OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 24 JULY 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BACTON - PF/14/0348 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; Land at St Peters
Court, Walcott Road for Mr R Shearwood
Minor Development
- Target Date: 14 May 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071096 PF - Erection of three dwellings
Approved 03/09/2007
PLA/20081309 PF - Erection of two dwellings
Approved 22/12/2008
PF/10/0707 PF - Erection of one-single storey dwelling (amended scheme)
Refused 24/09/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of three two-storey dwellings (one detached and two semidetached)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. B. Smith having regard to the following issue:
 Overdevelopment of the site
Subsequently deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Bacton Parish Council has no objection to the proposal. However, they wish the
following to be taken into consideration:
1. St Peter's Court is a building of significant local interest and nearby building
development would need to adequately respect its character
2. White uPVC windows would be an inappropriate material failing to respect the
character of the village
3. Significant housing growth is currently proposed and should be taken into
consideration
Development Committee
1
24 July 2014
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received on the following grounds (summarised):










Overdevelopment of the site (three two-storey dwellings are considered too many)
Building forward of the original 1900s building line
Building too close to boundary fence
Light and air restrictions - patio area of St Peter's Court
Health and Safety - buildings would be in close proximity to St. Peter's Court's oil
tank
Misleading information regarding the scale of the development
St Peter's Court is a Guest House with twenty bedrooms - being several metres
higher than the proposed, several of the properties bedrooms would overlook the
development's rear gardens and bedrooms.
The noise generated by guests enjoying the garden at St. Peter's Court would
impact upon the residents of the proposed dwellings
Potential damage to St. Peter's Court. Previous development to the rear of the
proposed development site has resulted in damage to St. Peter's Court
The impact of the proposed development on St. Peter's Court Guest House could
render the business unviable
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN 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).
Development Committee
2
24 July 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of development
 Scale of development in relation to size of site
 Affordable housing/incentive scheme
 Impact on the residents of neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the last meeting to allow the
Committee to visit the site.
The site is located within a residential area in the settlement boundary of Bacton.
Bacton is defined by the North Norfolk District Council's adopted Core Strategy as a
Coastal Service Village within which the principle of erecting new dwellings is
acceptable, thus in terms of policies SS1 and SS3 the proposal complies with the
adopted Core Strategy and paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
National policy requires local planning authorities to use land efficiently. To comply
with Central Government Policies Core Strategy Policy HO7 requires a minimum of 30
dwellings per hectare within Coastal Service Villages. This proposal equates to 50
dwellings per hectare. However, despite the high density ratio the sites planning
history suggests that the construction of three modest sized dwellings would not
constitute over development of the site. The development also accords with Policy
HO1 in terms of dwelling type and mix.
The site has, over recent years, been the subject of three planning applications
PF/07/1096, PF/08/1309 and PF/10/0707. PF/07/1096 and PF/08/1309 were
approved whilst PF/10 /0707 was refused.
PF/07/1096 was not commenced and has now lapsed. However, approval was
granted for a four bedroom detached dwelling accessed via Keswick Road and two
semi-detached dwellings accessed via Walcott Road (the site of the current proposal).
The semi-detached dwellings were three-storey four bedroom properties with a living
room to the first floor. The dwellings, if constructed, would have had a combined
footprint of approximately 135 sq. metres and their Basic Amenity Criteria relationship
to St. Peter’s Court and Abigail Cottage would have been similar to that of the
currently proposed development.
Furthermore, these dwellings would have had a first floor living room (to the rear
elevation) and it could therefore be argued that the relationship between PF/07/1096
and St. Peter's Court would have been more intrusive than that which is currently
proposed.
PF/08/1309 granted full planning permission for two two-storey detached dwellings,
one to be accessed via Keswick Road and the other via Walcott Road. The Keswick
Road property has been constructed, however, the property off Walcott Road has not.
Thus there is an extant permission on the Walcott Road site (the site of the current
proposal) for a two-storey five bedroom dwelling with swimming pool. The dwelling if
constructed would have a footprint of approximately 223 sq. metres.
Planning application PF/10/0707 sought to erect a four bedroom single storey
detached property with an attached enclosed swimming pool. The proposal had a
similar footprint to planning application PF/08/1309. The application was refused on
design grounds.
Development Committee
3
24 July 2014
The Government has made clear that a community's need for a mix of housing types,
including affordable housing is a material consideration which should be taken into
account in deciding planning applications. Under Policy HO2 a financial contribution
for affordable housing is required on 2 or more units in a village location such as this.
For practical purposes, the Council considers it is reasonable to provide for a financial
contribution in lieu of on site provision in all schemes of 3 or fewer dwellings. The
scheme as proposed would deliver three modest sized homes and potentially a
financial contribution for the provision of affordable housing at other locations.
However, in order to encourage developers to deliver development quickly the District
Council currently offers a number of incentive schemes. In essence these schemes
relax certain policy requirements. In this instance the applicant/agent has applied for
Incentive Scheme 2 in relation to affordable housing. Meaning that a condition will be
applied to the decision notice whereby the applicant/agent does not have to make a
contribution to affordable housing if the development is commenced within one year of
the decision notice being issued. A failure to comply with the condition results in the
development returning to the default position and an affordable contribution would be
required.
The County Council Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal and
subject to compliance of conditions the proposed development would satisfy Policies
CT5 and CT6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
In terms of design, the materials, scale and size of the dwellings as proposed are in
keeping with numerous cottage-properties within the vicinity, particularly those on
Keswick Road.
In terms of relationships with neighbouring properties, Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC):
The Supplementary Planning Document "Design Guide" suggests a distance of 2.5m
between tertiary (bathroom) windows and blank walls. The first floor bathroom window
of the property nearest to Abigail Cottage (to the north west) is 4.1 m from the
cottage's blank gable. The first floor bathroom window of the detached property would
overlook the front garden of St. Peter's Court to the south east, however, being a
bathroom window it would be obscure glazed.
St. Peter's Court has substantial glazing to its front (south) and side (west) first floor
elevations. The Design Guide suggests a distance of 15 metres between bedroom
windows. In this instance the distance from the rear bedroom windows of the
proposed detached property and the first floor windows at St. Peter's Court fall short of
these guidelines by some 3 to 4 metres. However, given the site's planning history this
shortfall is considered acceptable.
Conclusion
The current proposal for three modest sized two-storey dwellings with a combined
footprint of approximately 119 sq. metres, which would be considerably less than the
previously approved dwellings. It is considered that the proposal would have no
greater impact in terms of privacy, residential/garden amenity than the previously
approved schemes. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with adopted
Development Plan policies and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning, including early commencement under the incentive scheme, details of
materials and those required by the Highway Authority.
Development Committee
4
24 July 2014
2.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0237 - Demolition of garage and erection of singlestorey side extension with attached garage; Stone Cutters Cottage, The
Fairstead for Mr S Young
Minor Development
Target Date: 18 April 2014
Case Officer: Mr J Brear
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Local Development Framework - Countryside
Conservation Area - Glaven Valley and Cley
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/1317- Date Received: 05/11/2013
Demolition of garage and erection of single-storey side extension with attached
double garage.
(Withdrawn by applicant (24/12/2012) after discussion with Case officer and C&D
officer that a suggestion to revise the proposed design would be needed).
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of an existing detached single garage and erection of a singlestorey side extension with an attached double garage. The application has been
amended several times.
The proposed extension to the single storey kitchen will measure (W) 5.3m x (D)
1.9m x (H) 3.4. The replacement garage will measure (W) 7.8m x (D) 6.8m x (H) 4m.
The proposed materials for the scheme are red brick and flint to match the existing
elevations, with matching pantiles. Part of the eastern boundary wall which forms a
ginnel running behind the property will be partially altered, any rebuild or alteration
work will be done in red brick and flint to match the existing. The windows will be
uPVC casement style and the doors will be wooden painted half glazed doors.
The latest set of amended plans were submitted to amend mistakes in elevations and
measurements, to alter the roof style on recommendation from officers and to
address concerns from officers and representations that the proposal was too high.
These amended plans have been re-advertised and the Parish Council and the
Conservation and Design Officer have been re-consulted.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Originally at the request of Councillor David Young having regard to concerns in
respect of overdevelopment of the site.
The site has also subsequently been the subject of a Committee site visit on 8 May
2014.
PARISH COUNCIL
Cley Parish Council - Changed their view from No Objection to Objection regarding
previous amended plans. Parish Council were re-consulted with most recent set of
amended plans and have again objected on the following grounds:
 Removal of Loke wall
 Unsatisfactory proportions of the garage
Development Committee
5
24 July 2014


Would produce an urban feel to the area
Proposed rooflight would result in light pollution
REPRESENTATIONS
4 representations of objection to the previously submitted plans.
The key arguments of the objections are listed as follows:
 Proposed height
 Design is unsuitable
 Development is massing of the dwelling
 Not preserving the character of Cley conservation area
 Overbearing disproportionately large extension to original dwelling
 Proposal will affect the provision of parking and thus affect the neighbouring
property
 Lack of respect and impact on area
 Poor design and overbearing size
 Non-compliance with development plan policies
 Proposed flat roof section is uncharacteristic of Cley
 Spoil the public right of way and reduce light levels into the ginnel
 Proposal is in disagreement with paragraphs 58, 64 and 126 of the NPPF
 Length of the roof will produce a considerable mass of visible roof
 Over development of the site
 Development for developments sake
Further to this 1 objection has been received to the most recent set of plans, reiterating concerns held previously. Additional concerns regarding the loss of section
of historic wall and light pollution from rooflight. Also questions how the application
has been dealt with procedurally.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Environmental Health Officer requested information for the
clarification of how surface water will be disposed of. This was relayed onto the
applicant. The applicant provided suitable information showing water being disposed
in a proposed soak away, measuring (W)1.3m x (L)1.3m x (D)1.4. The supplied plans
and information was deemed satisfactory and the Environmental Health officer would
not have any objections subject condition.
Conservation and Design - Comments awaited on amended plans.
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Committee
6
24 July 2014
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Scale of development and massing
 Impact on neighbours and Cley Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
Following a Committee site visit (08/05/2014), determination of the application was
deferred to allow the submission of further amended plans.
Principle of development
The site lies within an area of designated Countryside. Extensions to existing
residential dwellings are considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance
with relevant Core Strategy policies.
The proposal is for the replacement of an existing single-storey element with a slightly
larger single-storey extension. Attached to this is a double garage that will replace the
existing single bay garage.
The proposed developments would mean an increase of approx. 48.40% in footprint
of the dwelling. HO8 guidance states that it should not be a disproportionately large
increase in the footprint of the building. The scale of the proposal under Policy HO8 is
considered acceptable.
In regards to concerns in respect of overdevelopment of the site following the
proposed works, the site will be a total of approx. 34.84% developed. Officers
consider that there will still be enough amenity space to the front of the property for
garden area and also the provision of adequate parking.
The dwelling is considered to be on a large enough site in principle to accommodate
the proposed amount of development, without it being classed as overdevelopment of
a site or producing a building that can be classed as disproportionate in respect of the
existing dwelling. It is considered that the proposed additions would not adversely
affect the character of the building or the surrounding Conservation Area or the Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable
under policies SS 2, HO 8, EN 1 and EN 8.
Design
The proposed single-storey extension will keep the existing width but project forwards
of the existing elevation by 1.9m. This will project past the principal (front) elevation of
the dwelling by 0.7m. The proposed replacement garage is the largest addition of the
proposal. It will replace the existing garage by increasing its footprint to become
attached to the main dwelling. This will mean a width of 7.8m. The proposed double
garage will extend 1.6m further than the existing garage giving it a depth of 6.7m.
Development Committee
7
24 July 2014
A point of concern throughout the application has been the roof design. From the
previous application PF/13/1317 the roof was considered to be too high and would
have been a continuous mass of roof. After discussions with the applicant and then
the re-submission with this application PF/14/0237 there have been further alterations
made seeking to reduce the impact. The garage section had been hipped on all
elevations removing a considerable mass of roof. Another key design feature for the
roof is the flat roof section on top. This is proposed for two key reasons, firstly if the
roof over the garage was lowered and keeping the standard hipped form, the roof
angle would become so shallow that it wouldn't support Norfolk pantiles and would
also contradict with the steep roof slopes of the original dwelling. Secondly having the
flat roof section means that the roof height can be lowered to reduce the impact on
neighbour amenity and yet still keep the steep roof angles of the original dwelling. In
the middle of the flat roof section of the garage area, there will be a Lantern roof light.
The proposed lantern will be below the ridge height of the hipped roof.
In regards to the concerns raised through the representations which mention the
removal of sections of the Loke wall, it is considered that the section of Loke wall to
be removed will be approx. (H) 1.2m x (W) 5.1. The Loke wall is not listed and nor is
the entirety of it original. The proposed works will remove a section of the wall but
repair/replace the required sections. In respect of this matter and the latest design
generally the commends of the C&D officer are awaited.
Notwithstanding the objections received, the relationship with neighbouring properties
is considered acceptable in terms of scale, light, privacy and overlooking.
Subject to no objection from the C&D officer it is considered that the proposed
amendments to the original scheme would ensure compliance with Policies SS 2, HO
8, EN 1, EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to no
objection from the C&D officer, expiry of the press notice and appropriate conditions.
3.
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road for
Mr & Mrs J Bonham
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 April 2014
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19981489
PF - Replace existing conservatory garage and shed with
conservatory garage annex and utility extension
Approved 03/12/1998
PLA/20021931 PF - Erection of garage and single-storey side extension
Approved 28/03/2003
PLA/20070626 PF - Erection of dwelling
Refused 05/06/2007 D 10/04/2008
Development Committee
8
24 July 2014
PLA/20080878 PF - Conversion and extension of nissen hut to provide studio and
workshop and conversion of stable to garden room
Withdrawn 05/09/2008
PF/12/0115 PF - Erection of replacement barn and stables
Approved 27/04/2012
THE APPLICATION
Is to retain a timber building on the footprint of former stables. An amended plan has
been received amending the door and window styles which has been re advertised.
The building is 4m deep and 9.5m wide and sits directly onto the concrete pad of the
original stables and has an eaves height of 2.4m with a ridge height of 3.7m It is of
timber construction stained a dark grey and the intention is to clad the roof with a grey
corrugated metal sheet roof.
The applicant has clarified that the building will be used for storage in connection with
the land and possibly a stable in the future.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Graham Jones having regard to the following planning
issue(s):
Inappropriate design
Delegated authority to approve the application subject to no new material objections
being raised following readvertisement of the amended plans, was given at a previous
meeting. New material objections were received and the application reported back.
Members subsequently resolved to visit the site at the last meeting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Mundesley Parish Council - Objects on grounds of traffic and accessibility
Knapton Parish Council - no response
Trunch Parish Council - objects
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received from adjoining residents











Raises questions about accuracy of the application and address.
The stables were required to be demolished as a condition on the previous
application for a replacement barn and stables.
The barn referred to the Design and Access Statement as being replaced has not
been there for at least 10 years or 20 according to another objector.
Building has UPVC patio doors and probably the intention for UPVC windows is
clearly not suitable for horses and storage of horse feed.
Visible from objector's balcony.
What is the purpose of the building.
Concern that it could be converted at some future date to a dwelling.
The newly built structure is larger and taller than the old demolished stable block.
it appears to be a holiday chalet type.
He does not need to replace the stables and barn as he already has permission to
do that on the land directly behind no. 35.
A large Oak tree close to be building appears to have been ignored.
Development Committee
9
24 July 2014


Already has permission to replace the stable building behind 35 Trunch Road.
As the stables have already been demolished the land should be regarded as
Greenfield.
Following on from the reconsultation of the amended plans further letters of objection
have been received from previous objectors reiterating many of the concerns reported
above.
However, in addition an objector has expressed concerns that if planning permission
12/0115 was also erected it opens up the prospect of him stabling horses
commercially. Resulting in greater volumes of horse traffic on the narrow access
between dwellings and Trunch Road with adverse implications for highway safety.
Also the additional objections have pointed out that the site is within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The applicant has advised that he is not currently in a position to erect the barn
approved under PF/12/0115. It is on the same base as a former timber/corrugated
sheet metal structure which has been removed. The building is intended to be used
for stabling when finance will allow, until then it will be used for storage ancillary to the
use of the land. Existing doors and the rest of the windows and doors can be painted
another colour if necessary. Grey metal sheeting proposed for the roof. No current
plans to store any domestic household items at present, but may wish to at some
stage.
CONSULTATIONS
None
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Development Committee
10
24 July 2014
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development in the Countryside
2. Design
3. Relationship with neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to enable members to visit the
site.
The application site is agricultural land behind four properties that front Trunch Road
and in the same ownership as 35 Trunch Road. The site lies within the Countryside
Policy area as defined in Core Strategy as well as the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (that half of the site where the building is to be retained), the Area of High
Landscape Value and the Undeveloped Coast. Such a building is acceptable under
Policy SS 2.
The land was formerly a small holding and the use classification remains agricultural.
However, it should be noted that the southern boundary line forms a fairly contiguous
rear boundary line with the other houses along Trunch Road which have all
characteristically long rear gardens.
The building in question has been erected on the same concrete pad as the former
stables and is awaiting the roof cladding pending the outcome of the application. With
an appropriate dark roofing material and sited as it is against back hedge and treed
boundary the building will be easily assimilated into its surroundings. There are no
views of the site from the south because of the topography of the land rising to the
south. In fact from any public vantage point, which is mainly from the north, a suitably
dark-stained, small-scale building would meld into the existing residential character of
the area. Consequently, it is considered there are no significantly adverse impacts
upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Area of Undeveloped Coast or the
Area of High Landscape Value. The proposal is considered acceptable under policies
EN1 and EN3.
The design and materials are considered acceptable under Policy EN 4.
As to the relationship with the neighbouring properties the building is at the closest
point 68 metres to the closest dwelling and the same distance to the boundaries to the
properties directly to the north of the stables. There is clearly no adverse impact upon
the residential amenities of those properties from overshadowing or overlooking or
disturbance from storage and a stable.
There is an extant planning permission to erect a barn and stables directly behind 35
Trunch Road granted in April 2012 on which construction appears not to have begun.
The applicant has been asked to advise what his intentions are with regard to this
permission. However, notwithstanding the fact he could implement that permission it
is considered for the reasons described above there is no significant landscape harm
or adverse impacts on neighbouring properties arising from the retention of this
building.
In respect of the point raised locally that the previous planning permission 12/0115
required the old stables to be demolished, those stables were in a very poor state.
That condition was considered to ensure the removal of buildings that were becoming
Development Committee
11
24 July 2014
unsightly. It does not indicate that a subsequent application for development cannot
be considered on its own merits.
Regarding the local concern that the buildings would facilitate a commercial
equestrian business, the recommended condition 2 would limit the use of the stables.
A change of use to a commercial equestrian use would require a further planning
permission.
The proposal accords with Development Plan Policy and is considered acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated to the Head of Planning to APPROVE.
To include the specific conditions listed below:
(1)
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number 02 A3) received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 March 2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(2)
The building hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes that are
ancillary/incidental to and in connection with the use of the land and shall not be
used for commercial equestrian uses.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site,
in accordance with Policies SS 2 and EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
4.
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0492 - Retention of child's two-storey playhouse; 35
Paston Road for Miss S Dack
- Target Date: 11 July 2014
Case Officer: Miss E Reed
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20041850 PF - Demolition of dwelling and erection of two dwellings and
garages (revised design)
Approved 17/12/2004
THE APPLICATION
The playhouse is a mock two storey dwelling with a slide on the east side. It is
approximately 3m in height with a double pitched roof, 1.5m in depth and 2.5m in
Development Committee
12
24 July 2014
width. It is a scaled down version of a dwellinghouse. It is located on an open area of
land to the front of the dwellings approved under PF/04/1850.
The playhouse is designed to look like brick and timber elevations with a tiled roof.
There are windows on the south and west elevations with a blank elevation to the
north and a door on the first floor on the east side leading to a slide.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor B Smith. Concerned with the playhouse being remote
from the host dwelling and possibly leading to a precedent for further applications.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application due to the playhouse being situated in the front garden and
feel that it could set a precedent for further applications.
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notice expired on 18 June 2014 and to date no representations have been
received.
CONSULTATIONS
None
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact approval may have on setting a precedent
2. Impact of the proposal being remote from the host dwelling
3. Design
4. Relationship with neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The application is for the retention of a child's playhouse located to the north west of
the host dwelling.
The playhouse is located approximately 12 metres to the north west of the host
dwelling within the Settlement Boundary of Mundesley and in the front garden of no.
35 Paston Road. Permitted Development rights regarding buildings, means of
Development Committee
13
24 July 2014
enclosure and structures on the land between the two dwellings that were permitted
(35 and 35a Paston Road) and Paston Road itself were removed under application
ref: 04/1850.
In respect of local concern regarding precedent, each application has to be treated on
its merits. The location of this proposal, although at the front in relation to the existing
dwelling, is considered to be acceptable.
Although there are windows on the west and south sides of the playhouse, given the
nature for which it will be used, these are considered unlikely to cause significantly
detrimental issues of overlooking for the neighbouring dwellings or the front garden of
no. 35a Paston Road located to the south.
It is considered that with trees on the west boundary, the playhouse does not have a
significantly detrimental impact upon the street scene.
Overall, it is considered that the playhouse does not introduce significantly detrimental
issues impacting upon amenity of neighbouring dwellings nor the streetscape. For
these reasons, the development is considered to be acceptable and accord with
adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
5.
SCULTHORPE - PF/14/0520 - Use of land for school playing field with car
parking, ecology study area, foot and cycle paths, fencing and formation of
access; Grove Farm Land for Colegate Management Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 28 July 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the provision of a school playing field which would have an area of some 0.7
hectares and which would enable the laying out of one full size football pitch or,
alternatively two junior size pitches. In addition, a car park for use by the school which
would provide a total of 22 spaces, including two disabled spaces, is proposed
together with a school wildlife area/outdoor classroom which would have an area of
some 0.6 hectares.
Whilst the remainder of the application site which extends to some 23.7 hectares
would be bisected by pathways/cycleways which would link Creake Road, Moor Lane
and The Street. The pathways/cycleways would be 3 metres in width and have a
finished surface of self-binding gravel. Estate railings and pedestrian gates measuring
1.2 metres in width are proposed where the pathways/cycleways meet the highway. In
addition, a vehicular access gate for maintenance purposes is proposed at the Moor
Lane entrance.
The Design and Access Statement submitted as part of the application indicates that
the majority of the site would continue to be farmed.
Development Committee
14
24 July 2014
Amended plans and an accompanying e-mail from the applicant’s agent have been
received which correct minor discrepancies in the Masterplan Proposals and also seek
to address the concerns raised by the Highways Authority.
This also indicates that the general proposals seek to provide the school with muchneeded outside facilities whilst also securing the boundaries of the site and facilitating
controlled access to it by the wider community. The footpaths have been proposed to
enable safe and controlled passage across the site for the community, including
school children. The playing pitches and car parking area are primarily for use by the
school but, if felt appropriate by the school (who will effectively control its use through
a lease agreement) may be used by others.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the local Member Councillor Fitzpatrick due to the level of local
concern in respect of the proposed development.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection subject to the Highways Authority’s acceptance of a vehicular access off
Moor Lane. In addition, they would like to see the Sculthorpe Bowls Club having
access to the proposed car park.
REPRESENTATIONS
Nine letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised):
1. There is no access to the field to allow the land to still be used for agricultural
purposes.
2. The ecological/outdoor area does not appear to be fenced. How will this area be
protected from misuse.
3. If the football pitch is available for use by the public outside school hours there will
be problems with parking and congestion in Creake Road.
4. 22 car parking spaces would not be sufficient for football teams and supporters.
5. The introduction of cycle/footpaths will encourage visitors from outside Sculthorpe
to walk dogs across the field.
6. The planting of a hedgerow could undermine the foundations of my property.
7. The introduction of a hedge the full length of our fence would affect the present
open views of the field.
8. The proposed exit from the field opposite the school is in a dangerous position as
pedestrians cannot see traffic coming from the north along Creake Road.
9. The school already has an adequate football pitch and there are “ecology”
allotments in the area.
10. The gravel cycle/pedestrian pathways would have to be crossed by large
harvesters which would be dangerous to users.
11. It would be impractical to farm the compartmentalised pieces of land economically.
12. The area would again be open to the problems of dog fouling which the current
tenant said makes it impossible for even silage use.
13. The area would no longer be classified as agricultural land which would leave it
open to a further change of use for residential development.
14. A new pond is not required as one already exists at the extreme right bottom
corner of Creake Road.
15. The expanded development is a foothold into the future development of the field.
16. In the school development plan there was a wish for a 70m x 50m football pitch
and off road parking for 12 vehicles.
17. Why is the car park so far away from the school?
18. A 1.2m high fence would be totally inadequate for a football field right next to the
highway.
Development Committee
15
24 July 2014
19. Concerns that the proposed cycle path would severely compromise the privacy
and security of properties at Grove Farm barns, due to overlooking.
One letter of support has been received which makes the following comments
(summarised):1. It will be nice to have access to the field again and for children to be able to
walk/cycle to school safely.
2. The proposed development will also benefit other children in the village.
3. Consideration should be given to additional speed limit signage and other signs
close to the pedestrian exists.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - Cromer –
(Original comments) - Additional information is required including the proposed end
user of the site, will the land/facilities/parking be available to the wider
community/general public? In addition several points in respect of the layout need
further consideration/addressing, including the southern and western access points.
(Comments in respect of revised information) – The amended proposals have resulted
in a repositioning of some of the pedestrian access points and a new agricultural
access point is now proposed to the western side of the site served from Moor Lane.
These changes reflect my earlier comments, and whilst at this stage there is little
provision, in terms of construction details it is considered that the principle is now
acceptable and the details can be ensured by condition.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Has indicated that
there is no objection in principle to the proposal which has the potential to create
biodiversity enhancements, particularly through the provision of the School Wildlife
area. However, further enhancements could also include the provision of bat and bird
boxes and wildlife sensitive farming methods, for example through the provision of
species rich buffer strips adjacent to the pathways and boundaries. In addition, the
remainder of the field should be left to agricultural use (silage if required) as indicated
on the application form. The provision of paths through the field and access gates into
the field is acceptable however; further details would be required to ensure that
appropriate species, locations and maintenance of planting are provided for, which
could be achieved via way of a condition requiring the submission of a landscaping
scheme and maintenance plan for a minimum of five years
Environmental Health – No objection, however suggests that as part of the site is a
former agricultural pit, which over the years has been blighted by fly tippers, any
permission should include an advisory note that the site could be contaminated.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) – Raise no
objection and consider that the proposal will not harm the setting of the designated
heritage assets or the wider character and appearance of the area.
The existing enclosure which is formed predominantly by post and wire fences are of
no great design merit, and therefore the replacement with properly formed wrought
iron railings and timber picket fencing raises no heritage cause for concern. Whilst the
introduction of the hard standings and cycle track running through the centre of the
site will carry some visual impact, the overall effect on the character and appearance
of the area will be relatively minor. Similarly the provision of football pitches to the
north of the site, wildlife area and associated car parking raises no grounds for
objection. The surface treatment of the car park is key to reducing visual impact, the
gravel should not appear overly intrusive.
Development Committee
16
24 July 2014
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 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
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 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
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. Impact on landscape and biodiversity.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated in the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies EN2, EN4, EN9, CT3,
CT5 and CT6 are considered to be relevant.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals demonstrate that their location, scale,
design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
 the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character)
 gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
 distinctive settlement character
 the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland,
trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for
Development Committee
17
24 July 2014
dispersal of wildlife
Policy EN4 states that all development will be designed to a high quality, and
 Be suitably designed for the context within which they are set;
 Retain existing important landscaping and natural features and include
landscape enhancement schemes that are compatible with the Landscape
Character Assessment and ecological network mapping;
 Incorporate footpaths, green links and networks to the surrounding area;
 Ensure that any car parking is discreet and accessible; and
In addition, proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Policy EN9 states that all development proposals should:
 protect the biodiversity value of land and buildings and minimise fragmentation
of habitats;
 maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of
natural habitats; and
 incorporate beneficial biodiversity conservation features where appropriate.
Policy CT3 states that new or improved community facilities or services will be
permitted within the Principal and Secondary Settlements, Service Villages and
Coastal Service Villages, or within the Countryside where they meet the identified
needs of the local community.
Policies CT5 and CT6 requires that development 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 following
criteria:
 the proposal provides for safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, public and
private transport addressing the needs of all, including those with a disability;
 the proposal is capable of being served by safe access to the highway network
without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality. In addition there
should be adequate car parking to serve the needs of the development.
At the present time the site comprises a contiguous block of land at the centre of the
village of Sculthorpe which has no authorised public access and is currently farmed for
the production of silage. The provision of a school playing field, ecology study area
and car park would it is considered result in a significant improvement in the facilities
available to the school. Whilst the pathways/cycleways, would allow public access
across the site and help to alleviate the need for pedestrians and cyclists using the
surrounding roads which have no footways. It is a therefore considered that the
scheme as proposed is acceptable in principle and would accord with the
requirements of Policies SS2, EN4, CT3 and CT5.
In terms of the landscape impact of the proposed development whilst the provision of
pathways/cycleways, would have some visual impact, given the overall size of the site
and the fact that the majority of the field would be left for agricultural use this is
considered to be acceptable. Whilst the provision of a school wildlife area would
potentially enhance the biodiversity of the area. It is therefore considered that overall
the proposal would conserve and possibly enhance the special qualities and local
distinctiveness of the area. However the Council’s Landscape Officer has indicated
that further enhancements could include the provision of bat and bird boxes and
wildlife sensitive farming methods.
As far as the impact on neighbouring properties there are a significant number of
properties which are positioned around the site, however it is perhaps those properties
to the northern end of Creake Road, including Grove House, opposite the proposed
Development Committee
18
24 July 2014
playing field and car park which are most likely to be affected. The frontages to these
properties at the closest point would be some 14 metres from the playing field which
would be enclosed by mesh fencing and indicative vegetation is shown on the
submitted Masterplan. Whilst the adjoining properties could experience an increase in
noise and disturbance, given that the playing field would be used by the school this
use is likely to be confined primarily to the school day. Similarly as the intended use of
the car parking is for the parking of staff vehicles and parents dropping off and
collecting children again this is likely to be limited to a small period at the start and end
of the school day. As such whilst it is accepted that the proposal could have some
adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties in terms of noise and
disturbance this is not considered to be sufficient to justify refusal of the application.
Concerns have also been raised by the occupiers of No.17 Creake Road, which would
abut the wildlife area, and who currently enjoy an open aspect from their rear garden
across the field that this view would be affected. Whilst the loss of a view is not
something that can be considered by the Local Planning Authority as the Masterplan
shows indicative planting in this area this would need to be the subject of a landscape
scheme when the relationship with the existing dwelling would be taken into account.
Another concern raised by local residents is the proximity of the proposed
pathways/cycleways at the southern end of the site to Grove Farm Barns. These
properties consist of a conversion of traditional barns to 10 units of holiday
accommodation some of which have south facing windows which would look towards
the pathways/cycleways, which at its closest point would be 100 metres away. Whilst
units 8 and 9 have long, south facing gardens, which would be 70 metres way from
the pathways/cycleways. Given the distances involved together with the fact that some
of the dwellings would be screened from the pathways/cycleways by a long garage
block which runs east west and the fact that there are boundary hedges around the
site it is not considered that there would be significant amenity issues in terms of loss
of privacy or overlooking.
In terms of highway safety it is considered that the provision of a car park for use by
the school and parents would help to alleviate parking problems and congestion in the
immediate area of the school, particularly at the beginning and end of the school day.
Whilst the pathways/cycleways, in addition to providing safe pedestrian routes, could
help to reduce the reliance on the car for the school run. The Highways Authority has
indicated that the amended plans which show a vehicular access to the fields off Moor
Lane is acceptable as are the pedestrian points of access/egress off Creake Road,
Moor Lane and The Street.
It is therefore considered that overall the scheme as proposed would make an
important contribution to the facilities available to the school, increasing public access
and provide safe routes for pedestrian and cyclists and would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the site which
includes the provision of species rich buffer strips adjacent to the pathways and
boundaries.
Development Committee
19
24 July 2014
(6)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0259 - Erection of two-storey front and rear extensions; 5
Havelock Road for Mr M Bywater
- Target Date: 25 April 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19870275 PF
Kitchen and living room extension.
Approved 06/04/1987
PF/13/1009 HOU
Erection of part two-storey/single-storey rear extension, part two-storey/first floor front
extension and first floor side extension
Refused 10/10/2013
THE APPLICATION
The proposal seeks the erection of two storey front and rear extensions to provide for
additional living space and larger bedrooms to include en suite to the master bedroom
and additional storage. At the front of the dwelling a first floor extension would be
provided forming a front facing gable to mirror the existing two storey front projection.
The eastern elevation would remain single storey at the eastern boundary with the
mono pitched roof gaining 4 roof lights and a gabled roof detail just to the front
elevation. To the rear a two storey gable extension is proposed that would sit off
centre slightly towards the eastern boundary, approx. 3.4m from the eastern boundary
and some 5m from the western boundary. In addition the existing conservatory, which
extends some 4.4m from the original rear elevation, is to be demolished and replaced
with a partial two storey flat roofed extension with single storey mono pitch extension
which would project 4m from the original rear wall (2.8m for the two storey element
and additional 1.2m for the single storey element). No windows are proposed at first
floor level to the western elevation. At ground floor high level windows are proposed;
these would allow limited light into the development and preserve the privacy of the
neighbouring dwelling. The first floor windows proposed to the rear gable extension
would be set back between rendered piers to minimise any overlooking of
neighbouring properties to the east and west. Overall the resultant dwelling would be
significantly altered in appearance with alterations made to the windows throughout
the building, replacement roof materials throughout (from clay pantiles to slate effect
plain tiles) and the introduction of slate appearance plain tiles to the rear gable
elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the previous Committee for a site visit.
It was originally referred to Committee by Councillor Hannah concerned about the
impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
Development Committee
20
24 July 2014
REPRESENTATIONS
1 x objection received (from the neighbouring property to the western boundary) on
the following grounds:
 overdevelopment of the site - size is to maximise use of the land and is to the
detriment of the neighbouring properties. Will introduce overshadowing and
potentially reduce the enjoyment of light and privacy.
 easement of light - close proximity will significantly cut out light which has been
enjoyed since adjoining properties were built (1920s). Our conservatory will lose
light
 unsympathetic design - building would be totally out of keeping with the other
properties in the road both in design and materials
(Concerns also raised in connection with the erection of some outbuildings; this is
being investigated outside of the remit of this application)
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on amenities of neighbours
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the previous meeting to allow the
Committee to visit the site.
The site lies within a designated residential area where proposals of this type are
acceptable in principle under policy SS3. Policy EN4 Design, requires that all
development be designed to a high quality, ensuring that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area and are suitably designed for
the context within which they are set. Design which fails to have regard to local
context and does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not
be acceptable.
This proposal follows refusal of application ref: 13/1009 and extensive discussions
between the applicant and officers to address concerns regarding, in particular, the
impact of the development on the neighbour to the eastern boundary and the overall
form and character of the original proposal. The revised design preserves the current
arrangement to the eastern boundary of a single storey lean-to element. Four roof
lights are proposed here and the introduction of a gable feature to the front elevation.
Development Committee
21
24 July 2014
It is considered that this arrangement addresses previous concerns of overbearing
impact on the neighbour to the east, where a first floor extension hard to the eastern
boundary was originally proposed.
Objection has been received from the neighbour to the western boundary of the site
on grounds of overbearing impacts, loss of light and privacy in relation to the rear
extensions and unsympathetic design. That neighbouring dwelling extends further
back within its plot than the application dwelling and has a conservatory extension at
the rear. No first floor windows are present in that neighbour's eastern elevation. The
proposal will clearly be visible from this neighbouring property as is the existing
conservatory. Maintaining a partial single storey element, which overall would project
approx. 0.4m less than the existing conservatory, along this boundary would, it is
considered, not introduce any significant detrimental impacts on the amenities of the
neighbour to the west. The proposal may introduce some loss of light early in the day
but as the rear of the dwellings face north it is not considered that this would be
significantly detrimental such as to justify refusal of the proposal. In addition the two
storey element near to the western boundary has been designed with a flat roof,
thereby minimising its height to minimise the impact on the neighbour. The main two
storey rear gable extension would sit approx. 5m from the western boundary; no
windows are proposed to its side elevations thereby protecting the neighbours'
privacy. Two first floor windows proposed to the flat roof extension would be fitted with
obscure glazing also to protect the western neighbour from overlooking. The first floor
windows proposed to the rear gable extension would be set back between rendered
piers to minimise any overlooking of neighbouring properties to the east and west and
the separation distance from the boundary to the rear is some 29m, which exceeds
the recommended separation distance for window to window relationships. In any
case that northern elevation faces a large brick built garage and the proposal would
not therefore introduce overlooking of any private garden area to the north.
In respect of the modern design of the proposal, there is a mix of types and styles of
dwellings along Havelock Road, with no single overriding distinctive design and
character to the dwellings. The materials proposed are a mix of painted render as
existing; alteration from clay pantiled roof to a slate type plain tile roof for the whole of
the dwelling and aluminium powder coated joinery in replacement of white upvc
joinery. It is considered that the proposed materials would not be out of keeping with
those of neighbouring dwellings.
Overall it is considered that the scale and appearance of the proposed dwelling would
not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of any neighbouring
dwellings or on the appearance or character of the area or the street scene. The
proposal is considered to comply with the adopted policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to conditions considered to be appropriate
by the Head of Planning.
(7)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0405 - Demolition of toilets and tourist information office
and erection of building to provide A1 (retail shop), public toilets and tourist
information office and re-alignment of rail track and footpath; Information
Centre & Public Toilets, Station Approach for North Norfolk Railway
Minor Development
- Target Date: 02 June 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
22
24 July 2014
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Settlement Boundary
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
83/0096 PF - Public toilets and information kiosk - Approved 11/02/1983
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the demolition of the existing public toilets and tourist information centre and
its replacement with a single storey building containing public toilets, a tourist
information centre and A1 retail shop which would be operated by the North Norfolk
Railway. In addition it is proposed to realign part of the rail track and footpath.
An amended plan has been received which indicates that the building would have a
total floor area of 171 sq. metres of which 49 sq. metres would accommodate the
public toilets, 25 sq. metres the tourist information centre and office and the
remaining 83 sq. metres the shop. The building would be finished in red brick with
white brick detailing to match the existing station with a roof of slate and timber
joinery.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah due to local concerns that the proposed
development would result in a reduction in level of public toilet provision and would
encroach onto land used as a public amenity area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Original Comments: Object to the original proposals on the grounds that there would
be an insufficient number of toilets and that they would not comply with current
regulations. Also that the tourist information centre is the same size as the current
accommodation which has been recognised as being too small. Whilst the increase in
the size of the existing building and realignment of the rail track would result in a
reduction in the present amenity space to the overall detriment of tourism.
Comments in respect of amended plans: Object on the grounds that the amended
plans do not show sufficient scaled details, continues to provide inadequate services
which in the 21st Century should be improved. Also object to the loss in the long term
of a public open space which is essential to Sheringham and for tourism in north
Norfolk.
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection have been received, one of which is on behalf of the
Sheringham Chamber of Trade and another from the Sheringham Enhancement
Group which make the following comments, (summarised):1. There is inadequate available space in the new toilet provision for the
requirement of all users.
2. The proposed shunt line would encroach on a significant part of Ottendorf Green,
affecting the available amenity area.
3. It would appear that there would not be sufficient space for a new pavement
behind the bus shelter which would put more pressure on the pavement on
Station Approach with pedestrians having to use the road frequented by bus
traffic.
4. The size of the proposed tourist information centre is totally inadequate for the
number of customers.
Development Committee
23
24 July 2014
5.
6.
7.
The proposal would seriously harm the tourist provision in Sheringham.
This is a golden opportunity to widen what are congested pavements around the
station and bus stop in Station Approach by setting the proposed building further
back.
The town needs more bicycle parking and space which could be allocated as part
of this scheme.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objections to the demolition of the existing building which is not considered to be of
any particular architectural or historic merit.
Whilst in terms of the replacement building, pre-application discussions have yielded
a built form which would sit comfortably on site and would be compatible with its
surroundings. Although longer than the existing block, the additional enclosure it
provides within the street scene is to be welcomed rather than resisted. With the
building hopefully appearing as a natural continuation of the existing station buildings,
there are no conservation and design grounds to object to the principle of the new
build. However ultimately, the success of the scheme will down to the quality of the
materials and the authenticity of the detailing.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions including
the method of demolition.
Network Rail - No response
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Development Committee
24
24 July 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Design and impact on the Conservation Area.
3. Level of facilities/amenity issues.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated within the Development boundary for Sheringham, which is a
Secondary Settlement as defined by the North Norfolk Local Development
Framework Core Strategy and is also within the town centre and partially with the
Conservation Area, where Policies SS5, EN4, EN8, CT3 and CT5 are considered to
be relevant.
Policy SS5 states that the role of town centres as a focus for a broad range of
shopping, commercial, cultural and other uses will be supported. The tourist industry
will be supported by retaining a mix of accommodation and encouraging new
accommodation and attractions which help diversify the offer and extend the season.
Proposals should demonstrate that they will not have a significant detrimental effect
on the environment, and cycling, walking and heritage tourism will be encouraged by
promoting and enhancing long distance walking and cycling routes and heritage trails.
Policy EN4 states that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness, be suitably designed for the context within which they are set
and that the scale and massing of buildings relates sympathetically to the surrounding
area. In addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Policy EN8 requires that development proposals, including alterations and
extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated
assets, in this case the Sheringham Conservation Area other important historic
buildings, structures, monuments and landscapes and their settings through high
quality, sensitive design. Development that would have an adverse impact on their
special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted. Whilst in respect of
proposals involving the demolition of non-listed buildings these will be assessed
against the contribution to the architectural or historic interest of the area made by
that building.
Policy CT3 states that new or improved community facilities or services will be
permitted within the Principal and Secondary Settlements, Service Villages and
Coastal Service Villages, or within the Countryside where they meet the identified
needs of the local community. Development proposals that would result in the loss of
sites or premises currently, or last used for, important local facilities and services will
not be permitted unless alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available
in the area or will be provided and made available prior to commencement of
redevelopment.
Policy CT5 requires that development be designed to provides for safe and
convenient access on foot, cycle, public and private transport addressing the needs
of all, including those with a disability; and the proposal is capable of being served by
safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of
the locality.
The site is situated within the Development boundary for Sheringham, and is also
within the town centre where a broad range of uses are encouraged including retail
use. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the existing building which was built in
Development Committee
25
24 July 2014
the early 1980s is of little architectural merit, whilst the facilities themselves need
upgrading. It is therefore considered that the principle of replacing the existing
building is acceptable, and would contribute to the vitality and viability of the town
centre.
In terms of the building’s design it is intended that its linear form, together with its
scale and massing would reflect that of the adjoining railway station building. Whilst
the proposed shop front to the retail unit and tourist information centre would help to
present an attractive elevation to Station Approach, which is currently lacking.
Therefore, subject to the use of appropriate materials, which are intended to match
the station it is considered that the proposed building would be in keeping with the
area resulting in an overall enhance of this part of the Sheringham Conservation
Area. This has been confirmed by the Council’s Senior Conservation and Design
Officer who has indicated that hopefully the building will appear as a natural
continuation of the existing station buildings.
As far as the concerns raised in respect of the level of facilities/amenity issues,
although Policy CT3 states that the loss of important local facilities and services will
not be permitted unless alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available
in the area or will be provided and made available prior to commencement of
redevelopment, this is not applicable in the case of public toilets or indeed the tourist
information centre. As such the level of provision is not something the Local Planning
Authority should be directly concerned with and would not provide substantive
grounds to refuse the application.
However, as a comparison, as far as the male toilets are concerned at the present
time they have 13 sq. metres of circulation space, excluding the cubicles of which
there are three. In addition there are two hand basins and a stainless steel urinal
trough, which measures 2.2 metres in length. Whilst the amended scheme would
have a circulation space of 11.5 sq. metres, excluding the cubicles, of which there
would be two, plus two hand basins and a stainless steel trough urinal which would
be 6.3 metres in length. As far as the female toilets are concerned at the present
time there is 8.4 sq. metres of circulation space, excluding the cubicles of which there
are 7. In addition there are two hand basins. This compares to 12 sq. metres of
circulation space, excluding the cubicles of which there would be six, plus three hand
basins in the proposed scheme. In both toilets one of the cubicles would be suitable
for an ambulant person, which is not currently the case. In addition there would also
be a disabled toilet available for either sex. Whilst in respect of the tourist information
centre, the scheme as proposed would result in a floor area of 25 sq. metres which in
fact is 7 sq. metres more than the present building. The issues raised by the Town
Council and objectors are not supported.
Whilst in respect of the proposed realignment of the rail track the proposal would
involve extending the line straight from Platform 1 to a point adjacent to the current
crossing gate by the Signal box, which would allow slightly longer trains to be used.
This proposal would result in the existing footpath to the northern side of the track
being moved further to the north by some 3.4 metres which in turn would effectively
reduce the amount of usable amenity space between the railway and Station Road
from approximately 170 sq. metres to 90 sq. metres. In addition, it would result in the
loss of three small trees. However the remaining area of Ottendorf Green to the east
of the signal box would remain unaltered. Whilst the loss of part of the amenity area is
somewhat regrettable the view from Station Approach would remain virtually
unchanged due to the effective screen hedging and is not considered to be sufficient
grounds to object to the application.
Development Committee
26
24 July 2014
In summary, it is considered that overall the replacement building would result in an
enhancement of this part of the Sheringham Conservation Area, would offer a similar
level of facilities to that which exist whilst the retail unit, which would form an integrate
part of the facilities on offer by the North Norfolk Railway, would help to enhance the
visitor experience. Furthermore, whilst the loss of part of the Ottendorf Green amenity
area would be regrettable it is considered that a usable area would remain available
for use by the general public.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
8.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
GREAT RYBURGH – PF/14/0579 – Erection of four barley storage silos for
Crisp Maltings Group Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
9.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
This report outlines the need to establish a Judging Panel for this year’s Graham
Allen Award for Conservation and Design and to agree the proposed dates for the
judging and presentation of the awards.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design was inaugurated in 1982 as a
memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk District
Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the scheme
considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment within
the District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of historic
properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make innovative use
of traditional building forms and detailing.
Development Committee
27
24 July 2014
A Judging Panel needs to be set up to consider, evaluate and judge submissions
under the award scheme, and make awards accordingly. Membership of this Panel
will be drawn from the Development Committee. Please note that the panel no longer
has to be politically balanced. The Panel comprises nine Members (one of whom will
be elected Chairman), the relevant Portfolio Member, and Mr Edward Allen, Graham
Allen’s eldest son, who once again has kindly agreed to be the permanent
representative from the Allen family. The closing date for entries is 30 June 2013.
It is suggested that the Judging Panel convenes on 22 August 2014 at the Council
Offices to consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will
commence with a short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by
a tour of those short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the
Council Chamber on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with members
of the Judging Panel voting on the entries. The awards will then be presented at a
ceremony later in the year. At the time of writing this report 2 October 2014 after
Development Control Committee would appear to be the preferred date, pending
confirmation of Edward Allen’s availability.
RECOMMENDATION:1.
That the Committee nominates a total of nine Members to form the
Graham Allen Award Judging Panel, one of whom will be elected
Chairman.
2.
That the date for judging the entries be accepted and that the date for
the presentation be noted pending final confirmation.
(Source: Paul Rhymes, Ext: 6367 – File Reference: GA Award)
10.
THE TOWN & COUNTRY (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT)
(AMENDMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)(ENGLAND) ORDER 2014
Purpose of this report
This report highlights the changes to the General Permitted Development rights
introduced by the Town & Country (General Permitted Development)(Amendment
and Consequential Provision)(England)Order 2014, which introduces a new prior
approval process, and as a result seeks amendments to the Scheme of Delegation
and Constitution to be able to determine prior approvals within the specified time
limits.
Key Changes
The key change is the creation of an additional class of permitted development Class
MB which states
Permitted development
MB Development consisting of –
(a) A change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from use as
an agricultural buildings to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses)
of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order; and
(b) Building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building referred
to in paragraph (a) to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of
that of the schedule.
Development Committee
28
24 July 2014
The conditions within the Order require that before beginning the development, the
developer shall apply to the local planning authority for determination as to whether
the prior approval of the authority is required as to
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Transport and highway impacts of the development
Noise impacts of the development
Contamination risks on the site,
Flooding risks on the site or
Whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise
impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use
to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouse)
This new permitted development right is also subject to the condition that before
beginning the development, the developer shall apply to the local planning authority
for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required
as to the design or external appearance of the building.
The Prior Approval process
The system for “prior approval” of change of use of agricultural building to dwellings
is generally the same as the 2013 GPDO amendment, similar to that already set up
for “permitted development” for new farm buildings & telecoms works. Broadly, the
process will involve:







Basic details from the applicant to the Local Planning Authority.
The payment of an administration fee to the Local Planning Authority (£80).
Consultations with Highway Authority & Environment Agency and, Land
Contamination expert: 21 days to respond.
The Local Planning Authority must give notice of the proposal – site notice
and notify Parish and Town Councils
56 days to issue decision – or default approval.
If prior approval is required – the development must accord with plans
approved.
Conditions may be imposed on decision
Scheme of Delegation and Constitution
This Order came into force on 6 April 2014 therefore neither the Council’s
Constitution nor the Scheme of Delegation make reference to it.
With regard to the prior approval process for
telecommunications, both documents state:
agricultural
building
and
Responses to prior notification/approval under the provisions of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995,
involving agricultural buildings and operators (Part 6), development by
telecommunications code system operators (Part 24) and demolition of
buildings (Part 31)
Condition Delegation to: Head of Development Management
(a) Where any representation received from a Town or Parish Council within
seven days of the date of consultation which conflicts with the intended
course of action, the Head of Development Management should consult with
the Chairman of Development Committee and the local Member(s).
Development Committee
29
24 July 2014
(b) Any additional or amended plans submitted under these procedures should
be sent to the relevant Town or Parish Council for information purposes.
The Council is now beginning to receive prior approval notifications under Part MB. It
is therefore recommended that the Scheme of Delegation and Constitution be
amended to include Part MB, with the same provisos as stated above.
It is suggested that Members may wish to receive a presentation on the details of
these changes, if so this can be arranged prior to a future Committee site visits.
Recommendation
Development Committee resolves to recommend that the Constitution and Scheme
of Delegation be amended as follows:
Responses to prior notification/approval under the provisions of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as
amended, involving
agricultural buildings and operators (Part 6),
development by telecommunications code system operators (Part 24) and
demolition of buildings (Part 31), change of use of agricultural building to
dwellinghouses (Class MB)
Condition Delegation to: Head of Planning
(a) Where any representation received from a Town or Parish Council within
seven days of the date of consultation which conflicts with the intended
course of action, the Head of Development Management should consult with
the Chairman of Development Committee and the local Member(s).
(b) Any additional or amended plans submitted under these procedures should be
sent to the relevant Town or Parish Council for information purposes.
(11) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/14/0439 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and
detached garage; Land at Arandora, Chapel Road for Mrs R Lambert
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/14/0312 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
03/1909 to permit full residential occupancy; 1-6 Laurel Farm Barns, Holt Road
for Mr R Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - PF/14/0313 - Removal of conditions 4, 5 and 6 and variation of
condition 10 of planning permission 09/0201 to permit full residential
occupancy; 7 Laurel Farm Barns, Holt Road for Mr R Medler
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - LA/14/0420 - Alterations to outhouse including increasing width of
door and re-roofing; Edingthorpe Hall, Church Lane, Edingthorpe for Tharros
Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
30
24 July 2014
BACTON - NMA1/10/1248 - Non material amendment request to permit the
increase ridge height to 4m, raise the side walls by one brick course and omit
window to north elevation; Monks Lawn, Priory Road for Mr E Howard
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/0452 - Erection of single-storey front extension; The
Coach House, Church Road for Mr J Lawrence
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/0392 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
first floor side dormer; Croftway, Church Close, West Runton for Mr & Mrs T
Bolam
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0527 - Conversion of outbuilding to annexe (revised design
incorporating changes to window, doors and installation of rooflight); 39 High
Street for Mr A & Ms C Livsey & David
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/0562 - Removal of render from front elevation; 100 High
Street for Blakeney Neighbourhood Housing Society
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0551 - Installation of dormer window and alterations to
annexe roof; Scriveners, Cley Road for Mrs D Walker
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0570 - Raising of roof height and installation of additional
and replacement dormer windows; Boat House, 1 Westgate Street for Mr J
Flanagan
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0659 - Erection of rear extension; 42 Morston Road for Mr A
Gillings
(Householder application)
BRINTON - PF/14/0436 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
two-storey replacement dwelling; New Homestead, Sharrington Road for Miss J
Carman & Ms E Stevens
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/14/0515 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage (revised
layout design); Land adjacent Lineside, Macks Loke for Mr & Mrs P Stowe
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - PF/14/0635 - Erection of front porch; Hubbard Cottage, Fenside for
Mr & Mrs Yates
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0345 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning
permission reference: 12/0927 to permit revisions to approved design including
omission of rear annexe and raised height of parapet; Marshlands & Travellers
Rest, Coast Road for Mr S Scamell-Katz
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
31
24 July 2014
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0477 - Installation of two rear dormer windows
and alterations to rear balcony; Millers House, High Street for Mr W Edwards
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0497 - Change of use from residential outbuilding
to A1 (retail shop); West Cottage, New Road for Mr A Rousso
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/13/1527 - Installation of replacement glazing; Cromer Town
Council, North Lodge, 21 Overstrand Road for Cromer Town Council
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/14/0552 - Installation of flue; Cromer Methodist Church Hall, Hall
Road for Cromer Methodist Church
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0469 - Change of use from D2 (gymnasium) to B8 (storage);
Exchange House, Louden Road for G L Burdett Marketing Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0573 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 18 Grove Road
for Mr R Moore
(Householder application)
DILHAM - PF/14/0598 - Erection of single-storey side extension; The Grange,
Chapel Road for Dr C Portas
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - LA/14/0599 - Erection of single-storey side extension to facilitate
conversion of outbuildings to habitable accommodation; The Grange, Chapel
Road for Dr C Portas
(Listed Building Alterations)
DILHAM - NMA1/13/0604 - Non material amendment request to permit removal of
rooflights to side roof slopes, change bi-folding doors to rear to French door,
external cement cladding at first floor level to side elevations to grey painted
cement render and the use of soft red bricks; 5 Canal View, The Street for Mr C
Bailey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/0473 - Installation of four roof windows and soil stack;
Broad Chapel, Chapel Road for Mr P Downs
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/0278 - Removal of conditions 12, 13 and 14 of planning
permission reference 09/0940 to permit full residential occupation; Hall Farm
Barns, Stalham Road for Mr R Hannant
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/0550 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 06/0944 to permit full residential occupation of Unit 2; The Old
Piggery, Mill Road for Mr & Mrs Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/0628 - Erection of replacement garage; 1 Wood Farm
Development Committee
32
24 July 2014
Cottages, Plumstead Road for Mr S Fordham
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0489 - Erection of front extension; 9 Rudham Stile Lane for
Mr T Mullis
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0567 - Erection of replacement single-storey side extension;
71 Jubilee Avenue for Mr & Mrs B Swift
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1083 - Erection of two detached single-storey dwellings with
garages; Land rear of 217/219 Norwich Road for Mr A Codling
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0500 - Erection of building to provide D1 (place of worship);
Land at Clipbush Park, Clipbush Lane for Fakenham Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/14/0530 - Raising height of chimney stack; The Old House,
Swan Street for Mr Exton
(Listed Building Alterations)
FELBRIGG - PF/14/0008 - Conversion of outbuildings to five units of holiday
accommodation; Wayside Farm, Cromer Road for Mr Armstrong
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/14/0513 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 06/0662 to permit full residential occupation; Oak Tree Barns, North
Walsham Road for Mr & Mrs A Evans
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/14/0514 - Variation of Conditions 2 and 3 and Removal of
Condition 4 of planning permission reference: 98/0150 to permit full residential
occupation of holiday units; Oak Tree Barns, North Walsham Road for Mr & Mrs
A Evans
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/14/0631 - Variation of Condition 15 of planning permission
reference: 07/1437 to permit revised scheme for off-site highway improvement
works; Land at Goulders Lane for Dove Jeffery Home Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/14/0517 - Installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic
array; Astley Farms, Grange Farm Office, The Street, Barney for Astley Farms
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - NMA1/13/0424 - Non material amendment request to insert
window into gable of proposed rear single-storey extension; Garden Cottage, 10
Southrepps Road for Mr D Billingham
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GREAT SNORING - PF/14/0445 - Conversion and extension of former workhouse
to provide residential dwelling; Thursford Castle, Thursford Road for Mr & Mrs
M Hickling
Development Committee
33
24 July 2014
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/14/0472 - Removal of Condition 7 of planning permission
reference: 10/0218 to permit the use of livery stables for hiring of horses/riding
lessons; Stables at Hollymoor House, Heath Road for Mr & Mrs B Marquis
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - NMA1/14/0366 - Non material amendment request to permit
change of glazed roof to tile on conservatory roof; Solway, 21 Pineheath Road
for Mr M Silver
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/14/0476 - Erection of front entrance porch; 2 The Street for
Mr & Mrs G R Bould
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/14/0407 - Change of use of land from agricultural to
garden and erection of detached single-storey annexe; Station Cottage, Station
Road for Mr & Mrs Davison
(Householder application)
HOLT - NMA1/06/1453 - Non material amendment request to permit raising of the
proposed extension roof height to match the existing building; 29 Charles Road
for Mr D Craske
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOVETON - PF/14/0468 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 59 Stalham
Road for Mr M C Rivett
(Householder application)
INGWORTH - PF/14/0197 - Erection of single-storey side extension, first floor
rear extension, conversion of outbuilding to habitable accommodation, change
of use of land from agricultural to garden, erection of summerhouse,
conversion of barn to habitable accommodation and erection of 2m high front
boundary wall; Hill Farmhouse, Priory Lane for Mr M Pepper
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/14/0243 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; Outbuildings adjacent
Flint Barn, Old Hall Street for Mr P Rickard
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/14/0571 - Replacement and relocation of roof light; Well Barn,
Holt Road for Mr and Mrs Ewing
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/14/0443 - Conversion of barns to eight residential
dwellings and garages; Manor Farm Barns, The Street for Park Farm Barns Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/13/0453 - Conversion of former control tower to one unit of
holiday accommodation and conversion of watch tower to garage/store
(extension of period of commencement of planning permission reference
PF/10/0195); Old Control Tower, Malthouse Lane for Mr C Dean
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
34
24 July 2014
MUNDESLEY - PO/14/0446 - Erection of one and half storey dwelling; The
Stables, 41A High Street for Mrs H Straw
(Outline Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0621 - Erection of replacement carport; 24 Cromer Road
for Dr J Beavon
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - PF/14/0528 - Erection of rear conservatory; 6 Woodside, School
Lane, Butchers Common for Mrs Gedge
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0456 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension and
detached garage; 49 Bacton Road for Mr & Mrs Sturgess
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0534 - Erection of front extension; 10 Lynfield Road
for Mr B Metcalf
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0540 - Erection of extension to front porch; 2
Harbord Close for Mr & Mrs D Pittman
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA2/12/0931 - Non material amendment request for
revised doors, roof light and materials; 21 Station Road for Mr & Mrs N Dyke
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0522 - Relaxation of Condition 9 of planning
permission reference:12/0029 to permit construction of dwellings without
complying with level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; 48-50 Bacton Road,
North Walsham for AMF Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/0447 - Conversion of garages to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Templewood, Frogshall for Mr and Mrs E Anderson
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - LA/14/0448 - Alterations to garages to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation; Templewood, Frogshall for Mr and Mrs E Anderson
(Listed Building Alterations)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/14/0303 - Erection of three single-storey dwellings with
garages and erection of four two-storey dwellings; Land off Station Road, Potter
Heigham for Alan C Bracey Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PM/14/0535 - Formation of vehicular access drive in association
with erection of two-storey dwelling; Uphouse Farm, Swaffham Road, South
Raynham for Uphouse Farm Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
RUNTON - PF/14/0455 - Extension of caravan site to provide twenty-four
additional pitches with access roads; Seacroft Camping Park, Cromer Road,
East Runton for The Caravan Club
Development Committee
35
24 July 2014
(Full Planning Permission)
RYBURGH - PF/14/0499 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 25 Mill
Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr S Watts
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0462 - Installation of replacement windows; Flat 1 & 2, 4
South Street for Mrs S Howard
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0459 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 70 Barford
Road for Miss A Garnavos
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/13/0936 - Non material amendment request to permit
reduction of footprint size of workshop/hobbies room and garden store and
insertion of window to garage to facilitate use as games room; 39 St Austins
Grove for Mr A Cotogno
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/13/0611 - Non material amendment request to replace
glazed apex on south elevation with vertical cedar boarding; Rose Bank, New
Road for Mr P Swann
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SMALLBURGH - PF/14/0401 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension (part
retrospective); Foxley Dell, Yarmouth Road for Mr & Mrs Turner
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/13/1304 - Change of use from workshop / showroom to
residential dwelling; The Old Chapel, Wells Road for Mr R Belsten
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - NMA1/08/1591 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
French doors in place of window; 1 Ingham Road for Mr R Phelan
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/14/0368 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning
permission reference: 08/0326 to permit full residential occupation; Pond Farm,
The Hill for Mr H Read
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/14/0640 - Erection of one and a half storey and single-storey
side extensions; The Heathers, Hindringham Road for Mr and Mrs Myhill
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/14/0509 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 07/0730 to permit full residential occupation; Millers Farm, Mundesley
Road for Mr M Bagguley
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0332 - Relaxation of Condition 7 of planning
permission reference: 10/0964 to delete requirement for Code Level 2 to be met;
26 Church Lane for Mrs Holman
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
36
24 July 2014
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0536 - Demolition of outbuildings and conversion
of public house/living accommodation to two residential dwellings; Red Lion,
The Street for John Ashton Children's Settlement
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/0487 - Insertion of rooflight to rear; Roman Catholic
National Shrine, Pilgrim Bureau, Friday Market Place for The RC National Shrine
of Our Lady, Walsingham
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - NMA1/13/0097 - Non material amendment request to permit
revised layout and design of access ramp; St Seraphims, Station Road for St
Seraphims Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0480 - Variation of Condition 2 of Listed
Building consent reference: 13/1277 to permit revised joinery and opening lights
to south elevation; Globe Inn, The Buttlands for Mr S Bournes
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0103 - Erection of attached three-storey dwelling
and construction of rear balcony to 18 Staithe Street; 18 Staithe Street for T P
Keville Construction Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0471 - Raising of rear eaves height and roof; 10
Freeman Street for Mr S Carter
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0493 - Installation of front and side dormer
windows and access gantry and alterations to front balcony; Shipwrights, East
End for Mr & Mrs R Laucht
(Householder application)
WITTON - NMA1/14/0020 - Non-material amendment request for revised design
of gable window; Whitehouse Barn, Old Hall Road for Mr R Taylor
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WORSTEAD - LA/14/0577 - Erection of front porch; Bengate House, Tucks Road,
Bengate for Mr C Rogowski
(Listed Building Alterations)
12.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
HICKLING - PF/14/0409 - Conversion and extension of stables to provide
residential dwelling; The Croft, Stalham Road for Mr & Mrs A Simmonds
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0537 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling;
Land adjacent 17 Hazell Road for Mr D West
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PO/14/0525 - Erection of a detached single-storey dwelling with
Development Committee
37
24 July 2014
accommodation in the roof space; Wayside, Cromer Road, West Runton for Mrs
S Warren
(Outline Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/14/0466 - Erection of replacement timber dwelling; Dolphins,
The Marrams for Mr Dunn
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0450 - Continued use of land as camp site and retention of
amenity block; The Barn, Bolding Way for Mr C Harrison
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
13.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one twostorey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills for PP3
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
14.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None
15.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
HICKLING - PF/13/1456 - Variation of Condition 13 of planning permission ref:
12/1397 to permit revised access/visibility details; Bay Cottage, The Green for
Anne Thorne Architects LLP
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road for Mr R Banester
16.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/1157 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide two-storey dwelling; Heath Barn, Britons
Lane, Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8TP for Mr T Field
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for development
described as “erection of bungalow with care facilities and associated works, together
with removal of static/holiday caravans and conversion of two existing properties into
a single dwelling.” After outlining the planning history of the site, the Inspector
identified the main issues as highway safety and the effect of the proposal on the
character and appearance of the area.
On the highways issue the Inspector described in some detail the existing and
proposed access arrangements and concluded that the proposed development would
have an unacceptable effect on highway safety and thus conflict with policy CT5 of
the Council’s adopted Core Strategy.
Development Committee
38
24 July 2014
Turning to character and appearance, the Inspector noted that the proposed dwelling
would be well screened from Britons Lane and that views from neighbouring
dwellings would be filtered by existing trees. The new dwelling would also be set
amidst trees and against a backdrop of rising ground and would not break the skyline
in the wider landscape. The Inspector also considered that the appearance of the
site would be improved by removal of the existing caravans, sheds and outbuildings.
Part of the Council’s case was that the development would be potentially detrimental
to the AoNB but the Inspector did not share these concerns and concluded that the
scheme would not materially affect any important views.
The Inspector therefore concluded that there would be no material harm to the
character and appearance of the area but that the appeal would be dismissed on
highway safety grounds only.
DILHAM - PO/13/1170 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent Cleavers,
Broadfen Lane, Dilham for Mr & Mrs D Cowburn
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of outline planning permission for a detached
dwelling in Broadfen Lane, Dilham. The Inspector identified the main issues as

whether this is a suitable site for housing having regard to the principles of
sustainable development and housing land supply; and

highway safety
On the first issue the Inspector referred to the requirement in paragraph 55 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that isolated new homes in the
countryside should be avoided. He described the relationship of the appeal site to
Dilham (which is not designated as a “service village” in the Council’s Core Strategy
and thus designated as countryside).
The Inspector noted the appellants’
submissions that the proposal would not be isolated by virtue of being an infill plot in
a linear group of houses, where permission had been granted for two dwellings in the
1990s. However these permissions preceded both the Core Strategy and the NPPF
and the Inspector therefore gave little weight to these issues.
Part of the Appellants’ case was that the Council does not have a five year supply of
deliverable housing land and that the presumption in favour of sustainable
development (paragraph 49 of the NPPF) is therefore applicable. The Inspector
referred to the definition of sustainability in the NPPF and concluded that an
additional dwelling in this location would add to the supply of housing but do little to
add to the local economy and would result in environmental harm in this rural
location. The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would be
unsustainable development in the countryside, harmful to the rural character of this
location and therefore contrary to policies SS1 and SS2 of the Council’s Core
Strategy.
On highway matters, the Inspector noted that Broadfen Lane is a narrow unclassified
road with limited verge width, high banks and restricted visibility at junctions.
Although there have been no recorded accidents in the vicinity the Inspector took the
view that the additional traffic likely to be generated by another dwelling cannot be
safely accommodated on the local road network. The Inspector therefore concluded
that the proposal would contravene policy CT5 of the Council’s Core Strategy.
Development Committee
39
24 July 2014
The appeal was dismissed.
An application for costs was also made against the District Council but refused.
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0914 - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to
residential dwelling; Land adjacent 2 High House, Happisburgh for Miss L
Hughes & Mr P James
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
The District Council refused planning permission for conversion of a stable and hay
barn to a dwelling at High House, Happisburgh and an appeal was made to the
Secretary of State. The Inspector determined that the main issue was whether this
development was an appropriate conversion of a rural building under policy H09 of
the Council’s adopted Core Strategy.
In deciding the appeal the Inspector assessed the development against the criteria in
policy H09 and also against the supporting text to that policy in paragraphs 3.2.23 to
3.2.31 of the Core Strategy. The Inspector then went on to consider the broader
objectives of the Core Strategy, specifically policy SS2 which is permissive towards
new development in the countryside only where it requires a countryside location.
In an interesting and well-reasoned decision, the Inspector concluded that the criteria
in policy H09 are largely met in this case. The building is in an area where policy
H09 applies (criterion 1), it has a sufficiently attractive appearance to merit retention
(criterion 2), it is in very good order (criterion 3 requires the building to be structurally
sound) and the proposed development is of an appropriate scale (criterion 4). As the
scheme is for a single dwelling, criterion 5 (affordable housing for schemes of two or
more units) is not relevant to the appeal.
The Inspector then went on to assess the development against the supporting text of
policy H09 and other relevant Core Strategy policies. He noted that the appeal site is
in open countryside and that the appeal building was (in his view) recently
constructed. He noted that there had been a number of representations in support
and that the Appellants had referred to their personal circumstances in their appeal
submissions.
The Inspector concluded that (notwithstanding the appeal building largely conforming
with the criteria specified in Core Strategy policy H09), the proposed development
would conflict with that policy and also with policy SS2. He noted the benefits which
the proposal would bring to the appellants but concluded that “these do not come
close to outweighing the proposal’s substantial conflict with policies H09 and SS2.”
The appeal was dismissed.
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/1296 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Woodside, 24 Danish House Gardens,
Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0PD for Mr R Porter
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
This appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a chalet bungalow at
Danish House Gardens, Overstrand. The Inspector identified the main issue to be
the effect on protected trees.
The Inspector recorded that the trees on the site are subject to a Tree Preservation
Development Committee
40
24 July 2014
Order (TPO) and noted the contents of an Arboricultural Assessment submitted with
the planning application and went on to assess the respective submissions of the
appellant and the Council with regard to the protected trees.
The Inspector concluded that the appeal proposal would have an unacceptably
detrimental impact on the protected trees and would therefore be contrary to Policy
EN4 of the Council’s Core Strategy.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
(Source: Roger Howe (Planning Legal Manager) Ext. 6016)
17.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (1) and David Mack (2) (Bodham Turbine)
Planning application PF/11/0983 for the proposed erection of a wind turbine at Pond
Farm, Bodham was refused by the District Council in August 2012. That decision
was the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State and the Inspector, Mr Alan
Novitzky, allowed the appeal and granted permission for the proposed turbine. The
appeal
decision
letter
was
issued
on
8
April
2013
(reference
APP/Y2620/A/12/2184043).
The Council initiated a legal challenge against the Inspector’s decision under Section
288 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 and the case was determined in the
High Court in the Council’s favour. The application (Mr Mack) then applied to the
Court of Appeal, seeking leave to appeal against the High court judgment.
Permission was refused by way of an order made by Lord Justice Sullivan. That
order was issued on 2 June 2014 and Lord Justice Sullivan stated that “the sole
ground of appeal does not have a real prospect of success.”
A copy of the Order is appended for the Committee’s information (Appendix 1).
The decision of Lord Justice Sullivan was made “on the papers”, that is without an
oral hearing. The Civil Procedure Rules provide that where the appeal court, without
a hearing, refuses permission to appeal that decision may be reconsidered at a
hearing provided that the request for such a hearing is filed within a stated time limit.
A request was made and the hearing will take place on 16 October 2014 (a copy of
the Court’s letter dated 13 June is appended (Appendix 1).
(Source: Roger Howe (Planning Legal Manager) Ext. 6016)
Development Committee
41
24 July 2014