OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 23 SEPTEMBER 2010
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.
HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2 flats:
Site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
To give the application further consideration following the receipt of amended
designs and the consultation response from the Environment Agency regarding the
acceptability of soakaways and land contamination.
Background
The Committee considered this application at the meeting on 10 June 2010 when it
was resolved to defer determination of the application in order for design negotiations
to take place. A further consultation response was also awaited from the
Environment Agency regarding the acceptability of the information submitted in
respect of soakaways and land contamination.
Copies of the report to that meeting and the minutes are attached as Appendix 1.
Amended plans were received on 15 July 2010 in relation to the design of the
proposed dwellings. The overall design of the scheme has been amended in an
attempt to reflect more of the character of the dwellings that look onto ‘The Green’ to
the north west of the site rather than the row of terrace dwellings directly adjacent to
it. Following advice from the Housing Enabling Officer further amended plans were
received on 31 August 2010, re-designing unit 1 so that there are now three
bedrooms at first floor level.
Hempton Parish Council and Pudding Norton Parish Council have been re-consulted
on the amended plans, which have also been re-advertised. At the time of writing
this report comments were awaited. The Committee will be updated orally at the
meeting regarding this matter.
Representations received since previous report
In response to the original comments of the Environment Agency contained in the
report of the 10 June 2010 (see Appendix 1) the applicants’ agent provided further
information in relation to the location of soakaways and land contamination, and the
use of piling. The agent provided an annotated site layout plan indicating the location
of the site investigation excavations and depth of fill/made ground. The plan also
indicated an area hatched in red which represents an area having minimal
thicknesses of made ground with little or no contamination. It is in this area where the
construction of the cellular soakaways to serve roofs and the length of the private
access road would take place. The main parking hardstanding could be constructed
so as to drain to soakaways or could be constructed using SUDS-compliant
permeable pavement finishes.
The agent also confirmed that, based on the site investigations to date, there is no
reason to consider piled foundation construction. The foundations proposed would
comprise traditional strip/trench fill foundations extended in depth to bypass the
made ground which has been determined as being at relatively high levels.
Development Control Committee
1
23 September 2010
This information was sent to the Environment Agency for further consideration and a
response has now been received.
Clarification has also been provided that the paving would comprise conservation
kerbs with golden gravel rolled into the asphalt surface, and plans have been
received in respect of boundary treatments and details of the storage building for the
flats.
Consultee Updates
Building Control Manager
I refer to the above mentioned application and to your request for comments,
particularly in relation to objections received concerning the waterlogged nature of
the ground and the damage which could potentially be caused to the existing
adjacent dwellings by the disturbance of the water table.
Waterlogged ground is not an uncommon problem and is regularly encountered in
the Broads area of the District. When this problem is encountered the normal method
of construction is to install lean-mix concrete in the excavations to raise the working
level up above the water table. A second, reinforced, dense concrete strip is then
installed above this onto which construction then takes place.
In the case of the dwelling erected adjacent to 19 Dereham Road in 2007/08, the
excavations revealed a fill material overlaying much of the site through which it was
necessary to excavate into the chalk/clay strata beneath at a depth of up to 1.5m
below ground level. Ground water was encountered during the excavation although I
am unable to confirm its actual level.
With regard to the effect the disturbance of the water table may have on the adjacent
properties, I am afraid that I do not have the expertise to comment. It is not a
situation I have encountered before and would suggest that it may be necessary to
appoint a specialist to comment on this in detail.
Environment Agency (Comments in relation to additional information submitted by
applicant in relation to location of soakaways and piling and land contamination)
We are happy for clean roof water to go to ground provided that all water down pipes
are sealed against pollutants entering the system via surface run off. All drainage
systems should be sited away from the areas where low levels of contamination have
been found within the made ground cover at the site. We can permit the use of
shallow cellular soakaways in areas away from the low level contamination. The use
of SUDS is supported for parking areas and roadways. If any drainage is to be sited
within the area of contamination we will need to see a full risk assessment before we
can determine whether they are acceptable. We note that piled foundations will not
be used.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
(Comments on amended plans)
Following the recent deferral at Committee, design negotiations have focused on
securing some variations in the form and design of the proposed buildings. Hence,
rather than the straight terraced form of the original submission, the units have been
split into a number of complementary elements which retain their own identity. Unit 7
starts the scheme off by following the theme of the adjacent properties. Units 5 and 6
then step up to provide the main focus of the block (the chimneys at ridge level help
in outlining this design intent). Unit 4 then projects a gable to help frame one side of
the entrance.
Development Control Committee
2
23 September 2010
On the other side of the access point, the larger hipped gable on Unit 2 provides a
good counterpart to Unit 4 (but without appearing as a pair of bookends). From this,
there are steps down to a single storey lean-to on Unit 1 which would help the
development respond better to the countryside beyond (i.e. by petering out
gradually). With variations also now shown in the fenestration and the materials, it is
considered that the scheme would not harm the significance of this part of Hempton’s
Conservation Area.
In the event of Committee receiving this amended scheme more favourably, it is
recommended that the previously suggested conditions be imposed on the approval
notice.
Housing Enabling Officer (Comments on amended plans including update on figures)
In summary there are now 44 households on the Housing Register from Hempton
and the adjoining civil parishes (Sculthorpe, Dunton and Pudding Norton) which have
a housing need and a local connection with Hempton as required by the Rural
Exceptions Scheme policy. A breakdown of the total figure is provided.
The Housing Enabling Officer notes that there have been substantial changes to the
design to create homes with individual character and visual variety, using elements
from the dwellings in the immediate surrounding area. In conclusion there is a
significant local need for affordable housing which this proposal for 7 dwellings will go
someway to meet. The proposed scheme meets with all requirements of Policy HO3
and contributes to meeting the Core Aims and objectives outlined in the Core
Strategy and Corporate Plan. Strategic Housing therefore strongly supports this
application to develop 7 much needed affordable homes in Hempton.
Key Policy Issues
The key issues are compliance with adopted Core Strategy Policies HO3, EN2, EN4,
EN8, EN13 and CT5 regarding the acceptability of the development, the design of
the proposed dwellings, the acceptability of soakaways in relation to contamination of
the site, highway issues and effects on the amenities of the area.
Appraisal
The proposal is considered to comply with Policy HO3 of the adopted Core Strategy,
and it has been demonstrated that there is a clear proven local housing need in this
location.
No objections have been received from the Environment Agency in relation to
soakaways and contamination, and no objections have been received from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager or the Housing Enabling Officer
regarding the amended plans.
It is therefore considered that the issue of design has been addressed and that the
Environment Agency, subject to conditions, is satisfied with the information that has
been submitted.
The Building Control Manager has confirmed that the ‘waterlogged’ nature of the site
is not an insurmountable problem and would not prevent the construction of the
proposed dwellings on the site. In terms of the effect that the development may have
on the water table and adjacent properties the views of the applicant are being
sought and the Committee will be updated orally at the meeting. This matter has
been discussed with the Environment Agency which has advised that this issue is
outside the limits of the advice it can provide.
Development Control Committee
3
23 September 2010
Based on the information submitted including the amended plans and satisfactory
resolution of the impact on the water table the proposal is considered to accord with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no further grounds of objection
being received from the Parish Councils or following expiry of the readvertisement of the amended plans on site and in the press and the
satisfactory resolution of the impact of the development on the water table and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0897 - Erection of ground and first floor extensions;
Moonrakers, Back Lane for Mrs Rogerson
Target Date: 06 October 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19790290 - Erection of house and garage
Approved 18/06/1979
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to restyle and extend a dwelling dating from the late 1970s. The alterations
would involve retaining the central two storey element of the building but increasing
the pitch of the roof from 35 to 45 degrees and inserting new bay windows to the
north and south elevations with an over-sailing gable detail. The footprint of the
existing single storey element, which joins the main body of the building to the east
would be extended to provide a new double garage with accommodation in the
roofspace in the form of a dressing room and en-suites.
In addition the single storey wing to the west would be increased in width by 3.5
metres so as to provide a new living room and entrance hall at ground floor with two
additional bedrooms and en-suites in the roofspace, making a total of five bedrooms.
The first floor accommodation would be lit by a combination of gable and dormer
windows. As part of the restyling it is intended that the existing brickwork would be
refaced with a combination of brick and flint at ground floor with tile hanging to the
apex of the north and south facing gables, whilst the natural aluminium windows
would be replaced with cream coloured PVCu frames. In addition the concrete tiled
roof would be replaced with black smut clay pantiles.
Development Control Committee
4
23 September 2010
In total the extended dwelling, including the double garage would provide for a total
floor area of some 260 sq metres. As part of the scheme an existing conservatory to
the rear south elevation would be demolished.
An amended plan has been received which shows two additional car parking spaces,
changes to the first floor window to the north facing gable and the replacement of the
proposed PVCu window frames with cream painted timber.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning
issues:Increase in scale of the dwelling and its elevational detailing.
PARISH COUNCIL – Awaiting comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns: (summarised).
1. Overdevelopment of the site.
2. The visual impact of the building will be overbearing on the area.
3. Could adversely affect protected trees.
4. There will be inadequate car parking for a property having five bedrooms.
5. The use of tile hanging is not in keeping.
6. The master bedroom is too large and ugly.
7. The use of PVCu windows is inappropriate.
8. The first floor windows should not protrude.
9. The western aspect of the building is ugly and out of character.
10. The Blakeney Village Design Statement indicates a preference for vernacular
building materials, not tile hanging and PVCu windows.
11. The bay window would reduce neighbours privacy.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Awaiting comments.
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Development Control Committee
5
23 September 2010
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design.
3. Impact on Conservation Area.
4. Car parking provision.
5. Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties.
6. Impact on adjoining trees.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the development boundary for Blakeney and is also within
the Conservation Area and Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In
principle the extension and alteration of the dwelling as proposed are acceptable
subject to complying with other Core Strategy policies including EN1, EN4 and EN8.
Policy EN1 requires that development does not detract from the special qualities of
the Norfolk Coast AONB, whilst Policies EN4 and EN8 require that all development
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 alterations and extensions, should preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of designated assets, in this case the Blakeney
Conservation Area. Furthermore proposals should not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings
should provide acceptable residential amenity.
In this case given the location of the site the development would have no impact on
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In design terms, although the proposed extension would result in a significant
increase in the scale and massing of the dwelling with the ridge height of the main
cross wing increasing by some 1 metre, it is considered that the appearance of the
building would be additive in form which would accord with the North Norfolk Design
Guide.
In terms of the elevational treatment, detailing and materials, given the mix of
architectural style of dwellings in the surrounding area, it is considered that the
proposed alterations would blend successfully and would overall enhance the
appearance of what is currently a very bland and uninteresting building. The
Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that the
existing building fails to make a positive contribution to its surrounding and as the
scale and massing of the building as proposed has been broken down into a number
of elements this is not considered to be a ground for objection. In terms of the
elevational treatment and palette of materials these would give the dwelling a
reasonably coherent end result which would enhance the appearance and character
of the Blakeney Conservation Area.
The Blakeney Village Design Statement, states that "non traditional materials are
considered inappropriate throughout the Conservation Area". In this particular case,
the use of tile hanging is considered to be more appropriate than a rendered finish as
it would be more recessive in nature whilst in respect of the proposed use of cream
coloured PVCu window frames the agent has confirmed his client’s agreement to
replace these with cream painted timber frames.
Development Control Committee
6
23 September 2010
The scheme as proposed would provide for two car parking spaces within the double
garage and two immediately in front of the dwelling. In addition the amended plan
shows two further spaces, which would provide more that adequate car parking for a
dwelling of this scale and which would comply with the parking standards contained
in the Core Strategy. The available amenity space would accord with the North
Norfolk Design Guide.
As far as any impact on neighbouring properties is concerned, the only potential for
additional overlooking would be from the north facing first floor window to bedroom 3
which would look towards The Music Room, sited some 40 metres to the north.
However due to the amount of planting within this property, particularly towards the
southern boundary it is not considered that the scheme as proposed would result in
any amenities issues for occupiers of that dwelling.
At the time of writing the report the comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager were awaited in respect of the trees which are covered by a
Tree Preservation Order which front the western boundary adjoining Back Lane and
also the eastern boundary with North Lea. In addition the comments of
Environmental Health were awaited.
It is therefore considered, subject to no objection from outstanding consultees, that
the scheme as amended would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objection from outstanding
consultees and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
3.
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0898 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings; Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
Minor Development
Target Date: 08 October 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Tree Preservation Order
Contaminated Land
Wensum Valley Project Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20091037 PO
Erection of Two-Storey Dwelling and Single-Storey Dwelling
Approved 30/11/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of two detached one and a half storey dwellings, with only means
of access to be considered at this stage.
The existing dwelling would be retained as would the vehicular access into the site
from Heath Lane.
Development Control Committee
7
23 September 2010
The proposed plots are to the east and west of the existing dwelling. High boundary
walls on the east, north and west boundaries are shown to be retained, and a Lime
and a Horse Chestnut tree are also to be retained.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Gloria and John Lisher having regard to the following
planning issues:
1. Impact upon trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order
2. Landscape impact
3. Highway safety
4. Density
5. Site contamination & subsidence
6. Compliance with Core Strategy policies
TOWN COUNCIL
Object. It is excessive over-development of garden land and will exacerbate an
already problematical highway situation and will have an adverse effect on the
unadopted and frail surface of the lane.
REPRESENTATIONS
Seventeen letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the
following points:
1. Overdevelopment
2. Highway safety
3. Increase in traffic
4. Adverse impact upon unadopted lane
5. Loss of privacy
6. Site is contaminated
7. Impact upon trees
8. Subsidence on site
9. Condition of surface on lane is poor
10. Inappropriate access to site
11. Contrary to Policies EN2, EN4, EN13, CT5, CT6
12. Detrimental effect on residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - Heath Lane is a wide surfaced private road with
footpath provision, accessed from north Norwich Road and Warren Avenue. Visibility
at the junction with the Norwich Road (C551) from Heath Lane is acceptable in both
directions.
There are currently approximately 38 dwellings which are accessed via Heath Lane,
which is well above the maximum number of 8 dwellings, now permitted to be served
from a private road.
Given this existing situation it would be considered that the proposed increase in
dwelling numbers accessed via Heath Lane would not adversely impact highway
safety given the level of visibility available I am unable to raise a sustainable
highways objection.
If permission were granted a condition regarding details of parking provision and
turning areas in accordance with adopted standards for the new dwellings and
existing would be required.
Development Control Committee
8
23 September 2010
Conservation, Design and Landscape Officer (Landscape) - No objection. Although
the application does not directly assess the layout for the proposed development,
consideration has to be given as to whether the development site can accommodate
the erection of two new detached one and a half storey dwellings without
compromising the protected trees on the site. Given that the area in the north east of
the site is now devoid of trees, this appears to be an appropriate location for one of
the dwellings. The remaining area for a dwelling would be in the north west corner of
the plot which contains two of the protected trees. Although there is no Arboricultural
Implications Assessment (AIA) to highlight the issues arising as a result of the trees
on the site, expected issues include root protection areas, shading implications of the
Horse Chestnut tree, future growth and maintenance of the trees and protection of
the trees during construction. The Council aims to manage the future growth and
maintenance of trees and address shading issues through having an exclusion zone
around the canopy of the protected trees, i.e. no new dwelling should be sited within
10m of a protected tree's canopy edge (or 5m, if it is a gable end). Construction
should also be outside of the root protection areas of trees. With these simple
guidelines in mind, and without the benefit of a full Arboricultural Implications
Assessment (AIA) and accurate Tree Survey, there appears to be sufficient space to
locate a dwelling to the west of the existing property. However, any future application
for reserved matters should be accompanied by a full AIA, Tree Survey and
Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), illustrating the full impact to the protected
trees on the site and adjacent to the site, tree protection requirements and
construction methodology. This should be made a condition of any planning
permission given.
In terms of the access to the proposed dwellings this goes between protected trees,
therefore there could potentially be issues surrounding additional compaction to the
soil environment in this vicinity through increased traffic and damage to the canopies
of the trees through direct vehicle impact. The later is a concern particularly during
construction. The plan indicates that the existing access will be retained. This may or
may not include surfacing. If the existing surface is to be removed and replaced then
this will have to take into consideration the impact to the trees and root environment.
In order to protect the trees a condition should be attached to any planning
permission requiring an Arboricultural Method Statement to be submitted to and
approved for the removal and resurfacing of the existing driveway. Any direct
physical impact to the trees likely to be caused during construction should be dealt
with in the AIA and AMS required for the reserved matters application.
Environmental Health - There appears to be some previous association with sand
and gravel extraction from 1889 within the proposed development site. On this basis
there is potential for unknown filled ground to be present so a condition requiring a
site investigation into possible contaminants is required.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - In order for the application to comply with Policy EN6 a
condition is required on any approval that the dwellings shall achieve a Code Level 2
rating or above in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable
Homes.
Building Control Manager - Awaiting comments
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
9
23 September 2010
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 HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway safety
3. Contaminated land
4. Subsidence
5. Impact on protected trees
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the development boundary for Fakenham where Core
Strategy Policies SS1 and SS8 permit residential development providing it complies
with other Development Plan policies.
Only the principle of the development of the site for the erection of two one and half
storey dwellings and means of access are for consideration at this stage.
Fakenham is designated as a Principal Settlement, within which Policy HO7 requires
that there should be not less than 40 dwellings per hectare. In view of the site area
this would result in 8.9 dwellings on the site. This would result in a development
which would not be in keeping with the character of the area. There is a mix of
density in the immediate area with a lower level to the east and higher level to the
west. In accordance with the requirement of Policy HO7 it is not considered that the
addition of two more dwellings on this site would be out of keeping with the character
of the area. It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy HO7 of the Core
Strategy.
Development Control Committee
10
23 September 2010
The existing access off Heath Lane would continue to provide the vehicular access
into the site. Heath Lane itself is an unadopted road, the upkeep of which is the
responsibility of residents. One of the objections raised by local residents is that the
development would have an adverse impact on the condition of the unadopted road.
However, this is a civil matter not a planning matter. The Committee will note that the
Highway Authority is not raising an objection to the application, subject to a condition
requiring that parking and turning provision is in accordance with adopted standards.
A further area of concern raised by local residents is that the site is contaminated
having once been used as a municipal waste dump for the disposal of commercial,
residential and hazardous waste. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has
requested the imposition of a condition requiring an investigation into the possible
presence of contamination affecting the site prior to the commencement of any
development.
Concerns have also been raised regarding subsidence on the site. However, the
Building Control Manager has been consulted on this matter and the views of the
applicant have been sought. The Committee will be updated orally regarding this
matter at the meeting.
Two trees are subject to Tree Preservation Orders on the western boundary of the
site, which are to be retained. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is
not raising an objection, subject to the imposition of conditions including the
submission of an Arboricultural Implications Assessment, Tree Survey and
Arboricultural Method Statement with the Reserved Matters application. This
information would include details of the full impact to the protected trees on the site
and adjacent to the site, tree protection requirements and construction methodology.
A condition is also required for an Arboricultural Method Statement to be submitted
and approved for the removal and resurfacing of the existing driveway.
Whilst scale, layout and appearance of the dwellings are not for determination, it is
considered that two one and a half storey dwellings could be designed in such a way
that they would comply with the Amenity Criteria in the North Norfolk Design Guide,
and would be acceptable in this location.
It is considered that the site is capable of accommodating two one and a half storey
dwellings without causing significant detriment to the character of the area. The
Highway Authority has confirmed that the access is suitable for such a development,
and there appears to be sufficient space to locate two dwellings on the site without
detriment to trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
It is therefore considered that, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the subsidence
issue, the development would be in accordance with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the
subsidence issue, and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
11
23 September 2010
4.
KELLING - PF/10/0619 - Change of use of livery yard to a mixed use of livery
yard and riding centre; Squirrel Wood Equestrian Centre, Warren Road, High
Kelling for Mrs L Davies
Minor Development
Target Date: 23 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20040591 PF - Retention of residential caravan occupied in connection with
stable yard
Refused 27/05/2004 A 10/03/2005
PLA/20080339 PF - Continued siting of residential caravan
Approved 25/04/2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks retrospective permission for a change of use of livery yard to a mixed use of
livery yard and riding centre with 4 of the existing 14 stables being used as Do it
Yourself livery with the remaining 10 stables operating as working livery with the
horses used in the Riding Centre aspect of the business.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the complexity of
the planning history and policy issues affecting the case.
PARISH COUNCIL – No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters of objection from local residents, three of which are from the same
person, which raise the following concerns (summarised):
1. The existing private concrete roadway, was built for the convenience of local
residents in Warren Road to avoid farm traffic passing their properties and is
totally inadequate for the intended use.
2. Conservative estimates show that traffic volumes along the concrete road would
be at an absolute minimum of around 8,000 vehicular movements per year and
may be up to more than 17,600 per year, as the business expands.
3. There is a dangerous junction where the access road meets Bridge Road.
4. The road is only single track in places with the result that the increased traffic
movement and speeding vehicles are making it difficult and dangerous for
residents of Warren Farm Barns to access their properties.
5. The traffic volume has increased around 50% since this new business was
established.
6. Part of the access is over a public footpath which in recent years has been
abused being used as a cycle path.
7. The roadway is also used by other traffic including local residents at Warren
House Farm and Warren Barn together with residents of Warren Road who have
legitimate vehicular access rights, and also large farm vehicles.
8. The roadway from Bridge Road to Warren Road has no public right of way.
9. The right of way was originally granted by the landowner for the occupants of
Squirrel Wood Farmhouse.
Development Control Committee
12
23 September 2010
10. On recent occasions the roadway has also been used by coaches dropping
children off at the Riding Centre.
11. Questions the legal right of access over the roadway.
12. The increased traffic movements along the concrete road will result in a conflict
between walkers using the public footpath, farm vehicles and traffic accessing
the Riding Centre, increasing the danger for all users and risk of accidents.
13. The proposal is for a retail type business which is contrary to the business uses
previously approve at Warren Farm, where retailing was not allowed due to
increased traffic movements.
14. The development would affect the Human Rights of local residents who have a
right to the “peaceful enjoyment of their possessions”.
15. We do not believe a business use has ever been permitted at Squirrel wood
Farm.
16. The proposed development would adversely affect the peace and tranquillity of
this part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
17. The site is totally unsuitable for any increased commercial use.
Thirty one letters of support have been received which make the following comments
(summarised):
1. The Equestrian Centre is a true asset to the area where good quality riding
establishments are becoming increasingly rare.
2. The numbers of vehicular movements are very limited.
3. Squirrel Wood is ideally located for peaceful and enjoyable riding way from busy
roads.
4. This is a much needed facility.
5. It is good for the local community to have a good safe riding school for young
people and adults to enjoy healthy outdoor activity.
6. It is about time North Norfolk had a decent riding school.
7. As long as we can remember people have been enjoying riding at Squirrel Wood
with many campers walking through the woods to the school, which does not
cause any traffic.
8. Squirrel Wood has been a livery yard as long as I can remember. I rode a
friends horse kept in livery there thirty years ago.
9. It would be a huge shame if this excellent facility vanished from our community.
10. The facility is good for the local economy.
11. It is an ideal facility for disabled riding.
12. As a resident of Warren Road for over 27 years we have been aware of horses
and related pursuits at Squirrel Wood since at least 1987 and are very happy
that a local person is running a business that provided a much needed service to
the local population.
13. The nearest riding stable is at Thwaite Common which is some distance away
and oversubscribed.
14. I used to help at Squirrel Wood Farm some 17 years ago when in addition to
several horses being in livery they offered riding holidays and hacks and also
had a cross county/Hunter trail course.
Two letters which make the following comments (summarised):
1. Whilst there has been a vast increase in traffic going to Squirrel Wood we have
no objection to the Equestrian Centre provided that vehicles do not have access
down Warren Road.
2. Better signage would also help to ensure that traffic did not go along Warren
Road and also “slow” signs or traffic calming measures.
A letter has been received from the applicant's agent seeking to clarify the previous
use of the site, the rights of access and the current vehicular usage of the site.
Development Control Committee
13
23 September 2010
CONSULATIONS
Kelling Parish Council - No response
Bodham Parish Council - No response
County Council (Highways)
It has been established that the livery stable with accommodation for 15 horses
(based on the Inspector's findings) and 8.5 hectares of surrounding land has been
active on the site for a number of years; this could, if utilised, have the potential to
generate approximately 61 movements per day (up to 22265 movements/annually
(over 365 days)).
Using this figure as a base to assess the impact of the proposal using the applicants'
figures supplied cross referenced with my own assessment of the likely movements
generated by the proposed change to mixed use.
A spreadsheet supplied by an objector indicates a range of movements from a
minimum 7780 to maximum of 17640. My own assessment of the likely movements
indicates a wider range purely for the equestrian centre, from a minimum of 8577 to a
peak time maximum of 26092 movements annually, this is using the peak summer
figure over the whole year period.
It would be unrealistic to use the peak time figure over an entire annual period. I
would therefore suggest an average figure giving 64 movements per day (a
maximum figure of 21623 movements over 310 days per year).
This represents a very marginal daily increase, but over a 6 rather than 7 day period.
The applicants’ agents indicate a figure of 27 movements per day based upon the
previous years bookings, even with a 100% increase in this figure, the cumulative
figure of 54 movements per day remains below the 61 movements for the established
livery use.
Concerns have previously been raised regarding the intensification of use of the
access onto Bridge road, in respect of the suitability of the available width of the
access for the first 10 metres where improvements would be sought if any
intensification of use were proposed.
In this instance it would appear that the levels of traffic generation between the
previous and proposed uses are below or very similar, the Highway Authority are
therefore unable to raise an objection to the proposal.
The site has been operating for some time, with only recent complaints being made
to the Highway Authority regarding the use of the access route by large coaches. It
appears that these are failings by the coach operator to adhere to the clients
instructions.
The principle of using minibuses to bring clients to the site is seen to be beneficial in
terms of reducing the impact upon the highways as there is the potential for a
significant reduction in vehicular movements.
Given the assumptions made in the likely traffic generation figures I would be
supportive of a temporary consent to continue monitoring the impact of the proposal
on the surrounding road network
Development Control Committee
14
23 September 2010
Environmental Health - No objection or comment
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy 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. Access and highway safety implications.
APPRAISAL
Access to the site is via a concrete roadway from Bridge Road which is approx 800m
in length, and part of which is a public footpath.
The site is located within the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Core Strategy where in principle Policy SS2 would allow development which requires
a rural location including recreation and tourism, subject to compliance with other
policies, including EN1, EN2 and CT5 and CT6.
In the case of Policies EN1 and EN2 development is permitted where it is appropriate
to the economic, social and environmental well being of the area and does not
detract from the special qualities of the North Norfolk Coast AONB and protects,
conserves or where possible enhances the local distinctiveness of the area. Policies
CT5 and CT6 require that development proposals be designed to reduce the need to
travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its
particular location. Development proposals will be considered against the criteria of
providing for safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, public and private transport
addressing the needs of all, including those with a disability, and being capable of
being served by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity
or character of the locality. In addition adequate vehicle parking facilities are required
to serve the needs of the proposed development.
Development Control Committee
15
23 September 2010
An equestrian centre is considered to require a rural location as the riding and
welfare of horses is a country pursuit and horses require adequate paddock area for
grazing. Furthermore such a use contributes to the economic and social well being of
the area through the promotion of recreation and tourism, which is particularly
relevant in this case, given the close proximity to Kelling Heath Holiday Park, which
can be accessed on foot.
In terms of the landscape impact of the equestrian centre, the site is in a fairly
isolated location some 800m from the nearest main road. Adjoining the site to the
east is Great Wood, a dense mixed woodland, whilst to the north is the holiday park
which again consists of large areas of dense woodland interspersed with static
caravans, and touring and camping pitches. Similarly views of the site are masked
when approaching the site from the west along Warren Road by roadside hedges
and a dense hedgerow which follows the western boundary of the site. Therefore
views of the equestrian centre/stable block and related equipment are only obtained
from fairly close quarters around the site boundary and as such the development
does not have an adverse impact on the landscape quality of the area.
However major concerns of local residents are the legal rights of access to the site
and the increase in traffic movements which have resulted from the use of the site as
an equestrian centre.
The applicant's agent has advised that it is his understanding the legal right to use
the access and concrete road is that there is an unrestricted right of way over the
concrete road from Squirrel Wood Farm to Bridge Road, with agricultural restrictions
having been lifted in 2001. However as he rightly points out this is an issue to be
resolved outside the scope of the planning application and should not affect its
determination.
As far as any intensification in the use of the access roadway is concerned the
available evidence, both circumstantial and quantitative, suggests that prior to its
recent use as a mixed use of livery yard and riding centre (which is in its first
season), livery use has operated at the site for at least 20 years. During that time
letters in support of the current application suggest that in addition to livery the then
owners offered riding holidays and hack and also had a cross country/hunter trail
course.
However in trying to establish a base line for the use of the site as a livery yard and
the potential traffic generated the quantitative evidence relates to two planning
applications. The first in 2001 relates to a Certificate of Lawfulness to occupy Squirrel
Wood Farm House, immediately to the south of the site without complying with an
agricultural occupancy restriction. At that time an affidavit accompanying the
application referred to the stables which were within the same ownership being used
for the stabling of six horses, four in the then occupier's ownership and two belonging
to friends.
Following the sale of Squirrel Wood Farm House and the site, in 2004 the new owner
made an application for the retention of a residential caravan on the site occupied in
connection with the stable yard. Following its refusal the application was the subject
of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The appellant's statement referred to race
and equestrian horses being stabled at the site whilst in the appeal decision the
Inspector described Squirrel Wood as “some 8.5 acres of former farmland that has
been subdivided into a number of paddocks, including a ménage. The residential
caravan that is the subject of this appeal is situated towards the south eastern corner
of the site, to the north of a substantial blockwork barn that is used to stable some 15
horses and for the storage of feedstuffs and tackle”. In addition the Inspector made
Development Control Committee
16
23 September 2010
reference to the fact that “the keeping of racing and equestrian horses does not
constitute an agricultural use”. In granting permission for the retention of the caravan
on the basis of the stabling, paddocks and associated activities, the Inspector
observed that the “exceptionally well run” and “well maintained” facilities “contributed
to the attractive appearance and economic health of the surrounding countryside”.
On the basis of that decision it is considered that the Inspector accepted that a
professionally run livery stables and associated paddocks were being operated at
Squirrel Wood Farm at that time of sufficient standing to justify the granting of
planning permission for temporary residential accommodation on the site.
Furthermore he considered the lawful use of the site as an independent operation
from the adjoining dwelling and not as being solely in association with the residential
use of Squirrel Wood Farm. In view of this decision it is clear that a livery stable with
accommodation for 15 horses and 8.5 hectares of surrounding paddock has been
active on the site for a number of years and that although it has never benefited from
planning permission as such a Certificate of Lawfulness could be applied for.
Based on this evidence assuming the site were to be used solely for commercial
livery in the "worst case" scenario, the site and adjoining Squirrel Wood Farm House
has the potential to generate the following traffic movements per year, i.e. 1
movement = to or from the site.
Activity
Movements
Total
Horse owners visiting the site - (based on 4 movements per day)
21,900
Vets (assumption based on a visit once a month)
24
Deliveries of hay and feedstuffs - (assumption based on 2 movement per week)
104
Occupier of residential caravan - (based on 6 movements per day)
2,190
Squirrel Wood Farm House (based on 12 movements per day)
4,380
Overall total of traffic movements
28,598
Having sought clarification for the applicant on the current usage of the site in
response the agent has confirmed that the total number of existing stables on the site
is in fact 14, of which 4 are used as public (DIY) livery and the other 10 livery stable
horses are used in association with the riding centre. However due to staffing levels
the 10 horses would not all be used at the same time.
In terms of the hours of operation the riding centre is open Tuesday to Saturday
(inclusive) from 10am to 12.15pm, and from 2pm - 4.15pm, a total of (4.5 hours per
day). On Sundays the hours are 10:00am to 12:15pm and the centre is closed
Mondays and all bank holidays. The agent suggests based on actual bookings
between 5-6 cars per hour may visit the site when the riding centre is in use at peak
times, inclusive of riding centre and livery visits. This equates to an upper figure of 27
vehicle movements over a 4.5 hour period, or approx. 14 vehicles making 'to and
from' journeys in the same period. He goes on to suggest that typically there would
be no more that 14 vehicles visiting the site throughout the entire working day which
includes the 3 full time members of staff.
On the basis of the current hours of operation, in the worst case scenario a maximum
of 10 horses could be ridden by clients in association with the riding centre. However
given the fact of these 10 horses some could be ridden by staff or being rested it is
extremely unlikely that with the exception of peak times that all the horses would be
ridden at any one time by clients. However based on the assumption that the
premises are being operated at maximum capacity the overall use has the potential
to generate the following traffic movements per year.
Development Control Committee
17
23 September 2010
Activity
Clients x 10 horses
Movements
(based on 11 sessions per week with clients
being dropped off and picked up making
4 movements per client per session))
Livery x 4 horses
(based on 4 movements per day
365 days per year).
Staff x 3
(based on 2 movements per day
6 days per week)
Vets (assumption based on a visit once a month)
Deliveries of hay and feedstuffs - (assumption based on 2 movement per week)
Occupier of residential caravan - (based on 6 movements per day)
Total
22,880
5,840
1,872
24
104
2,190
Total traffic movements from Equestrian centre
32,910
Plus Squirrel Wood Farm House -
37,290
The above figures do not make allowances for other potential usage of the driveway
such as postal and parcel deliveries. Also the projected figures are clearly based on
the worst case scenario in both cases and to date the livery yard has always been
operated on a fairly low key basis and there is not evidence to suggest that it has
ever generated anywhere near the figures projected above. Similarly the figures for
the riding centre are based on the site running at full capacity 52 weeks of the year
which based on booking figures provided by the applicant is clearly not the case, with
some days during the off peak times of year having had no riding sessions.
Furthermore the above figures assume each client is dropped off and picked up
making 4 vehicular movements per session when in fact the applicant suggests that
in the region of half the clients drive themselves to the site, which only equates to two
vehicular movements.
A further consideration is the impact of the use of the site on the public footpaths,
one of which, FP6, runs the full length of Warren Road, forming part of the concrete
access road with the other, FP9, running from Warren House Farm past the site to
Great Wood. Although it would appear that Squirrel Wood has a private right of
passage over the concrete roadway, as public footpaths they are used by walkers,
and cyclists, although the latter is not strictly allowed. Nevertheless footpath FP6 is
well used serving as an direct route from the Kelling Heath Holiday Park towards
Holt. In addition Warren Farm Barns, which are close to the junction with the Squirrel
Wood and which has been converted into a number of residential units, has vehicular
access directly onto the concrete roadway, as does Warren House Farm, whilst
slightly further to the south is a large grain storage building which faces Warren Road
which at certain times of the year is used by HGV lorries either collecting or
delivering grain.
The roadway is also used by tractors and other farm machinery accessing fields in
the vicinity of the site. Therefore at certain times there is the potential for both conflict
between walkers and cyclists, plus residents, farm machinery and users of the site,
which given the single width nature of the roadway could cause safety issues.
Furthermore there are no passing places along its length, with the exception of the
90 degree bend where the concrete farm road joins Warren Road, where the
roadway is wide enough for two vehicles to pass. The Countryside Access Officer at
Norfolk County Council has however confirmed that public rights and private rights
can co-exist but the private right holders should exercise the appropriate due care
and attention when using a route that is shared with pedestrians.
Development Control Committee
18
23 September 2010
The Highway Authority, based on an assessment of the likely impact on the highways
network when compared to the movements which could have been generated by the
historic use of the site, has concluded that the levels of traffic generation between the
previous and proposed uses are below or very similar. On that basis it has indicated
that it is unable to raise an objection, but would be supportive of a temporary
permission in order to allow continued monitoring of the impact of the proposal on the
surrounding road network.
In view of the Highway Authority's response, whilst the concerns raised by local
residents regarding the potential increase in traffic movements have been taken into
account given the evidence which suggest that the previous livery use could have
generated significant traffic movements it is not considered that refusal of the
application could be justified on highway safety grounds.
In terms of the impact upon local residents' amenities, under the worst case scenario,
outlined above, it is estimated that the proposed use could generate an additional
4312 traffic movements per year, which equates to 11.8 per day. However it is
difficult to assess the extent to which this would affect local residents particularly as
in practice traffic movements are likely to be significantly less than this figure.
In summary it is therefore considered that the principle of a mixed use of livery and
equestrian centre is an acceptable use in this rural location would have no significant
landscape impact, and would accord with the Development Plan. However due to the
length and single track nature of the access road the proposed use of the site could
adversely affect users of the roadway and the residential amenities of the occupiers
of dwellings in the vicinity of the site due to noise and disturbance from the traffic
generated. This needs to be weighed again the present use of the site, which
although not benefiting from planning permission, has clearly been in operation for
the livery of horses for a number of years and has the potential to generate a
significant amount of traffic.
In view of the difficulty of drawing definite conclusions concerning traffic volumes and
the potential impact on residents' amenities and as suggested by the Highway
Authority, in order to allow the traffic resulting from the use of the site to be monitored
it is recommended that permission be granted on a temporary basis for a period of 18
months. In addition it is recommended that restrictions be imposed limiting the
number of horses which can be used by the riding centre element of the business at
any one time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval for a temporary period of 18 months, subject to conditions restricting
the number of horses which can be used at any one time in connection with
the riding centres element of the business.
Development Control Committee
19
23 September 2010
5.
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/0738 - Erection of general purpose agricultural
building; Land off Melton Road for G W Harrold & Partners
Major Development
Target Date: 03 November 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Employment Area
Archaeological Site
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090988 PF - Erection of general purpose agricultural building
Withdrawn 08/01/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a general purpose agricultural building for the storage and drying
of grain and storage of farm implements.
The main building, which would be orientated east- west would, measure
approximately 60m x 30m, 8m to the eaves and 12m to the ridge, and would be
divided into two equal areas with two roller shutter doors to the western gable end
serving one half of the building. In addition to the western gable end, sited between
the roller shutter doors, would be a small lean two building measuring 6m x 6m which
would house the electric power supply and fans. A further two roller shutter doors
would be located to the southern elevation serving the remainder of the building.
Attached to the north of the main building would be a lean to implement store
measuring 30m x 9m with 6m eaves which would have five roller shutter doors to the
north elevation.
The main building would have self coloured concrete grain walling to 3.6m above
ground level with the remaining walls being finished in olive green vertical emphasis
steel cladding, whilst the roof of the whole building would be of natural grey fibre
cement sheeting. The roller shutter and personnel doors would also be of an olive
green finish.
Access to the site would be via the entrance to the Industrial Estate off Hindolveston
Road, through part of a site currently used as a builder’s yard. Within the site itself,
which has an area of just over 0.6 hectares, there would be a 4m wide concrete
roadway serving a hard standing to the west and south of the main building. To the
north a hardcore area would serve a further concrete hard standing adjacent to the
implement store.
An amended plan has been received which reduces the pitch of the main roof to 12.5
degrees to the overall height of the building to 11 metres.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Combe for the following planning reasons:
The scale of the building, potential noise and disturbance and increased traffic
movements.
Development Control Committee
20
23 September 2010
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application on the grounds that the size of the building would be a
dominant feature in the landscape when approaching the village from the west, and
would not fit in with the existing buildings that are close by. They are also concerned
by possible noise pollution, although understand that this can be mitigated if
insulation is installed around the fans.
REPRESENTATIONS
Fourteen letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the
following concerns (summarised): One letter indicates that their objection is
supported by three further residents of Astley Terrace.
1. Would increase the potential for noise, dust and dirt affecting properties in the
area.
2. The Acoustic Report methodology of making comparisons of different sites
where the equipment has been installed is flawed as the location and weather
conditions can affect the results.
3. The low drone from the grain dryer fans would affect the peace and tranquillity of
Melton Park and the Conservation Area.
4. Would result in more heavy vehicles and increased traffic congestion through
the village.
5. If the grain store is not used to capacity it could be put to contract use which
could result in grain coming from holdings outside the applicants control
increasing traffic movements.
6. The building it to big for the intended site and will look out of place and ugly and
would dominate the skyline, being visually intrusive and in dissonance with the
adjoining Conservation Area.
7. The building would be out of scale with those on the industrial estate.
8. The building should be located within the industrial estate.
9. Industrial farming methods should not be catered for at the expense of local
residents and wildlife.
10. It would potentially spoil and or obstruct views of the water tower which
contributes to the railway history of the area.
One letter making the following comments (summarised):
Whilst not objecting to the building I would like to bring to the attention of the Local
Planning Authority that this village has suffered from the constant roar of industrial
fans from this area in the past, causing interruption to sleep to those living near the
estate. Can residents of Melton Constable be assured that the noise created from the
fans will be at a level so as not to cause a nuisance and that they will not operate
through the night?
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways)
The location of the building appears to lead to a reduction in vehicular movements
through the villages of Hindolveston, Briston and Melton Constable by removing the
need to transport grain to Foulsham and Corpusty, which in turn leads to the benefit,
that the grain, when transported onwards to merchants, is closer to the classified
road network. Whilst in respect of the access the proposed realignment of the
boundary fence and hedgerow would result in a significant increase in available
visibility to the south. The Highway Authority would therefore raise no objection to the
proposal however would require conditions in respect of the provision of the visibility
splay and the need for wheel cleaning during the duration of the construction period.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to adequate pollution prevention
measures being in place to protect controlled waters.
Development Control Committee
21
23 September 2010
Building Control - The presence or otherwise of landfill gas has no relevance to this
proposal.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager - (Landscape)
This amended application addresses previous concerns relating to the orientation of
the grain store building and its dominance in the landscape due to its scale and
footprint. The revised east – west alignment of the building is more akin to the
prevailing development line and layout of the established buildings on the industrial
estate. In this revised position the screening from the existing belt of mature pines
and the proposed new tree belt would become more effective.
The existing mature beech hedge and the belt of existing pines would significantly
screen the building along the western site boundary. A 55m length tree belt is
proposed along this boundary to further screen the building and to reinforce this
hedge boundary. As a result given the revised siting it is considered that the visual
impact of the building from the west together with amount of tree planting would
result in the impact being fairly localised. In this regard the proposal is now
acceptable from a landscape impact, although any further reduction in the height of
the building that could be achieved would be welcomed as would a change in the
proposed natural cement roof covering to a more recessive colour.
Conservation Design and Landscape Manager - (Conservation)
The site lies immediately south of Melton Constable Conservation Area, adjacent to
the former railway sheds and iconic water tower, the few remnants of the railway era
which shaped the development of the village. The significance of the built heritage of
the village relating to the railway era is a key factor in the Conservation Area
designation. Apart from the railway sheds, the industrial estate holds little relevance
to the railway era, dominated as it is by modern industrial and commercial units. The
water tower is the most prominent building, especially from the western approach to
the village, and was recommended in the 2008 Conservation Area Appraisal for
consideration of formal listing. A belt of Scots pines along Melton Road is protected
by a TPO. Whilst the grain store would not visually enhance the setting of the
Conservation Area it is consider its impact to be neutral due to the predefined
industrial/agricultural character of the locality and its relatively low built heritage
significance.
In conclusion, while the form and scale of the proposed grain store is at odds with the
existing buildings in the vicinity, on balance the visual impact of the development on
the wider landscape would be relatively localised. For this reason there can be no
overriding objection.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the equipment being installed in full
accordance with the recommendations made in the acoustic report which
accompanied the application, which included noise control measures.
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.
Development Control Committee
22
23 September 2010
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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Visual impact of the building on the landscape.
3. Transport implications of development.
4. Potential noise and disturbance to local residents.
APPRAISAL
The main part of the site and the proposed building are located within the
Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk Core Strategy, whilst the
access road through the Industrial Estate is within an area designated for
employment and also forms part of the Melton Constable Conservation Area. In the
Countryside, Policy SS2 would allow development for agricultural purposes whilst
Policy EN2 requires that through their location, scale, design and materials
development proposals protect, conserve and where possible enhance the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area as defined in the North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment. Similarly EN4 requires that development is
suitably designed for the context within which it is set and that the scale and massing
of buildings relates sympathetically to the surrounding area. In addition the policy
states that proposal should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenities of nearby occupiers, a concern which is expanded on in Policy
EN13 which requires that all development minimises and where possible reduces all
emissions, including light and noise, and also ensures no deterioration in water
quality.
In terms of the principle of development, since the grain store would be used by the
applicants in association with their existing agricultural holding, which is
predominantly to the south of Melton Constable, extending as far as the village of
Hindolveston, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with Policy
SS2 of the Core Strategy.
As far as the design and location of the building is concerned, however, it is accepted
that what is being proposed is undoubtedly a large structure. The scale of the
building needs to be set in the context of its surroundings and also existing
landscape features, which it is considered would result in the building having a
relatively localised visual impact. When approaching the site from the south along
Hindolveston Road, due to the dense conifer woodland and roadside hedges views
of the site would be restricted as would views from the north due to overgrown
Development Control Committee
23
23 September 2010
hedging and Scot pines trees, which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.
The only other vantage point, other than across roofs of the industrial estate buildings
to the north east, would be from the west when approaching Melton Constable along
the B1354 Fakenham Road. From here it is possible that part of the western gable
end of the building would be seen from a position some 370m from the site. However
even from here it is considered that the building would be partially masked by a large
group of trees immediately adjoining the site to the south of the former Midland and
Great North Railway water tower, which is some 11.5m in height. As a result of the
submission of the amended elevations the proposed grain store would have a ridge
height slightly below that of the water tower.
In addition as part of the scheme it is proposed to reinforce the planting along to the
east side of the Hindolveston Road with a 55m x 9m planting belt containing 55 trees
planted in three rows. To the south of the field access there would be a further
triangular planting belt containing 53 trees. It is considered that the impact of the
building on the landscape would be fairly localised.
In terms of the building's impact on the adjoining Conservation Area, this area of
Melton Constable was designated due to its social and railway history and includes a
number of the original engine sheds within the industrial estate which themselves are
now in commercial use. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that whilst the building would not visually enhance the setting of the
Conservation Area its impact would be neutral due to the predefined
industrial/agricultural character of the locality and its relatively low built heritage
significance.
Turning to the access arrangements, as part of the development it is proposed that
the existing close boarded fence which fronts the Hindolveston Road, to the south of
the entrance be set back by approximately 1m so at to provide the necessary
visibility required by the Highway Authority. In addition a detailed assessment of
transport movements associated with the existing farm arrangements and those
which would result from the provision of the grain store have been submitted as part
of the application. This shows that the majority of the area farmed is to the south of
the village of Melton Constable and that at the present time there is a need to
transport grain between Park Farm to the west, Holly Farm to the east, near
Corpusty, and Foulsham airfield to the south, depending on the need for drying and
storage of grain. As a result at the present time it is often necessary for farm traffic in
the form of tractors/trailers and HGV vehicles to travel through Melton Constable.
The report states that the proposed building would result in a centralisation of the
grain drying and storage facility which would not only reduce travelling time but would
also reduce the need to transport much of the grain through the village. The Highway
Authority has indicated that it has no objection to the proposal.
As part of the application a full acoustic report has been submitted. Due to the fact
that at certain times of the year the grain drying fans would need to be run 24 hours a
day, this includes night time background noise levels. In addition the building has
been designed so that the insulated fan house building, containing two centrifugal
drying fans, would be positioned at the western end of the main building, thereby
directing any sound away from the village of Melton Constable. The conclusion of the
report is that in respect of the closest residences 315 m to the north east the external
plant noise level would be well below the World Health Organisation guidelines for
night time noise. This has been confirmed by the Council’s Environmental Protection
team who conclude that, subject to the equipment being installed in full accordance
with the recommendations made in the acoustic report, which included noise control
measures, they have no objections to the proposal.
Development Control Committee
24
23 September 2010
In respect of external lighting this would consist of 150 watt floodlights fitted above
the roller shutter doors and would only be used when the grain store was in use after
dark.
It is therefore considered that the development as proposed would not have a
significantly detrimental impact on the landscape or adjoining Conservation Area, and
would result in a reduction in farm traffic through the village of Melton Constable. In
terms of the potential noise impact resulting from the drying of grain this would be
within acceptable limits. The proposal would therefore accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
6.
PASTON - PF/10/0737 - Installation of on-shore pipelines and replacement gas
processing and treatment equipment together with temporary construction
facilities; Eni Hewett Onshore Terminal, Paston Road, Bacton for Eni Hewett
Ltd (SC090159)
Major Development
Target Date: 28 September 2010
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Height Restriction (MOD)
Undeveloped Coast
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Major Hazard Zone
Coastal Erosion Constraint Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/0039 PF - Erection of buildings and construction of water holding basin Shell (UK) Ltd
Approved 09 April 2010
PF/10/0141
PF - Construction of on-shore gas processing facilities, including
pipeline connections to off-shore storage and 100m emergency vent stack - Bacton
Storage Company Ltd
Approved 27 July 2010
THE APPLICATION
Comprises the on-shore development works associated with the proposed Deborah
Gas Storage Project. The project involves the transport of treated gas from the
National Transmission System (NTS) through the Eni Hewett Onshore Terminal and
then offshore to be injected and stored in the 'Deborah' reservoir which is part of the
Hewitt gas field located in the southern North Sea. Typically gas injection would take
place during the summer period when the national demand for gas is low. During
winter months the flow would be reversed via the new onshore facilities and onward
to the NTS.
Development Control Committee
25
23 September 2010
The project involves the dismantling and removal of a large amount of existing plant
and equipment (now redundant) at the terminal, in order to make way for the
installation of the new proposed facilities. The terminal site (18ha) is rectangular in
shape stretching between the B1159 in the south to the coastal cliffs in the north.
The main bulk of existing and proposed plant is located on the northern half of the
site.
In more detail the development within the existing terminal comprises 14 new
buildings and 11 items of new plant/equipment.
The new buildings include those to accommodate personnel (ie. control building,
offices/staff facilities, workshop/warehouse, laboratory, gatehouse) and those to
house plant and equipment (sub-stations, compressors, generators). The size and
heights of these buildings vary from small single storey structures to a generator
shelter (15m high) and two compressor shelters (15m with chimney height of 29.5m).
The proposed plant/equipment represents generally higher structures up to 18m
high, with the exceptions of a metering area vent stack (42m) and main process vent
stack (104m).
Two (813mm diameter) gas pipelines plus a (102mm) glycol pipeline are proposed to
come ashore below the beach some 300m north-west of the terminal. The gas
pipelines would at this point link to a single pipeline which would, by means of a
'shaft and tunnel' method, rise vertically up to the adjoining agricultural field. The
pipeline would then link into the terminal (below ground level).
A further element of the planning application is for a temporary construction
compound to be provided on existing farmland immediately adjoining the western
boundary of the terminal. This area, together with the land associated with the
pipeline construction, originally amounted to some 22 ha. The area involved has
since been marginally reduced in size following negotiations between the applicants
and the landowner.
Documents accompanying the planning application include the following:
Full Environmental Statement
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Flood Risk Assessment (plus subsequent Addendum)
Foul Sewerage and Utilities Assessment
Contamination Study
Arboricultural Assessment
Habitat Regulation Assessment
Site Waste Management Plan
Statement of Community Involvement.
The Non-Technical Summary to the Environmental Statement which provides a
background and explanation of the project, together with a commentary on the topics
covered in the statement is attached in Appendix 2.
The submitted Planning Statement refers to the construction period of the entire
Deborah Gas Storage Project taking up to four and a half years becoming
operational in April 2015.
Development Control Committee
26
23 September 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the national
significance of the proposal combined with other proposed developments at the gas
terminal.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter has been received from the applicants (Appendix 2) in response to a number
of issues raised by consultees.
CONSULTATIONS
Bacton Parish Council Objects on following grounds:
- considerable increase in through traffic in village
- effects for at least five years upon public paths, the AONB, SSSI within parishes
- development would have an effect upon the overall character of the
coastal/countryside area.
- degradation to the tranquillity of the surrounding landscape and public paths
between Bacton and Paston which would appear to be affected by the development.
Mundesley Parish Council - No objection.
Knapton Parish Council - no comments received.
Walcott Parish Council - No objection.
Swafield Parish Council - No objection, but does have concerns about the increase
in traffic through the village once work commences.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions in respect
of operational noise, construction noise (including a limitation on working hours) and
lighting.
Coast Protection Engineer - Requests further details regarding the position, size and
height of the proposed temporary beach cofferdam to be used in the installation of
the new pipelines. Also requests the applicant to agree to undertake beach
monitoring surveys in relation to these works in view of the possible impacts upon
local sediment transport and impacts upon down drift beaches and coastal
structures.
Also states that the reinstatement of the Council's structures (groynes/revetments)
should be managed and overseen by consultants retained by the Council for that
purpose. These structures need to be re-built using all new materials.
County Council (Highways) - No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions to
require approval of a management plan and access route for HGVs associated with
the construction of the development and approval of a park and ride facility for
construction workers.
Environment Agency - Objects on the basis that the submitted flood risk assessment
(FRA) does not comply with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25 in a
number of respects.
Recommends conditions in relation to contaminated land on the site.
Development Control Committee
27
23 September 2010
Anglian Water - No comments received.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - Requests imposition of a condition to require a
programme of archaeological work.
Ministry of Defence - No safeguarding objections.
Natural England - No objection. Is of the view that, either alone or in combination
with other plans or projects, the proposed development would not be likely to have a
significant effect on the important interest features of
Paston Great Barn.
Recommends conditions requiring an agreed schedule of noise monitoring as well as
proposed mitigation for bats which may be affected by the loss of certain trees on the
terminal site.
Concurs with the conclusions of the Environmental Statement that there is unlikely to
be significant damage caused to the Mundesley Cliffs SSSI as a result of the
proposed pipeline works. In addition, agrees that there will be no significant adverse
impact upon the AONB.
Open Spaces Society - Raises strong concerns regarding the temporary
closure/diversion (during construction works) of the Public Right of Way (Paston
Footpath No. 5 - which runs across land immediately to the west of the terminal) and
the footpath between the terminal fence and cliffs, as well as the lack of information
as to how and for how long this will take place. Also raises concerns regarding the
impact of the development upon the AONB and nearby Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI). Concludes as follows:
"It would appear that the proposed works would degrade the valuable countryside
within which the gas terminal is located, affecting land covered by statutory
designations of national importance, and would interfere with popular public rights of
way. We therefore express objections to the proposed development."
Norfolk County Council (Countryside Access Officer) - Acknowledges that the
proposed construction works (on the clifftop field) will affect the existing route of
Public Footpath No.5 for a scheduled period of 9 months beginning September 2011.
A temporary closure/diversion should be arranged with the County Council prior to
the commencement of works. Advises that there is an application to divert this
footpath currently with the County Council, and should the Order be confirmed within
the next 12 months, a temporary diversion will not be necessary. The access along
the cliff top (adjacent to the terminal) is unregistered. Does not consider that the new
development will have an adverse effect on the enjoyment of people using these
paths. No objections subject to provision for public access as described above.
Norfolk Coast Project - Comments that as a result of the completed development
there will be some intensification of the site, at least in the form of new vent stacks
and tall buildings to house compressor units. It is recognised that this is a
development of national significance. Given that it was known that the terminal
would be built when the AONB was designated in 1968 and AONB boundary was
located accordingly, the conclusion of the EIA is agreed with, that there would not be
significant additional impact on the coastal landscape and the setting of the AONB
once the works are completed and the new facilities are operational.
However expresses concerns and requests further information on the temporary
facilities proposed in the AONB. Whilst acknowledging that the land and beach area
affected will be restored once the work is completed, these would affect significant
areas of land in the AONB anticipated to last for four and a half years, for which there
would certainly be a significant additional local impact on the AONB.
Development Control Committee
28
23 September 2010
Alternative options for the temporary construction compound should be considered.
Although there may be some additional costs and inconvenience to locating the
constructor's facilities site outside the AONB, there may be viable alternatives and
the AONB should only be used if this is demonstrated not to be the case.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Concurs with the
conclusions of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment contained within the
Environmental Statement that there are no predicted significant adverse effects to
the landscape character as a result of the deconstruction, construction and
operational aspects of the development. The main concern is the additional main
process vent mast (103.8m high) which is supported by a steel lattice structure that
will remain a permanent feature on the site. However as this is seen in context with
the existing plant and the two 125m high telecommunication towers the impact is
reduced and will not significantly affect the skyline.
There will be some moderate adverse effects to visual receptors located close to the
development site during the deconstruction and construction works linked to the
presence of the site compound, construction traffic, plant and associated equipment
and additional lighting during night time work, however these are temporary
disturbances and limited to a relatively few number of visual receptors. There are no
predicted adverse effects on visual receptors during the operational phase of the
development.
Although there is no likely significant effect on the European site (Paston Barn) and
mitigation is not strictly required, the possibility of localised effects has been
highlighted. A number of mitigation and monitoring measures have been identified in
the report which will help reduce the potential impact.
The effects of the development could potentially result in the displacement of
foraging bats and cause an increase in noise and vibration levels through the
deconstruction of buildings and plant; will result in the permanent loss of habitat
(buildings and woodland) possibly displacing foraging and/or roosting bats and
breeding birds, and will result in a temporary loss of habitat (arable and semiimproved grassland) possibly displacing foraging bats through the construction phase
of the development. It is not envisaged that the operational phase of the
development will result in any additional ecological impacts.
Refers to a number of trees likely to be affected by the proposed access
improvements to the existing field entrance to the west of the terminal site as part of
the temporary construction compound associated with the development. there will be
a need to put in place replacement planting as soon as possible after the
construction works have been completed.
No objection in principle subject to the imposition of conditions subject to conditions.
Refer to full comments in Appendix 2.
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).
Development Control Committee
29
23 September 2010
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
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 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property & prevents proposals that are likely to
increase coastal erosion).
Policy EC 3: Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (development at
Bacton Gas Terminal that is ancillary to the terminal use will be supported within the
defined area shown on the Proposals Map).
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 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. National importance of Bacton Gas Terminal.
2. Visual and landscape impact (in particular upon the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty).
3. Operational impacts (including noise).
4. Environmental impacts during construction (traffic, noise, beach sediment, public
access, protected species habitats).
5. Coastal erosion.
6. Ecology.
APPRAISAL
The Eni Hewitt site occupies the most westerly of the three gas terminal company
sites on the seaward side of Paston Road (B1159). The site adjoins open arable
farmland to the west which forms part of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB). Two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Paston Great Barn
and Mundesley Cliff are in close proximity.
The works proposed at this site are likely to coincide with other major developments
proposed at the adjoining Shell and Perenco premises. Planning permission has
recently been granted for development on both of these terminal sites, as well as, in
the case of the Perenco site, beach works for a new pipeline connection associated
with a similar off-shore gas storage project. A presentation of all three proposals was
given to the Council and representatives of nearby Parish Councils in October last
year.
As Members will appreciate from the Non-Technical Summary (Appendix 2), this
planning application for on-shore works forms an integral part of a much larger
project to provide a gas storage reserve to serve the UK. The case for the need for
the development is made in section 1.3 of the Summary. This is clearly a project of
national importance, the principle of which should be supported.
In terms of the adopted Core Strategy the gas terminal is within the Countryside
policy area. Policy EC 3 (Extensions to Existing Businesses in the Countryside)
makes specific reference to Bacton Gas Terminal and recognises its national
importance. The policy is supportive to the principle of ancillary developments within
the existing terminal complex.
Development Control Committee
30
23 September 2010
Once completed, evidence of the development would be confined to the terminal site
itself. However the proposals include the laying of the pipelines on the beach as well
as a large construction compound on the adjoining farmland, the impacts of which
(together with other consequences during construction) need to be considered as
part of the planning application.
The Eni terminal immediately adjoins the boundary of the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB). The visual impact of the terminal from the AONB is stark
and industrial and it clearly does not enhance its character. By its very nature it
cannot pretend to do so. For the most part however the terminal has, since its
development over 40 years ago, become an accepted part of the landscape given its
existence and importance to the nation's energy supply.
The submitted Environmental Statement includes a Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment (LVIA) of the whole project. In terms of the completed development it
concludes that the effects on visual amenity are not predicted to be significant. In
reaching this conclusion it states as follows: "The existing site is already well
developed with noticeable plant, telecommunications masts and buildings.
Therefore, the new, modernised and improved elements such as the two new
compressors houses, new water treatment works, new glycol storage and new
reception facilities for the Deborah Gas Storage Project would not create any
additional conspicuous new components within the view. The two new vent stacks,
together with the two new buildings for four new compressor units would be the
highest new additions to the Eni Hewett Onshore Terminal and would be visible.
However, they would be seen within the context of the existing site, already
dominated by the existing equipment, especially the existing high telecommunication
masts located on Perenco/Centrica and Shell sites and would therefore not appear
visually intrusive."
This would seem to be a reasonable conclusion and Members will note that both the
Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Norfolk Coast Project
accept that once completed the development would not significantly affect the AONB.
Norfolk Coast Project does, however, express concerns regarding the temporary
construction compound within the AONB adjacent to the terminal and considers other
alternative locations should be first considered which are outside the AONB.
Members are referred to Eni's response to this (pages 3 and 4 of Appendix 2). The
three main reasons given for the selected area are its immediate proximity to the
construction site, security considerations, and highway considerations. Norfolk Coast
Project have responded by suggesting that this response is not sufficient and
repeated their contention that alternative sites should be considered if only to reach a
reasoned conclusion that the proposed site is the only practical option. Alternative
options outside the AONB would seem to be very limited given the constraints of the
surrounding road network and the fact that it would be undesirable in amenity terms
for the construction compound to be in close proximity or on the other side of Bacton
village. Nevertheless the applicants have been requested to address this issue in
more detail and their response will be reported at the meeting.
Once operational the submitted Environmental Statement concludes that noise levels
from the development, subject to design details, will comply with established noise
limits at set locations around the terminal. The Council's Environmental Health
Officer has raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions to secure these
noise limits.
Development Control Committee
31
23 September 2010
When completed the proposed development (as with the other two recently approved
developments) should present little overall impact or change in public perception of
the gas terminal complex to that which presently exists. During the construction
period, however, which is planned to coincide with the other two projects there will
inevitably be significant impacts in terms of traffic movements and construction
activity both within and outside of the terminal site.
Members will note that the Highway Authority has not raised an objection to the
application subject to conditions requiring prior approval of a management plan and
access route for HGVs and a park-and-ride facility for construction workers. The
former will specify the route for HGVs travelling to the site (from Stalham direction) as
well as matters such as the timing of HGV movements through Bacton and Walcott.
The latter will require the establishment of temporary car parks for construction
workers in locations beyond the villages of Bacton/Walcott to the south-east and
Paston to the north-west, the intention being to reduce traffic through these villages.
Construction workers would then be bussed to the site. Similar conditions have been
imposed on the other two planning permissions.
Planning applications are
anticipated in due course for these temporary car parks. Members will note that in
their letter (Appendix 2) Eni have responded to the traffic related concerns raised by
Bacton Parish Council. In order to mitigate noise nuisance as a result of the
construction activities the Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions to
limit hours of working to daytime hours excluding Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Public access would be temporarily affected during construction work on the beach
and clifftops. Paston Way runs along the beach, a public right of way (Footpath
No.5) which runs diagonally across the adjacent cliff top field and an unregistered
path between the terminal security fence and the cliffs. Members will note the
objections raised by the Open Spaces Society, but also the comments of the County
Council's Countryside Access Officer who raises no concerns to the temporary
impacts upon the use of the routes subject to statutory procedures being complied
with. Attention is drawn to Eni's response to the concerns expressed by the Open
Spaces Society (Appendix 2).
The Council's Coast Protection Engineer has requested further information regarding
construction works on the beach associated with the pipeline installation, regarding
concerns about potential impacts of beach erosion downdrift along the coast. Further
details have now been received (Appendix 2) and the comments of the Coast
Protection Engineer were awaited at the time of preparing this report.
The application site is in close proximity to two Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI), Paston Great Barn and Mundesley Cliffs. Paston Great Barn is also a
designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Members will note however that
Natural England has raised no objection to the development (both in terms of
construction or operation) subject to certain conditions.
As the site is in excess of 1.0 hectare there is a requirement to submit a Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) with the application. In this location the FRA is required to
address surface water impacts of the development. The Environment Agency
objected to certain impacts of the submitted FRA and as a consequence a further
report has been submitted by the applicants. The Environment Agency's response to
this is currently awaited.
In conclusion, the proposed development accords in principle with Development Plan
policy in relation to the gas terminal. The proposal is also of significant national
interest. Once completed it should not present any significant additional impacts
Development Control Committee
32
23 September 2010
upon the amenities of the area nor upon the character of the surrounding landscape.
There would inevitably be impacts upon the locality during the construction phase,
particularly when combined with other development projects occurring
simultaneously at the terminal. These impacts can, however, be mitigated by the
imposition of conditions to regulate traffic movements, construction noise and
working hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to receiving no objection from the
Environment Agency or Coast Protection Engineer on the submitted additional
details and the further comments of the applicants concerning the
construction compound, and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, to include those recommended by the Highway Authority,
Environmental Health Officer, Natural England and the Council's Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager.
7.
STALHAM - PF/10/0869 - Variation of conditions 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17 and 18 to planning reference: 07/1919 to permit retention and
occupation of Phase 1 of development as built; Old Baker's Yard for Victory
Housing
Minor Development
Target Date: 24 September 2010
Case Officer: Mrs T Armitage
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Contaminated Land
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Primary Retail Frontages
Primary Shopping Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20010630 LE - Demolition of buildings to facilitate residential development
Approved 19/07/2001
PLA/20020034 PF - Erection of houses, flats, maisonettes incorporating shop unit
Approved 05/11/2003
PLA/20071440 PF - Erection of fourteen dwellings, five flats and two shops
Withdrawn 10/12/2007
PLA/20071919 PF - Erection of ten houses, five flats and two shops
Approved 29/02/2008
THE APPLICATION
Is to vary a number of planning conditions previously imposed in relation to planning
ref: 07/1919 for the erection of ten houses, five flats and two shops. The flats and
shops front on to the High Street and have been constructed as Phase 1. The
application seeks to retain and occupy this element of the scheme as built. This
requires variation of planning conditions 2, 4 and 7-18 of the previous planning
permission, since the development has not been constructed in accordance with the
approved plans and a number of details should have been submitted and agreed
prior to the commencement of the development.
Development Control Committee
33
23 September 2010
The frontage flat/shop block as constructed differs from the approved plans in the
following respects:
• Eaves and ridge height higher than previously approved
As approved - eaves min 6.0m – max 8.0m, ridge min 9.6m – max 11.6m
As built
- eaves min 7.2m – max 8.7m, ridge min 10m – max 12m
• Windows – variation in number of windows and pattern of fenestration on the
front and rear elevations
Material and joinery details are provided retrospectively, having not been approved
prior to commencement (contrary to condition nos. 11, 15)
The application includes full joinery details of the proposed shop front.
Details of Archaeological Evaluation conducted in response to the condition 16 of the
previous permission have been provided.
Amended plans have been submitted indicating a revised shop front design, a timber
cornice with lead flashing on the High Street elevation, retro fitting of glazing bars to
all windows and a dentil detail below eaves level.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was considered at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments to plans as originally submitted:
Strongly object • Conservation Area - not in keeping with surrounding properties
• Developer should have sought permission prior to continuation of the
development
• Height of the building and the change in dormer dimensions
• Colour of the brick work (buff) on half of the building (on original plan all brick
work shown red) again not in keeping with the High Street and St Mary's Church
(adjacent)
• Parking concerns
• Concern that the NNDC Planning Inspectors had not picked up the discrepancies
on site visits
Extremely disappointed that the building has been allowed to proceed and councillors
have personally received numerous negative comments by the general public.
Further comments awaited in respect of amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
The applicant's agents have submitted a Planning Statement setting out the
background/circumstances behind the application, this is attached as Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager:
•
comments regarding plans as originally submitted:
I refer to the above proposal and to our discussions concerning the proposed
changes to the development approved in 2007.
Development Control Committee
34
23 September 2010
The development concerned appears to be nearing its ‘practical completion’. Clearly
the building has not been built in accordance with the approved plans.
The site is of course a very prominent one, standing as it does on the main shopping
street of Stalham. The resultant building is very disappointing. In its current form the
general quality of the development and overall choice of materials leaves much to be
desired.
I have the following detailed comments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
In my view the change in overall height from the approved plans is not that
significant. In ‘townscape’ terms the High Street is composed of a series of quite
variable buildings of different heights and scale and ‘rhythm’ and ‘grain’. The
development does not dominate the nearby church and contributes to the
organic pattern of built form along the street.
However the change in eaves heights of both elements of the development is
very unfortunate. This, combined with a poor choice of window, has resulted in a
substantial preponderance of wall to void (brick work :window), especially on the
‘church end’ or ‘buff coloured brick’ element. As it faces the High Street, window
depths are too small and the removal of a fourth window in the ‘buff bricked’
element has led to a very bland appearance.
There is lack of quality detailing around the windows and doors and corners of
the building
The choice of facing brick detracts from the character and design of the
development.
The use of top hung windows throughout and the lack of use of traditional sliding
sash windows also detract from the design. The quality of the frames is
questionable.
The change in eaves levels has had the resultant effect of making the roof pitch
shallower. This is at odds with the prevailing form in the Stalham Conservation
Area.
Code 3 (Code for Sustainable Construction) is cited as a reason for the changes
in the approved plans. The end result pays little regard to Stalham’s local
architectural distinctiveness.
How can matters be improved without substantial re-construction and cost?
(a) An ‘oriel’ or bay window could be installed in the ‘red brick’ element of the
development at first floor level. When the ‘hood’ to the window is taken into
account then the massive amount of ‘wall to void’ between first and second
floor can be visually reduced and the appearance enhanced. A similar bay or
oriel could be considered at first floor level in the ‘buff bricked’ element.
(b) The new shop fronts, designed in keeping with other Stalham examples with
higher ‘stall risers’ and stronger vertical elements, could have a deeper fascia.
This would help to link the ground with upper floors in a visual manner. The
predominant material should be wood.
(c) All windows could be replaced with deeper sash ones and in softwood
painted white.
(d) Between the first and second floor of the buff bricked element some form of
architectural device such as a cornice/ledge could be introduced. Above it
could be attached, possibly in stone, a plaque/datestone. This would need to
be sufficiently large. An alternative would be some attached but flat facing
signage.
(e) Funds permitting stone or re-constituted stone ‘quoins’ could be introduced
for the corners of each of the two units.
Development Control Committee
35
23 September 2010
These comments relate primarily to the front elevation facing the High Street. The
side elevation facing the church is probably acceptable. Some consideration could be
given to deepening the windows in the rear elevation of the red brick element. I would
caution against the use of painted brick work to remove the shock of the ‘buff’.
I trust these comments are of assistance. As it stands the development does not
enhance the character of Stalham and its Conservation Area.
•
Updated comments - amended plans:
The latest plans show the introduction of a ‘dentil course’, at the suggestion of
English Heritage, beneath the eaves of the High Street elevation of the building.
When this is combined with the other improvements in the design, which include the
installation of a ‘plat course’ between the first and second floors, more appropriate
windows and enhanced shop fronts, the resultant appearance of the building will now
be acceptable. Consequently I have no objection to the latest amended plans
received on 31 August.
I have already commented upon the height of the building and its negligible affect
upon the setting of the adjacent Parish Church and the Conservation Area.
Environmental Health - Confirm that in respect to phase one of the development that
condition 4 of the application in relation to contamination has been satisfactorily
complied with.
County Council Highways - No objection from a highway aspect, subject to no part of
the building encroaching upon highway land and no door or window opening
outwards over the highway boundary.
English Heritage - Comments re. plans originally submitted:
Recommend the detailing of the elevations is revised to include a brick dentil course
under the eaves, the lowest course of which might be aligned with the cill of the
second floor dormer window.
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
Design – whether the alterations to the design and appearance of the building are
acceptable given the conservation setting and proximity to a listed building
Development Control Committee
36
23 September 2010
APPRAISAL
At its last meeting the Committee resolved to approve the application subject to the
receipt of amended plans and no new grounds of objection being raised.
Amendments to the scheme have been received.
The application site is located centrally on Stalham High Street, within the
Conservation Area and adjacent to St. Mary’s Church, a Grade 2* Listed Building.
The entire site is within the designated town centre and where it fronts the High
Street is part of the Primary Retail Frontage identified for Stalham.
The building subject to this application consists of, in accordance with planning
permission 07/1919, two retail units at ground floor level and 4 no flats at upper
levels. This mix of uses is compliant with Policies SS 4 and EC 5 which support the
vitality and viability of Primary Shopping Areas. The application includes a detailed
drawing of the two proposed retail units and indicates a traditional shop front/fascia
design, to be constructed in timber with a painted finish. At street level the shop
fronts would be a highly visible component of this development and it is considered
important to ensure that the design, in accordance with Policy EN8, makes a positive
contribution to the Town Centre and its Conservation Area designation.
The flats at upper floors have been constructed to comply with Code for Sustainable
Homes Level 3 and Housing Association spatial requirements. These construction
levels exceed those required under planning ref 07/1919 which in accordance with
Local Plan policy at the time, did not seek affordable housing in relation to this
scheme or for sustainable construction measures to be incorporated. In the event,
Phase 1 of this scheme has been acquired by Broadland Homes who are contracted
to sell the flats to Victory Housing Association for use as affordable flats (social rent)
for people in housing need in North Norfolk.
The intended use of the flats as affordable accommodation and the mandatory
requirement to meet Code level 3 standards has had a number of consequences for
the construction of the scheme. In particular the timber frame construction of the
building has necessitated the use of deeper floor and ceiling joists. This, along with
the need to accommodate pipework associated with an air source heat pump system,
has increased the proportions of the building and accounts for the variation in
eaves/ridge heights now sought. As a result, in comparison with the approved
scheme the building as constructed has more extensive areas of brick work given the
increase in distance between upper floor windows. Additionally the position and
number of windows has been revised.
Crucial to the determination of this application are Policies EN4 and EN8 and
whether the change in the proportions of the building has materially altered the
appearance of the building and whether it remains acceptable in design terms, given
the Conservation Area setting of the building and proximity of it to the listed church.
This assessment also requires full consideration of the external materials/joinery
details used in the implementation of this scheme, none of which has been subject to
prior approval by this Council. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
has provided detailed comments in relation to the proposals and these are reported
above. These formed the basis of negotiations with the developers and amended
plans were subsequently received and consulted upon. In addition following
comments from English Heritage further revisions have been made. The amended
plans now include a revised shop front design, a timber cornice with lead flashing on
the High Street elevation, retro fitting of glazing bars to all windows and a dentil detail
below eaves level. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
confirmed that on the basis of these amendments he has no objection to the
application.
Development Control Committee
37
23 September 2010
Stalham Town Council have objected to the application and their detailed concerns
are set out above. In particular they consider the height of the building and the
inclusion of buff coloured brick work unacceptable in the context of the Conservation
Area and the church. These concerns are noted but it is considered that the revised
plans and the inclusion of further detailing acts to ameliorate the impact of these
aspects of the building. At the time of preparing this report for Committee the Town
Council comments concerning the amendments were awaited.
Overall therefore, subject to conditions requiring compliance with the amended plans
and the erection of a suitable boundary treatment along the boundary with the
church, the proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0784 - Erection of 2 no. two-storey dwellings
and four apartments; Partners, Northfield Lane for Novus Construction
(Norfolk) Ltd
Minor Development
Target Date: 02 September 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Tree Preservation Order
Conservation Area
Residential Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/09/1235 PF - Erection of three no. three-storey dwellings and four apartments
Withdrawn by Applicant 26/01/2010
LD/09/1236 LE - Demolition of single-storey dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 26/01/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of 2no. two storey dwellings and four apartments. The houses
would include three bedrooms and the apartments two bedrooms.
The apartments would be located to the west of the site and the houses to the north.
The car parking and turning area would be located to the east of the site. To the
south there is a group of mature trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order. There is
existing hedging on the west, north and east boundaries.
The existing vehicular access into the site from Northfield Lane would be improved.
The apartments and houses are two storey properties and measure approximately
8.7m in height from the ground level to the ridge of the roofs.
Twelve car parking spaces are proposed.
The materials proposed are a mix of brick, boarding, render and pantiles.
Development Control Committee
38
23 September 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Savory having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Highway safety
2. Design
TOWN COUNCIL
Object. Despite the fact that these plans are an improvement on those previously
submitted for this site we still have considerable concerns. These include:
1. Damage to trees on site, particularly during the construction
2. The possibility of up to 12 vehicles regularly entering/exiting the site with no
possibility of providing the usual required visibility splay because of the trees.
3. Also the fact that the road width (16') is unsuitable for larger traffic movements,
and concerns over delivery vehicles likely to block the road at this point.
4. Concerns that windows in the north of the two houses will overlook existing
properties.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
1. Impact and damage upon trees
2. Overdevelopment
3. Little aesthetic or local character
4. Will be used as holiday homes
5. Smaller development would be more appropriate
6. Highway safety
7. Increase in traffic
8. Objections still valid from previous application
9. Overlooking/loss of privacy
10. Loss of light
11. Bin storage too close to boundary
12. Construction traffic to site will be logistical nightmare
13. Access impractical for large vehicles
14. There is no right of access from the site to the driveway to west
15. Limited amenity areas
16. Design not innovative or locally distinctive
17. Development does not respect the form and character of the area
18. Contrary to PPS 3: Housing
19. Would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the
Conservation Area
20. Out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area
21. No sound reason for developing a significant part of the remaining curtilage
beyond the footprint of the existing dwelling on the site.
22. The replacement of the existing dwelling with the proposed development would
erode the very character upon which the designation of the Conservation Area was
designated.
23. Site dominated by requirements of the private car, resulting in excessive areas of
unrelieved hard surface
24. Overbearing
25. Incongruous development with surrounding residential area
26. Contrary to Core Strategy policies
Development Control Committee
39
23 September 2010
A letter has been received from the applicants' agent in relation to the objections that
have been raised. In summary, the objections raised are identical to those received
in response to the first application, despite there being an acknowledgement by some
that the scheme differs in many respects from the first submission. Whilst some
objectors continue to feel that the proposal will have a negative effect, some of the
issues raised are not material planning considerations and all others have been
addressed by officers including Conservation and Design, Landscape and Highways.
There is one issue that the agent would like to clarify and that it that the applicant has
no intention to make use of the existing private access running along the western
boundary of the site. This access is not included within the application site and does
not form part of the proposal. A revised Arboricultural Report and Method Statement
has been provided which deletes two inadvertent references to the use of this side
access.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority
This site has recently been the subject of numerous informal discussions regarding
access, visibility and parking arrangements which are now considered to be
acceptable.
I have recently been made aware of concerns regarding manoeuvring of small non
HGV delivery vehicles within the site which has been designed for private cars.
Whilst is not considered to be of the utmost importance in terms of road users safety
I would comment that it is felt that additional manoeuvring space is required, the loss
of spaces annotated 7/8 to provide this reducing the parking provision for the
apartments to 1.5 spaces per unit would not be of great consequence.
If approved conditions are required regarding the laying out of the vehicular access,
the visibility splay and on site parking and turning.
English Heritage
No objection in principle to the demolition of the existing bungalow and
redevelopment of the site. While we feel that the bungalow is at worst a neutral
feature in the conservation area, there is considerable potential for enhancement and
we do not object to its demolition.
However, before granting planning permission for the replacement development, we
would like the Council to be satisfied that the scale of development proposed,
including the associated car parking, can be accommodated without causing harm to
the mature trees on the site. These trees are an important contributor to the
character and appearance of this part of the Wells Conservation Area and will also
help screen the development, thereby helping to mitigate the impact of the proposal.
In addition we advise that the choice of materials is given further consideration. The
vertical timber boarding as shown on the elevations is not characterful of this part of
Wells-next-the-Sea and we considered that its inclusion may appear incongruous
and an unnecessary addition to the simple pallet of materials used on traditional
buildings in the vicinity.
We would urge you to address the above issues and recommend that the application
should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on
the basis of your specialist conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be
consulted again.
Development Control Committee
40
23 September 2010
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)
In terms of site layout, the diverse nature of the surrounding area imposes relatively
few form and character constraints on redevelopment. However the new build and
the access drive have had to be pieced around the mature trees on the site. These
trees, allied to the other mature planting around the site, not only help give the site a
verdant feel, but would also help soften any new buildings.
As for the buildings themselves, these have been completely revisited following last
years withdrawn scheme. Gone is the mix of building styles and types to be replaced
with a more coherent scheme which offers greater consistency in form and design
detailing. With the associated reductions in scale also helping the units sit more
comfortably in the site and within the wider Wells Conservation Area, this revised
scheme now raises no particular Conservation and Design concerns or objections.
In terms of materials, the brick choice and the light oak finish on the joinery are both
considered acceptable. However, there must be a concern that just using Blue
Reduced Wolds Pantile will create a rather one dimensional and bland roofscape
(given it is a tile with little colour variation). It is therefore suggested that a second
colour in the range be introduced (e.g slate grey or matt black) to add some contrast
and interest.
With the scheme otherwise well specified, no other architectural conditions are
deemed necessary.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)
No objection. In summary an Arboricultural Implications Assessment, Tree Protection
Plan and Method Statement have been submitted. The trees on site are highly
valued and are an important part of the character of the area, therefore retention is
desirable. There are 25 trees on and adjacent to the site that have the potential to
impact on the development and vice-versa. As a result of the development six trees
will require removal with a further single tree requiring removal for arboricultural
reasons. Permission is also requested to remove a sycamore tree (T22) which is
suppressing the growth of a silver birch (T21). A leylandii hedge is also to be
removed to the rear of the site, but two replacement hedges are proposed. Some
remedial work to four of the Holm Oaks adjacent to the driveway to facilitate access
is also required. The loss of trees to facilitate the development is acceptable within
the context of the surrounding landscape. Those trees to be removed are of limited
stature and will not affect the overall amenity of the area. The works proposed to the
trees are also minor and acceptable. Those trees due for removal within the Tree
Preservation Order are to be replaced and supplemented with further planting. This is
also acceptable. Tree protection has been addressed. If the development is carried
out in accordance with the details outlined in the report and supporting documents
the trees should be protected both in the short and long term. Conditions are
required.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - In order to comply with Policy EN6 a condition is
required that the dwellings should achieve a Code Level 2 rating.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee
41
23 September 2010
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
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 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Dwelling mix and type
3. Density
4. Design
5. Impact on Conservation Area
6. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
7. Impact on trees and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
8. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the residential policy area of Wells where residential
development is acceptable in principle providing the development accords with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
This application follows the withdrawal of application reference 09/1235 for the
erection of three three-storey dwellings and four apartments. That application was
withdrawn following concerns raised regarding design, car parking and relationship to
the neighbouring property to the north of the site.
Six dwellings are proposed in total. Therefore, Policy HO1: Dwelling Mix and Type
applies. The development complies with the requirements of this policy and exceeds
the number of dwellings required that should comprise not more than 70 sqm internal
floor space and should incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. The minimum 40%
provision required in the policy would mean that three dwellings would need to
comply, but there are actually four dwellings that comply.
Development Control Committee
42
23 September 2010
In terms of the density of the development, there is a mix of density in the immediate
area and in accordance with Policy HO7 in this location the density should not be
less than 40 dwellings per hectare. Given the site area this policy would require 6.72
dwellings on the site. The development provides six dwellings which is considered to
be acceptable and in accordance with the policy requirement that the density of the
site is developed in a manner that protects or enhances the character of the area. It
is not considered that this development is out of keeping with the form and character
of the area.
With regard to design and impact in the Conservation Area the Committee will note
that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager is not objecting to the
application, nor in particular to the use of natural timber boarding, notwithstanding
English Heritage's comments. It is therefore considered that the proposal would
preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Landscape), who is not objecting to the application. An Arboricultural
Implications Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement have been
submitted. The trees to be removed have been assessed and considered to be
acceptable. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the trees to be retained on the site. Given that the site is
already located within a developed area it is not considered that the proposal would
have a significant detrimental impact upon the special qualities and setting of the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In terms of highway safety the Highway Authority is not raising an objection to the
application.
In terms of the relationship of the development to surrounding properties the site is
well screened to the south and east by mature trees. To the north is the garden of the
neighbouring property called 'Saxons'. The proposed dwellings would have first floor
windows facing north but these would be to the staircases and bathrooms which can
be conditioned as obscure glazed. There is also a rooflight in the roof over the dining
room but this would be at high level.
Directly to the west are two bungalows, and to the north west is a row of garages with
gardens to the neighbouring dwellings beyond. The two neighbouring bungalows to
the west have car parking areas facing the site. There is a hedgerow to the boundary
and a garage in front of No.2 Stanfield. There is also a driveway between the site and
these properties and a hedge on the western boundary of the site.
The relationship of the proposed development to the neighbouring properties is
considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the Amenity Criteria in the
Design Guide.
It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable and accords with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
43
23 September 2010
9.
WIVETON - PF/10/0842 - Erection of detached annexe; Fairway, The Street for
Mr and Mrs G Proctor-Mears
Target Date: 15 September 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19841226 HR - Removal of conservatory and erection of bedroom and toilet
Approved 21/09/1984
PLA/20000380 PF - Replacement of flat roof with pitched roof
Approved 18/04/2000
PF/10/0842 HOU - Erection of detached annexe and alterations to annexe
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a detached annexe to replace a garage in the front garden,
5.2m wide, 6.1m deep with a height to eaves of 2.6m and a height to ridge of 5.6m.
Proposed materials include a red brick plinth, feather edge boarding, cedar shingle
roof tiles and stained timber joinery. A new vehicular access is proposed together
with replacement planting. The annexe is proposed to accommodate the applicant's
son.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr L Brettle for the following planning reasons:
Proposed external materials and compliance with the Wiveton Village Design
Statement.
WIVETON PARISH COUNCIL
Objection - Concerns raised in respect of proposed external materials and impact on
Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of support has been received from a local resident.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - Awaiting
comments
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.
Development Control Committee
44
23 September 2010
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 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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Principle of Development
Impact on Conservation Area
Impact on wider landscape, including AONB
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where extensions to existing
dwellings are acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant Development Plan
policies. In this case an annexe in the front garden is proposed to accommodate an
immediate relative.
There are no specific Development Plan policies relating to annexes and therefore a
series of planning judgements has to be made on the basis of findings of fact and
degree. The planning case law is inconsistent in relation to annexe proposals and
there are few legal criteria or clear national guidelines that make the judgement as to
whether a proposal is an annexe or an independent dwelling easy. However, based
on relevant case law, the following factors will be relevant in this particular case:a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Physical relationship, proximity and interdependence of common facilities;
Size of annexe (needs to be subordinate) and whether the properties are linked
or separate;
A separate curtilage and separate access may indicate a separate dwelling;
Service connections - common postal address, whether there is a single supply
of electricity etc;
Intent to create a dwelling via an annexe;
Family ties.
Considering each of those factors in turn, the following assessment is made:
a) The application site is approximately 0.05ha and consists of the principal
residential dwelling. Currently there is a detached garage between the dwelling
and the road (The Street). The detached annexe would be approximately 13m
away from the principal dwelling and would share the same vehicular access
point. The detached annexe has all the functions and facilities that would make it
capable of functioning as a separate dwelling.
Development Control Committee
45
23 September 2010
b)
The detached annexe would have a footprint of approximately 30sqm and is set
over two floors with a total floor area of approximately 45sqm. By comparison,
Fairway has a footprint of approximately 140sqm. On this basis it is considered
that the detached annexe is subordinate in size to Fairway.
c)
There are no apparent physical barriers (fences, walls or hedges) which
delineate individual curtilages or prevent access between either property. They
also share the same access.
d)
It is understood that the two properties would share a common postal address
together with electricity and other service connections.
e)
There is no evidence to suggest an intention to create a separate residential
dwelling/planning unit.
f)
The applicants have confirmed in the Design and Access Statement that the
proposed annexe would be occupied by their son.
Taking account of the above factors the proposal would appear to accord with the
definition of an annexe.
In respect of design and impact on the Conservation Area, the site is located within
both the Wiveton and the Glaven Valley Conservation Areas. In a Conservation Area
the proposed development should at least preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the area. In this instance the proposed annexe building would have its
gable facing the road and is clad with timber with stained timber windows and doors.
The roof of the annexe would be clad with cedar shingles.
The Parish Council have raised concern in respect of the proposed external materials
and have referred to the Wiveton Village Design Statement. In light of the concerns
raised by the Parish Council, the views of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager have been sought and Committee will be updated orally.
It is considered that there would be limited impact on the landscape character and
the building would blend into the surroundings comfortably. The proposed
replacement planting is also considered to be acceptable and the proposed two field
maples would mitigate for the loss of the poplar tree to the rear.
Subject to appropriate external materials it considered that the proposed
development would not adversely impact on the special qualities of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
There are no highway safety objections to the proposal.
In summary, whilst there are no objections in principle to the proposed annexe
development and it is considered that the proposal accords with Development Plan
policy, subject to the views of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager on
the Conservation Area impact and compliance with the Wiveton Village Design
Statement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including agreement of external materials to be used and, if
necessary, agreement on the colour of any stains, paints or varnishes to be
used.
Development Control Committee
46
23 September 2010
10.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
NORTH WALSHAM - HZ/09/0996 – Hazardous substance consent for storage of
gasoline and naphthas; Station Yard, Norwich Road for British Pipeline Agency
Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control to enable the
Committee to consider this hazardous substances application in context.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/10/0835 - Erection of rear conservatory; Martindale,
Alby Hill for Mr & Mrs Waite
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/10/0816 - Erection of one and half storey rear extension;
Nidlings, Hall Road for Mr Carmen
(Householder application)
ANTINGHAM - PF/10/0693 - Erection of two-storey front extension and
replacement single-storey side extension; Ivy Cottage, The Hill for Mrs
Wilkinson
(Householder application)
AYLMERTON - PF/10/0743 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; The Granary, adjacent Park Farm, Aylmerton for Mr & Mrs S
Howes
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0729 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side and
rear extensions; 8 School Road for Mr and Mrs Marsden
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0769 - Erection of side conservatory; The Holmfield,
Smallburgh Road for Mr and Mrs Gritten
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
47
23 September 2010
BEESTON REGIS - NMA1/06/1458 - Non-material amendment for revised window
design; Highfield, Church Close, West Runton for Mr Driscoll
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0763 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage; Land
at 59 New Road for Mr A Wells
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0804 - Erection of single-storey side extension, raising of
roof height and provision of additional windows, dormers and roof lights; 59
New Road for Mr A Wells
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0808 - Alterations to single-storey extension; Flat 2, Quay
House, The Quay for Mr & Mrs Williams
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/10/0809 - Alterations to roof and wall of single-storey
extension; Flat 2, Quay House, The Quay for Mr and Mrs Williams
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0829 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with attached
garage; Plot 1, 59 New Road for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0912 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling (revised
design); Plot 4, Land at 59 New Road for Novus Homes Norfolk Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/10/0713 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide
additional toilet, office, meeting and nursery facilities; The Copeman Centre
Briston Village Hall, Hall Street for The Copeman Centre Management
Committee
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - NMA1/05/1485 - Non-material amendment request for change of tile
colour, addition of roof lights and change of door and window positions; 34
Reepham Road for Mr R Gough
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - NMA1/08/1684 - Non-material amendment
request for revisions to fenestration, position of chimney stack, installation of
solar panels and removal of brick detailing and plinth; Salween, Norwich Road
for Mr D Green
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/10/0831 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Sunnydale, The
Croft for Mr & Mrs A Shipp
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0839 - Conversion of dwelling to four flats; 13 Alfred Road for
R G W Portugal Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
48
23 September 2010
FAKENHAM - AI/10/0811 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement and nonilluminated projecting sign; 17 Market Place for Barclays
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0826 - Retention of portable office building; Stable Cottage,
Oxborough Lane for A&B Management Services Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/10/0758 - Erection of replacement garage/store and side porch;
Rose Cottage, Holt Road for Mr P Cox
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/0760 - Conversion and extension of barn to provide
holiday accommodation; Bridge Cottages, Croxton Road for Mr & Mrs Pitt
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/0845 - Erection of replacement rear garden room; 25
Stibbard Road for Mr & Mrs Duckett
(Householder application)
GREAT SNORING - LA/10/0777 - Installation of replacement windows; Mill
House, The Street for Mr A Pannell
(Listed Building Alterations)
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/0841 - Erection of Garage/Storage; 7 Fakenham Road
for Miss E M John
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/10/0597 - Erection of single-storey extension; Orchard House,
The Common, Bale for Mr Lewin
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/10/0747 - Erection of single-storey extension to conservatory
and replacement roof to loggia, alterations including installation of two
windows in rear elevation, installation of boiler flues and erection of chimney;
The Gunton Arms, Formerly Elderton Lodge Hotel, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market
for Gunton Arms Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - LA/10/0748 - Erection of single-storey extension to conservatory
and replacement roof to loggia, alterations including installation of two
windows in rear elevation, installation of boiler flues and erection of chimney;
The Gunton Arms, formerly Elderton Lodge Hotel, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market
for Gunton Arms Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
HEMPSTEAD - NP/10/0938 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Land at Selbrigg Farm, Kelling Road, Hempstead for Mr F Feilden
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HICKLING - PF/10/0805 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Grosvenor
Cottage, Stubb Road for Mr & Mrs M Hodgson
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
49
23 September 2010
HIGH KELLING - PM/10/0705 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling; Land
at Farend, Vale Road for Mrs Hurry
(Reserved Matters)
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/0854 - Alteration and extension to existing medical
practice.; Holt Medical Practice, Kelling Hospital, Cromer Road for Holt Medical
Practice
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/0774 - Erection of detached double cart shed with storage above;
Glaven View Farm, Thornage Road for Mr C Sadler
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0851 - Conversion and alteration of outbuilding to studio; 67
Cromer Road for Paula Coast
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/10/0821 - Erection of first floor side extension; 33 Pinewood
Drive for Mrs B Dunham
(Householder application)
HOVETON - LD/10/0749 - Demolition of part of outbuilding; Hoveton Old Hall,
Stone Lane for Mr M Woodfine
(Listed Building Demolition)
HOVETON - PF/10/0772 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Grange Farm,
Long Lane for B Deane & Sons (Farmers)
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/10/0820 - Erection of cattle shelter; Land at Pinfold Lane,
Salthouse for Mr A Gray
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - NMA1/10/0235 - Non material amendment request for change of
window materials; Pudding Lane Cottage, Pudding Lane, Weybourne Road for
Mr Randell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
KETTLESTONE - PF/10/0719 - Erection of one and a half storey front extension;
The Hollies, Holt Road for Mr A Hall
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/10/0793 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey front and rear extensions; 5 School Common Road, Happisburgh for Mr
C Ward
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/10/0782 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Green
Farm, The Street for Mr & Mrs Hayes
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - LA/10/0783 - Alterations to facilitate construction of garden
room; Green Farm, The Street for Mr & Mrs Hayes
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
50
23 September 2010
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0800 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission
E3975 to permit occupancy from 1 March to 14 January; 21 Seaward Crest
Chalets, Links Road for Mr M Harrad
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/09/0935 - Non-material amendment request for change of
roof gable ends to hipped ends; 3 & 4 Bellevue, Heath Lane for Mr P Apse
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0666 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 127
Mundesley Road for Mr Brown
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0717 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
91 Mundesley Road for Mr and Mrs J Fagan
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0725 - Change of use of first floor from residential
flat to A1 (funeral directors); 57A Mundesley Road for Murrell Cork Funeral
Directors
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0850 - Erection of open side canopy; Unit 10,
Laundry Loke for T C Transport
(Full Planning Permission)
PLUMSTEAD - LA/10/0823 - Alterations to bedroom to provide en-suite
bathroom; Walnut Farm, Church Street for Mr & Mrs D Rambotham
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - NMA1/10/0004 - Non-material amendment request for revised
appearance of shed; The Greyhound, The Street, West Raynham for Mr C Currell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
RUNTON - PF/10/0674 - Alterations to toilet blocks; The Caravan Club
Incleborough Fields, Sandy Lane, West Runton for The Caravan Club
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/0755 - Change of use from a mixed use of A1 (retail)/residential
to residential; 9 Station Road, West Runton for Ms K Crane
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/0832 - Erection of single-storey and first floor extensions;
Brackenhurst, Shawcross Road, West Runton for Mr & Mrs D Foreman
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/10/0767 - Erection of single-storey extension to garage; 36
Creake Road for Mr P Richards
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/10/0168 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
recreational; Land at Clink Road for Sea Palling with Waxham Community Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
51
23 September 2010
SEA PALLING - PF/10/0578 - Change of use of land and garage to storage and
seasonal hire of bicycles; Land to rear of Rosemary Cottage, Waxham Road for
Mr Kiernan
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0703 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage;
Land at The Orchards, 10 Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Robinson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0781 - Two storey rear extension; 15 St Austins Grove for
Mr Welch
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0791 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 15
Sycamore Grove for Mr Feist
(Householder application)
STALHAM - NP/10/0950 - Prior notification of intention to excavate irrigation
reservoir; Land at Chapelfield Farm. Chapelfield for Mr R Overton
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
SUTTON - LA/10/0765 - Refurbishment of fire damaged dwelling and erection of
two-storey and single-storey extensions; High Cottage, Rectory Road for Mr M
Jolly
(Listed Building Alterations)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/10/0787 - Erection of first floor side extension;
Clements Corner Farm, The Hill for Mr A J Hird & Mrs S J Godfrey
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/10/0814 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Field House,
Brewery Road for Mr T Ollivier
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AI/10/0810 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 1
High Street for Aegis Design
(Advertisement Illuminated)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/99/1563 - Non-material amendment request for
installation of additional door and window; Barn adjoining Coach House, Rear
of Bowling Green P H, 20 Church Street for Mr R Griffiths-Jones
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0819 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Beck
Cottage, Station Road for Mr R Woodhouse
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/10/0742 - Removal of condition 4 of planning reference: 08/1738 to
permit retention of car park security lighting and bulkhead safety lights;
Heathers, Bacton Road for Jeesal Residential Care Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/0753 - Raising of roof and erection of one and a half storey
side extension; Wayside, Meeting Hill Road, Briggate for Mr Brown
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
52
23 September 2010
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - LA/10/0770 - Installation of 4 sunpipes; The Old Dairy, 7
Old Hall Farm Barns, Coast Road for Miss S Howarth
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/10/0710 - Installation of roof lights and erection of garden wall; 1
Chesterfield Villas, West Street for Mr J Griffiths & Mr D Shenton
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/10/0711 - Demolition of lean-to extension, installation of
rooflights and gable windows, alterations to roofspace to provide habitable
accommodation, replacement doors and erection of rear wall; 1 Chesterfield
Villas, West Street for Mr J Griffiths & Mr D Shenton
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/10/0723 - Conversion of roof space to one residential flat
incorporating rear dormer extension; 9 Cabbell Road for Mr and Mrs C Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0818 - Erection of first floor side extension and detached
two-storey dwelling; 1 Jubilee Close for Mr P Young
(Full Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - LA/10/0759 - Erection of front entrance
(retrospective); Dove House Farm, Dove House Lane for Mrs D Whyatt
(Listed Building Alterations)
porch
RUNTON - LA/10/0807 - Installation of wood burning stove and door to front
elevation; Incleborough House, Lower Common, East Runton for Mr & Mrs N
Davies
(Listed Building Alterations)
WICKMERE - PF/10/0612 - Erection of two-storey extension and single-storey
link extension and installation of dormer windows; Wickmere House, Watery
Lane for Mr C Buchan
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/10/0685 - Continued use of land for siting storage container;
Land adjacent, Blakeney Road for Mr Curtis
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/0292 - Erection of Two-Storey Rear Extension; 2
Meadow Cottages, Beeston Common for Mr Gotts
HOUSEHOLDER (Fast-track)
Development Control Committee
53
23 September 2010
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0023 - Conversion of barn to two units of holiday
accommodation; Row Hill Farm Barns, Walsingham Road for Norfolk County
Council
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS (short procedure)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0406 - Erection of single-storey front extension and
two-storey rear extension; 1 Recreation Road for Mr Coop
HOUSEHOLDER (Fast-track)
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 , Church Street, Cromer for Iceland Foods
Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 07 September 2010
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/09/1202 - Erection of agricultural building and formation of
access roadway; Land at Hart Lane for Mr D Knowles
SITE VISIT:- 20 September 2010
HOVETON - PM/10/0058 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning reference
20041723 to enable approved holiday units to be occupied as two residential
dwellings; Two Saints Barn, Tunstead Road for Legislator 1363
SITE VISIT:- Still to be arranged
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin-store; Barber's Shop to rear 22, Station Road for
Museum Cottages
SITE VISIT:- Still to be arranged
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way for Mr P James
SITE VISIT:- 20 September 2010
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0197 - Proposed general purpose agricultural building; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr Clark
SITE VISIT:- 20 September 2010
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road for Mr C Jeffrey
SITE VISIT:- Still to be arranged
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0714 - Erection of single storey dwelling; 43, Nelson Road
for Mr A Holbrook
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Control Committee
54
23 September 2010