgrading of the fabric of the building to allow use of the ground floor as a car parking
space with stairs up to the first floor area, which would be used as bedroom
accommodation as part of Flat 7 in the proposed development. Whilst the current
condition has prevented extensive surveying of the building and there may need to be
a degree of flexibility in relation to reinstatement works, subject to use of appropriate
materials and details it is considered that the proposed works would help secure the
long-term preservation of the listed building and eliminate the current risk of localised
collapse.
Clearly the works involve a degree of risk in respect of the potential for collapse during
the demolition process considered under application LE/11/0513. However,
notwithstanding the potential need for significant works to stabilise the building and the
Development Committee
44
23 June 2011
potential for significant elements of new-build work, on balance the benefits of the
proposal are considered to significantly outweigh the risk such that approval is
recommended subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
It is considered that the development would accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the imposition of conditions including archaeological
recording of the demolition of the building and any relevant conditions as may
be required by the Planning Archaeologist in relation to application PF/11/0509.
15.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/11/0513 - Demolition of fire damaged buildings;
Festival Amusements, The Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
- Target Date: 15 June 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Conservation Area Demolition
See also applications PF/11/0509 & LA/11/0510 (application site) and PF/11/0456 &
LE/11/0458 (adjacent site)
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
LE/10/1236 LE - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged building
Withdrawn by Applicant 20/01/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish all buildings on site to facilitate the redevelopment proposed under
application reference 11/0509 also on this agenda.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection subject to conditions.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions regarding demolition
methodology and advice note regarding asbestos.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - see 11/0509.
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.
Development Committee
45
23 June 2011
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 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
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
Risks associated with demolition
APPRAISAL
On 24 January 2005 the application site and adjoining buildings to the east were the
subject of a serious fire which caused substantial damage to both properties. The
buildings are located in a prominent position next to one of the most photographed
buildings in Wells-next-the-Sea (The Granary) and since the date of the fire the
buildings have remained in a derelict fire-damaged state and have continued to
detract from the character and appearance of The Quay. Members of Committee have
visited the site in order to appreciate the context of the development.
The appearance of the buildings affected by the fire has significantly detracted from
the character and appearance of the area and has impacted on the setting of adjacent
listed buildings and the wider Conservation Area. The proposed redevelopment
proposal also on this agenda for consideration under ref: PF/11/0509 & LA/11/0510 is
now deemed to be appropriate and is recommended for approval.
Should Committee be minded to approve demolition, a demolition method statement
and associated risk assessment would need to be prepared so as to ensure localised
collapse of buildings on the adjacent site does not occur.
It is considered that it would be more effective and efficient to demolish buildings on
both fire-damaged sites at the same time and this option will be discussed with each
applicant although this is clearly subject to agreement with owners of both sites.
Summary
Subject to the Committee agreeing to approve application 11/0509 above the proposal
is considered acceptable and to accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to conditions including on that demolition should not begin
until a contract has been let for re-development works.
Development Committee
46
23 June 2011
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
16.
REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE TO UNDERTAKE A SITE INSPECTION
P & A PLANT SUPPLIES/UNIQUE BUILDING SUPPLIES, THE STREET, SUTTON
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control prior to the
consideration of a report at a future meeting relating to the storage and supply of
building materials at this site.
By way of background, this is a long-established garden plant supplies business with
an associated landscape gardening business. Complaints have been received
asserting that there has been a change of use so that the site is now in a mixed use
comprising the garden centre and also the storage and supply of building materials.
The operator of the business is aware of these complaints and has indicated that
building materials have been supplied from the site for over ten years. He has
submitted copies of purchase invoices dating back to the 1990s and also a copy of a
local newspaper dated November 1994 which contains a report on the introduction of
a builders materials business (Appendix 5).
There has been no planning application for the materials supply business but if this
change of use took place more than ten years ago it is now immune from
enforcement action under the Planning legislation. This is potentially a difficult matter
which may involve consideration of possible intensification of the use(s) of the site
and whether the applicant should be invited to submit an application for a Lawful
Development Certificate. A report will be submitted for consideration at a future
meeting.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager ext 6016)
17.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/11/0367 - Erection of front extension and detached car
port/store; The Quails, School Road, Thurgarton for Mrs Flowerday
(Householder application)
ANTINGHAM - PF/11/0455 - Erection of stables; Land at Church Lane for Mr R
Neale
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/11/0375 - Removal of Condition 2 of permission reference
00/0535 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Rodavia, Church Road for
Mr & Mrs D Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - PF/11/0205 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Green Acre,
Water Lane, East Barsham for Mr & Mrs Wharton
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/11/0457 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extensions;
Primrose Cottage, Common Road The Common for Mr Sizmur
(Householder application)
Development Committee
47
23 June 2011
BINHAM - PF/11/0475 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission reference
01/1632 to permit full residential occupancy; 1 Westgate Barns, Warham Road
for Mr A Perren
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0511 - Installation of roof lights; Moonrakers, Back Lane for
Mrs S Rogerson
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - NMA1/11/0068 - Non-material amendment request for revised
fenestration; Well House, Burgh Stubbs, Melton Road for Mr D Loombe
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CATFIELD - PF/11/0484 - Conversion of storage building into bedroom
accommodation for bed and breakfast use; Crown Inn, The Street for Mr & Mrs
N Sappia
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/0397 - Erection of office/store and toilet/shower
block; Rectory Hill Nursery, Holt Road for Mr Lacoste
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/0270 - Removal of Condition 3 of
permission ref: 00/1608 to permit full residential occupancy; Carrs Barn,
Irmingland Road, Corpusty for Mr & Mrs S T James
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/0349 - Erection of car-port to existing
garage; Trevonne, The Street, Corpusty for Mrs Canning
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/0428 - Replacement roofing surface from
sedum to plastic coated metal; Corpusty & Saxthorpe Village Centre, Heydon
Road, Corpusty for Corpusty Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - NMA1/10/1137 - Non-material amendment
request for revised dimensions of temporary dwelling and alterations to
fenestration; Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road for Mr A den Engelse
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/11/0245 - Erection of replacement single-storey side extension;
47 Hillside for Mr Durrant
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/11/0463 - Alterations for conversion of part of amusement arcade
to residential flat; Home House, High Street for Mr R Parkin
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/11/0499 - Erection of penthouse apartment (extension of period
for commencement of permission reference: 08/0308); Marine View, Promenade
for Mr P Mills
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
48
23 June 2011
EAST RUSTON - PF/11/0248 - Conversion of barn to habitable accommodation
and including replacement roof; 1 Hinckley Cottages, Chequers Street for Mr D
Amies
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0390 - Erection of greenhouse and shed and 3 m. garden
wall; Lowes Farm House, Hunworth Road for Ms A MacNicol
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/11/0385 - Erection of extension to provide staff room and
toilet; Erpingham V C Primary School, School Road for Diocese of Norwich
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0109 - Residential Development of Twenty-Four Affordable
Homes Including Associated Roadways, Parking Areas and Landscaping; Land
adjacent Anglian Water Tower, Holt Road for Pigeon Investment Management
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0295 - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage;
Lavengrove, Heath Way for Mr & Mrs Betts
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0303 - Change of use from garage to A1 (hairdressing
salon); 32 Sandy Lane for Mr & Mrs Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0414 - Erection of extension; 19 George Edwards Road for S
& H UK Holding Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PF/11/0425 - Erection of garden room extension; Little Marsh
Cottage, Little Marsh, Binham Road for Mrs A Bennett
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - PF/11/0317 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 2 Castle
Close for Mr Mills & Miss Massingham
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0405 - Variation of Condition 5 of permission reference;
04/2232 to permit permanent residential occupancy of Barn 1; Gold's Farm
Barn, North Walsham Road for Mr & Mrs R Farmborough
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - LA/11/0415 - Alterations to outbuilding; Thrums, The Hill for Mr
S Burke
(Listed Building Alterations)
HEMPTON - NMA1/08/0493 - Non-material amendment request to insert obscure
glazed window to front (south-west elevation) to plots 1 an 2 to allow light into
en-suites; Plots 1 and 2, 7 King George Road for Funnell Developments
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
49
23 June 2011
HICKLING - PF/11/0276 - Removal of Condition 11 of permission reference
05/0733 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Burwell Acres, Stalham
Road for Mr & Mrs R Burley
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/11/0351 - Erection of replacement and extension of rear
conservatory; The Hollies, Stubb Road for Mr Kimber
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0416 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden,
formation of revised access and erection of garage/log store; Land Opposite
58, Wells Road for Mr R Small
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - NMA2/10/1080 - Non-material amendment request to replace
two windows on front elevation with larger windows, replace rear cloaks
window, insert matt black finish flue to rear elevation of single-storey extension
and omit two rooflights to rear elevation of garden room.; Coldham House,
Wells Road for Mr and Mrs R Green
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOLT - PF/11/0238 - Removal of condition 9 of planning ref: 06/0941 to permit
permanent residential occupation; Park Barn, 7 Lodge Farm Barns, Norwich
Road for Mr J Browne
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/11/0286 - Erection of single-store side/rear extension and siting of
residential caravan for duration of works; 16 St Andrews Close for Mr & Mrs
Gibson
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/11/0310 - Erection of extension to provide meeting room, sacristy
and WCs; St Andrews Church, Church Street for St Andrew's Church
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/11/0401 - Erection of front porch; 4 Orchard Close, Grove Lane for Mr
& Mrs Quantrill
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/11/0427 - Proposed erection of rear extension, demolition of existing
garage and erection of replacement attached garage; 10 Meadow Close for Mrs
H Chilvers
(Householder application)
HOLT - BX/11/0476 - Re-surfacing of external gravel areas; Holt Hall, Kelling
Road for Norfolk County Council
(County General Reg 3)
HOLT - PF/11/0490 - Continued use of land for siting mobile classroom;
Greshams School, Cromer Road for Greshams School
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
50
23 June 2011
HOLT - PF/11/0493 - Erection of link extensions; Unit 2, Heath Drive for
Grindstore Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/11/0209 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning ref: 04/1723 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; St Peters Barn, Tunstead Road for
Barn Owl Conversions Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
INGHAM - LA/11/0386 - Installation of external boiler; Priory Barn, Sea Palling
Road for Mr R Smart
(Listed Building Alterations)
INGHAM - PF/11/0467 - Erection of detached carport/workshop; Priory Barn, Sea
Palling Road for Mr & Mrs Smart
(Householder application)
INGWORTH - PF/11/0338 - Erection of replacement garage; The Cottage, The
Street for Mrs R Craddock
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/11/0429 - Insertion of velux window in garden room roof; 3
Weynor Gardens for Mr Knowles
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - PF/11/0430 - Erection of front porch; Westwind, Hall Lane for Mrs
Hall
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/11/0392 - Erection of garden room extension; 3 Rippingall Yard
for Fleur Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/11/0459 - Erection of single-storey extension; 4 Rippingall Yard
for Fleur Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/11/0472 - Change of use of post office to residential,
erection of replacement single-storey side extension and detached car-port and
widening of access; The Old Post Office, The Street for Mr Swinbourne
(Full Planning Permission)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/11/0450 - Erection of single-storey/two-storey rear
extensions and new first floor window in existing southern gable; Two Acres,
The Street for Mr J G Malcolm
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/11/0471 - Erection of single-storey and first floor rear
extensions; Tithe Cottage, The Street for Mr & Mrs Broome
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0228 - Formation of vehicular access and driveway; Oakleigh,
Malthouse Lane for Mr N Franklin
(Householder application)
Development Committee
51
23 June 2011
LUDHAM - PF/11/0305 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 34 School
Road for Mr P Douse
(Householder application)
MORSTON - PF/11/0323 - Variation of Condition 1 of permission reference
WM872/1 to permit extended opening season from1 March to 31 December;
Parish Hall, Quay Lane for Morston Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0279 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions
and replacement garage; 20 Meadow Drive for Mr & Mrs Collins
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0325 - Erection of rear/side extension with
accommodation in roofspace; Cushendall, Lyngate Road for Mr & Mrs Barnes
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0354 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 94a
Mundesley Road for Miss Cooper
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/11/0409 - Installation of replacement render, window
and French doors, internal alterations and insertion of new window; 36 Vicarage
Street for Mr B Gunner
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0434 - Erection of porch; 29 Northmead Drive for Mr
& Mrs Robertson
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0454 - Erection of rear conservatory; Kendal, Witton
View for Mr T Fletcher
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/11/0437 - Erection of replacement garage; Janfier, North Walsham
Road for Mr M J Coker
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/11/0408 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home; The
Caravan, Trees Field off Massingham Road, West Raynham for Mr J S Agnew
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0381 - Removal of Condition 2 of permission reference:
08/0440 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Annexe, Back Lane for Mrs
C Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0410 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Roseacre,
Thorpe Market Road for Mr R Mason
(Householder application)
Development Committee
52
23 June 2011
RUNTON - PF/11/0333 - Variation of condition 6 of permission ref: 09/0663 to
permit change of colour for cladding and render; St. Andrews, Lower Common,
East Runton for Mr Monaghan
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/11/0384 - Use of land for siting 11 static holiday caravans;
Hazelbury Caravan Park, Cromer Road, East Runton for Hazelbury Caravan Park
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - NMA1/10/0870 - Non-material amendment request for change of
balustrade design; Arcadia, Church Lane, West Runton for Mr A Staras
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SALTHOUSE - PF/11/0473 - Alterations to barn to provide dwelling and guest
wing; 1 Manor Farm Barns, Cross Street for D & M Hickling Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/10/0569 - Erection of a new 100 place accommodation block;
HMP Bure for Ministry of Justice
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0155 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 03/1618 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Barn 7, The Grange, Lynn Road for Mr
G McLean
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0328 - Variation of condition 2 of planning ref: 03/0481 to
permit full residential occupancy; 10 Grove Farm Barns, Creake Road for Miss
Stretton
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0250 - Change of use of first and second floors from
offices to residential apartment; 45-47 High Street for Mr P Marriott
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0311 - Erection of two double garages; Land adjacent 4
Handford Drive for Mr B Bizzell
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0346 - Erection of public conveniences; East Promenade
for North Norfolk District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0352 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 69 Beeston
Common for Miss T Swift
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0395 - Installation of front and rear rooflights; 12 Augusta
Street for Mr P Stewart
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0420 - Erection of side conservatory; 15 St Austins Grove
for Mr M Welch
(Householder application)
Development Committee
53
23 June 2011
STALHAM - PF/11/0327 - Erection of open fronted cart lodge; Teasel, The Staithe
for Mr P M T Simpson
(Householder application)
STALHAM - LA/11/0331 - Internal alterations, alterations to window and door
openings and installation of window; West End Farm, Chapel Field, Chapel Field
Road for Mr & Mrs Knightly
(Listed Building Alterations)
STALHAM - PF/11/0357 - Erection of detached garage; Carlton House, Upper
Staithe Road for Mr C Bullimore
(Householder application)
STIBBARD - PF/11/0448 - Erection of single-storey side extension and detached
garage; Robin Green, Fulmodeston Road for Mr P Martin
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/11/0394 - Formation of vehicular access; The Orchard, Common
Road, Bradfield for Miss B Bell
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PF/11/0412 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 07/0296 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Corner Barns,
The Street for Mr B Love
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - NMA2/09/0062 - Non-material amendment request for revised
access drive; Church Farmhouse, Church Street for Mr R Turner
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
TRUNCH - PF/11/0451 - Retention of timber lodge used as annexe; Sycamore,
North Walsham Road for Mr A Gately
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0154 - Variation of Condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; 3 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street for
Mr T Pitt
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0261 - Variation of condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; Oak Barn, 8 Laurel Farm Barns,
Market Street for Mr Bridges
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0262 - Variation of condition 8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit permanent residential occupancy; 13 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street
for Mr Johnson
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/11/0329 - Variation of condition8 of planning ref: 06/1381 to
permit full residential occupancy; 17 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street for Rev
Paul
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
54
23 June 2011
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0447 - Variation of Condition 4 of permission ref: 07/0970
to permit permanent residential occupancy; 3 - 7 The Old Vicarage,
Scarborough Road for Mr J Barnes
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0502 - Variation of Condition 4 of permission reference:
07/0970 to permit permanent residential occupancy; 9 The Old Vicarage,
Scarborough Road for Mr & Mrs S Clayton
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0340 - Erection of single-storey front extension
with balcony above; Wengen, East End for Mr & Mrs Perowne
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0399 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
45 High Street for Mr & Mrs Goode
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0400 - Removal of conservatory, erection of
single-storey rear extension and internal alterations; 45 High Street for Mr & Mrs
Goode
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0402 - Installation of front dormer window; 14
Shop Lane for Ms K Cleaver
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/11/0442 - Erection of two-storey side extension and erection of
detached double garage/store; Heath Cottage, Stonebridge Road for Mr & Mrs
Gilman
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/0358 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 7 North
View, Honing Road, Lyngate for Mr Hope & Mrs Hudson
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/11/0418 - Construction of 5mw solar generating facility;
Carlton Farm, Old Yarmouth Road for PV Farms 02 Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
18.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - PF/10/1371 - Change of use of land and field shelter from
agricultural to D2 (leisure); Land at The Quay for Mr W Sankey
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/0478 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; 92 High
Street for Robinson
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/0479 - Erection of dwelling and alterations to front boundary
wall to provide pedestrian access; 92 High Street for Mr Robinson
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
55
23 June 2011
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0469 - Construction of first floor balcony and first floor rear
dormer; 184 Norwich Road for Mr D Codman
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/11/0214 - Erection of three 15m wind turbines; Cargill Farm,
Grove Farm, Grove Road for Cargill Farms
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - PF/11/0364 - Erection of two 15m wind turbines; Glebe Farm,
White Post Road for Mr Attew
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/07/1065 - Non-material amendment request to revise elevation
treatment to the front elevation; 10 Town Close for Mr S Russell and Ms E
Killingback
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/0296 - Variation of Condition 2 of permission ref: 81/0919 to
permit occupation of dwelling in connection with adjacent farm shop; The
Cedars, Thorpe Market Road for Mr B Filby
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0391 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 9 Knowle Crescent for Mr M Cook
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0515 - Retention of balcony; 31 Beeston Road for Mr H
Ahrens
(Householder application)
STIBBARD - PF/11/0432 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Evermore Farm, Wood Norton Road for Mr & Mrs Rose
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/09/1107 - Non-material amendment request for
installation of 6 photovoltaic panels, 3 roof windows and additional side
window; Store At, Jolly Sailor Yard for Mr & Mrs J Needham
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WICKMERE - PF/11/0366 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Wickmere
Village Hall, Regent Street for Wickmere Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
19.
NEW APPEALS
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1111 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 43
Sculthorpe Road for Mr Patrick & J Brady
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
56
23 June 2011
20.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/09/1269 - Erection of agricultural building; Land at Hart Lane for
Mr D Gay
INFORMAL HEARING 14 July 2011
BODHAM - PF/10/1469 - Continued siting of caravan for agricultural purposes
and 4 mobile animal shelters and erection of polytunnel; Windrush Farm, Hart
Lane for Mr D Gay
INFORMAL HEARING 14 July 2011
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/0205 - Retention of one temporary storage building and
erection of two further temporary storage buildings; land at Church Farm,
Church Street for Mr R Codling
INFORMAL HEARING 6 July 2011
21.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BINHAM - PF/09/0870 - Retention of Single-Storey Building Used for Saw-Milling
and Storage/Distribution of Logs; Land adjacent to Langham Road for Mr Taylor
SITE VISIT:- 07 June 2011
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0898 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings; Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/1411 - Erection of single-storey extension; 5 The
Sheltons, Barsham Road for Mr G M Grimwade
NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
PASTON - PO/10/1058 - Erection of single-storey dwelling to replace demolished
dwelling; Spyglass Hill, North Walsham Road for Mr D Briggs
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/0161 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 5 Meadow Way for Mr James
22.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No items
Development Committee
57
23 June 2011