OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 24 OCTOBER 2013
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.
BODHAM - PF/13/0960 - Installation of 3.6mw solar development; Land at Pond
Farm for Genatec Limited
Major Development
- Target Date: 18 November 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/11/0983
Installation of single wind turbine
Refused: 30 Aug 2013 Appeal Allowed:08 Apr 2008 - Appeal being challenged by
LPA (Court date 22 Jan 2014)
THE APPLICATION
Proposes the erection of a solar farm with a capacity of 3.6MW set across
approximately 8 hectares of predominantly grade 3b and part grade 4 agricultural
land at Pond Farm, Bodham. A 3.6MW solar farm equates to approximately 15,300
individual solar panels to be installed on site. The panels would be sited on the
western boundary of an existing agricultural field in a broadly rectangular
arrangement.
The panels would be ground mounted on angled racks with the highest point of the
panels rising to approximately 3 metres above ground level (dependent on ground
conditions). The site would be enclosed by 2.2m high security/deer fencing (colour to
be agreed). Within the fenced site the applicant proposes to house 3 inverter units in
total along the western boundary which convert the direct current generated by the
solar panels into alternating current to feed into the electricity grid. Each inverter unit
would measure approximately 6.1m in length x 2.4m wide with a maximum height of
approximately 3.2m. A freestanding brick-built substation is proposed in the northwest corner of the site measuring approximately 5m long x 4.7m wide x 2.7m high
(flat roof design or 4.1m high with pitched/hipped roof design). A temporary
construction compound is also proposed immediately north of the proposed solar
farm. In addition a CCTV system is proposed consisting of 15 infrared CCTV
cameras to be mounted on 3m high poles.
Development Committee
1
24 October 2013
The applicant has provided further clarification and details in respect of access,
drainage and archaeology. The application is supported by a Landscape Visual
Impact Assessment.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
To comply with Committee requests for all solar farms to be determined by the
Development Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Bodham - Supports the application
Adjacent Parishes:
East and West Beckham - Objection - The area proposed has a lack of screening in
its present state and it will be several years before hedges have grown sufficiently
high. Good agricultural land will be taken out of production when alternative and less
productive sites could be available in other areas.
West Beckham - comments awaited
Baconsthorpe - has no objection or comment
Matlaske - has no objection or comment
REPRESENTATIONS
19 Representations have been received, 10 in support and 9 in objection.
Summary of comments in objection:
1. Concerned about effect on wildlife;
2. Will set a damaging precedent;
3. In combination with the proposed wind turbine, the impact on the landscape and
historic assets would be significant;
4. We do not believe it is right to assess this application without first knowing the
High Court's decision on the wind turbine;
5. The proposal would industrialise the beautiful unspoilt Norfolk landscape;
6. It would look like a prison with its perimeter fence and security cameras and
would be out of character with the surrounding area;
7. Will have a negative impact on tourism - the visual impact will be seen by
walkers, cyclists, bird watchers etc;
8. Would result in a loss of productive agricultural land - a brownfield site would be
preferable;
9. If the panels are permitted they should be removed after use;
10. It would take time for proposed landscape mitigation to have any effect
11. The proposal would degrade the landscape;
12. Cumulative impact issues need to be considered;
13. Will adversely affect the quality of life for nearby residents;
14. Concern about reflection from panels affecting highway safety;
15. Question whether there is grid capacity for this development;
16. There may be Roman remains nearby and an archeological survey should be
undertaken;
17. Taller hedges may adversely affect light levels for walkers and cyclists on new
Road and Rectory Road - both designated cycle routes;
18. There is no public benefit from this proposal;
19. This proposal is driven by subsidies.
Summary of comments in support:
1. Fossil fuels can only be used once and we need to all play our part to conserve
them;
2. This proposal will help contribute to renewable energy provision in the District;
3. The site will be screened and fenced;
Development Committee
2
24 October 2013
4.
5.
6.
7.
Should support farmers seeking to diversify;
Will not have a significant adverse impact;
Would rather have solar than fracking;
The proposal would have considerable educational benefit for teaching children
about renewable energy;
8. The location of the panels will not adversely affect anyone;
9. The precedent has been set already nearby at East Beckham;
10. The proposal will enhance biodiversity through wildflower meadows;
11. The existing farm needs to remain viable and this project will enable it to do so.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - A Landscape & Visual
Impact Assessment (dated 1st August 2013) (LVIA) has been carried out by The
Landscape Partnership as part of the submitted information. I am satisfied that it has
been prepared in accordance with the latest accepted methodology (Guidelines for
rd
Landscape & Visual Assessment, 3 edition, 2013, Landscape Institute & IEMA).
No objection in principle to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions to
secure, amongst other things, additional landscape mitigation, appropriate CCTV
systems, biodiversity enhancement and appropriate landscape management regimes
(see copy of detailed comments at Appendix 1).
County Council (Highways) - Having reviewed the application and proposed delivery
route to the site, I have some concerns regarding the size of delivery vehicle and the
narrow, sinuous nature of the proposed route along the C308 Church Road/Osier
Lane. I would request that the applicant considers revising the size of vehicles
utilised for delivery to a smaller unit capable of easily negotiating the narrow country
lanes and revise the delivery route to provide a one way loop to prevent an increase
in conflicting vehicle movements on these narrow roads, as implemented on other
solar developments in the vicinity. A suggested route would inbound from the north
using the C309 Sheringham Road, onto C309 Long Lane to the site with exit
movements utilising the originally proposed route via C308 Church Road, emerging
within the 30 mph limit at High Kelling.
Further comments awaited
Environment Agency - The site lies in Flood Zone 1. As the site is over a hectare a
Flood Risk Assessment is required to demonstrate that the proposed development
will not increase flood risk elsewhere. The planning application includes a FRA by
Plandescil dated October 2012, and referenced 17756. The FRA states that 'the
solar panels will be raised above the ground therefore they will not create an
impermeable surface at ground level. It is considered that rain falling on each solar
panel module will runoff the panel and infiltrate into the underlying soils at the same
rate as the existing site'. However the slope of each of the solar panels is
approximately 3m long so 3m worth of rainfall will fall on the panel and will all runoff
to a single point below the panel. Therefore this will not replicate the existing situation
as currently the 3m width of rain would fall onto 3m width of ground. The FRA should
determine where the concentrated rain would flow, and whether it would increase the
runoff off site.
It may be beneficial to install cut-off filter drains around the lowest boundary of the
site to prevent the runoff from increasing flood risk off-site. The cut-off drains should
be sized to accept the runoff from the site in the 1 in 100 year rainfall event including
climate change. Alternatively the contours around the solar panels could be altered to
ensure that the rainfall falling off the panels spreads out under the panel to replicate
Development Committee
3
24 October 2013
the existing situation. The FRA should address these points, to demonstrate that the
proposed solar panel development would not increase flood risk elsewhere.
Further comments awaited
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure
that no transformer proposed to be installed on the site as part of this permission
shall be audible above background noise level beyond the boundaries of the site
Natural England - Comment Only -From the information provided with this
application, it does not appear to fall within the scope of the consultations that
Natural England would routinely comment on. The lack of specific comment from
Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts
on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in
significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. It is for the
local authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national
or local policies on biodiversity and landscape and other bodies and individuals may
be able to help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of the
environmental value of this site in the decision making process, LPAs should seek
the views of their own ecologists when determining the environmental impacts of this
development.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No objection - Based only on an assessment of the
potential effects of the development on the landscape quality of the Norfolk Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and on the views from the AONB, I
confirm that the Norfolk Coast Partnership does not object to this planning
application.
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - Objection - The application
contains a desk based assessment of the proposed development area. However, the
desk based assessment fails to address the numerous cropmarks visible across the
site on GoogleEarth imagery (particularly that dated 9/10/2006). There are numerous
parallel linear features and enclosures, together with circular features, partially
masked by larger-scale geological changes. The nature and significance of these
features is not known, but it is possible that the circular features are formed by burial
mounds (frequently found on hilltops in Norfolk), which frequently form the focus for
later settlement and funerary activity.
We recommend, therefore, that the developer withdraw their application, and
resubmit with the results of a magnetometer survey, in accordance with paragraph
128 of the NPPF. Without such a survey, we recommend that there is currently
insufficient information to determine the impact of this development on the historic
environment.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
4
24 October 2013
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 EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 1: Farm diversification (specifies criteria for farm diversification).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Environmental Impact Assessment
2. National Policy
3. Local Policy
4. Principle of the development
5. Landscape
6. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
7. Impact on Biodiversity
8. Impact on Residential Amenity
9. Light Pollution
10. Highway Safety
11. Impact on Footpaths
12. Flood Risk
13. Contamination
14. Archaeology & Impact on Listed Buildings and other Historic Assets
15. Renewable Energy benefits
16. Cumulative Impact Issues
APPRAISAL
Consideration of the application follows a Committee visit to the site and surrounding
area.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. A Screening Opinion was produced upon receipt of this application concluding
that the solar proposal is not considered to be EIA development and the potential
impacts could be properly and rigorously assessed through the standard planning
Development Committee
5
24 October 2013
process. Following the receipt of consultation replies, Officers remain of the opinion
that the proposed solar farm is not EIA development.
National Policy Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy,
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Planning
Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Although the thrust of
the previous policy in PPS guidance has been carried forward into the Framework,
the wording is more condensed. However, some of the supporting guidance has
been retained for the time being including the Practice Guidance to PPS22 –
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The CS was
adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the Framework
and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the
determination of this application.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development’.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:





have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed
satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for colocating potential heat customers and suppliers’.
Development Committee
6
24 October 2013
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:


not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall
need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even smallscale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if
its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for
renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local
planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for
commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the
proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas’.
In considering this proposal, officers have taken account of the advice set out within
paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:


approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-ofdate, granting permission unless:
 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
 specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted’.
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 sets out the guiding
principles in planning for renewable energy and the bigger picture facing the UK and
at paragraph 2.1 states:
‘Global climate change is a recognised phenomenon of international significance.
The continuing production of ‘greenhouse gases’, and carbon dioxide in particular, is
contributing to the increasing rate of climate warming. This runs counter to the aims
of sustainable development as the effects, including sea level rise and the increased
frequency of extreme weather events, have human, environmental and economic
costs which can be very great. Tackling climate change is a necessary condition for
sustainable development, so the UK has signed up to a number of international
agreements in an attempt to address this situation’.
Paragraph 2.5 goes on to state:
‘The successful introduction of renewables in all parts of England will involve the
installation of different kinds of schemes in different contexts, from rural areas to
densely populated areas, market towns to suburban streets. Every local authority has
something to offer in terms of renewable resources, and opportunities to encourage
Development Committee
7
24 October 2013
more efficient use of existing energy. The Government expects each authority to
contribute to meeting the targets and reducing overall demand for energy’.
Local Plan Policy - North Norfolk Core Strategy
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where Core Strategy Policy SS
2 would support the principle of renewable energy projects, subject to compliance
with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Policy SS4 states that renewable energy will be supported where impacts on
amenity, wildlife and landscape are acceptable.
Policy EN 7 states:
‘Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of
sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide
environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain and their
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and integration
of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will be permitted where
individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on;



the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic, broadcast
interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure will not
be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are
not compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are
sympathetically designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures
and meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the proposed
development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area’.
When considering landscape and visual impact, officers have taken account of
advice not only within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) but also advice within
Policy EN 2 (Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character)
which states:
‘Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:



the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
Development Committee
8
24 October 2013





the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses,
woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological
corridors for dispersal of wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map’.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
There is no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a sequential approach
to site selection and therefore the key factors influencing location choice for the type
of development proposed include, amongst other things, availability of land to
accommodate the development and availability of and distance from electrical grid
connection. The principle of the proposed development in this location is considered
acceptable subject to compliance with Core Strategy policies and relevant material
considerations such as Government advice.
LANDSCAPE
The site lies centrally within the Tributary Farmland landscape character type as
defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (SPD June 2009).
The broad characteristics of this landscape type are an open character with long
uninterrupted views, a sense of height gained from the extensive high domed
plateau, arable land use and rolling topography punctuated by woodland and hedge
field boundaries. The site is located within the TF3 sub-area where dispersed
settlement and loss of field boundaries are typical features.
A key consideration is the effect of a relatively large area of solar panels and
associated infrastructure on the character and appearance of this character type and
also the wider landscape. The proposed development would occupy approximately 8
hectares (approximately 20 acres) of arable land.
The submitted LVIA concludes that the development would have a Moderate
Adverse Significance of Effect on the TF3 sub area in Year 1, reduced to Minor
Beneficial in Year 10. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager would
agree that this would be the case once the landscape mitigation has established and
field boundaries are restored. The effect on the whole Tributary Farmland Type is
assessed as Minor Adverse in Year 1 reducing over time to No Change and, on the
neighbouring Wooded with Parkland (WP5) Landscape Type, as No Change. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers this to be a fair
assessment.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that the change of
land use will undoubtedly have a bearing on the landscape character. The
introduction of multiple built structures set in uniform rows, together with the inverter
stations, security fencing and CCTV cameras make up a large scale development
that will not be in keeping with the pastoral nature of this traditional rural landscape.
Although forming a large geometric element in the landscape, the development is
however relatively low level with the tallest elements being approximately 3m high. In
this regard substantial boundary landscape proposals have the potential to form
mitigation that is effective in reducing the negative visual and landscape effects.
Development Committee
9
24 October 2013
The LVIA states in Section 12.2 that within the local vicinity of the site the small
copses and hedge boundaries together with the local landform significantly limit
views of the site and the influence that the development would have on the local
landscape character. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager would
concur with this assessment and agrees with the conclusion of the applicant that the
landscape has a high to moderate capacity to accommodate this type of
development, subject to appropriate location and mitigation to ensure successful
integration into the existing landscape.
Whilst relatively well screened from wider views beyond the site, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager considers that the visual impact would be greatest
from Osier Lane along the northern boundary of the site, which is part of the Sustrans
Regional Cycle Route 30. This is confirmed by the LVIA assessment at Viewpoints 4,
5, 6 & 7 where a Major Adverse Significance of Effect is predicted in Year 1. Due to
the aspect of the field it is the support frame at the back of the panels that will be
most visible from Osier Lane. However with the proposed mitigation designed
specifically to reduce this effect and to reinforce traditional field boundaries, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that this effect would, for
the most part, be considerably reduced by Year 10.
Due to the relatively low level of the development, the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager considers that the proposed mitigation will, in time, be effective
in forming a partial screen of the solar array. The planting proposals are generally
considered appropriate in terms of design and species selection and will integrate
and reinforce the local landscape character in line with the recommendations
contained in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment.
Some further improvements in respect of mitigation, biodiversity enhancement and
landscape management are recommended by the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager and these can be secured by way of planning conditions.
In respect of loss of agricultural land, the applicant originally indicated that the land is
designated as grade 3 agricultural land. The applicant has subsequently advised that
it is a combination of grade 3b and 4. This is relevant because guidance at paragraph
112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is material to the
determination of the application, advises that 'Where significant development of
agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should
seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.'
Whilst the loss of farming land for crop growing is regrettable, this ultimately has to
be balanced against the potential environmental and biodiversity benefits of reduced
nitrogen use on the land for the duration of the solar farm and the potential for
biodiversity enhancement together with consideration of any renewable energy
benefits. Whilst commercial crop growing would be prevented for the duration of the
development, the loss is only temporary and would be reversible. In any event the
applicant has indicated that sheep grazing could take place under panels to manage
the grassland and therefore could be seen as a form of farm diversification.
Officers consider that the temporary loss of some grade 3b agricultural land for crop
production would not be sufficient to justify refusal.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate mitigation
planting, biodiversity enhancements and landscape management, it is considered
that the landscape impact of the proposal would be broadly compliant with relevant
Development Plan policy.
Development Committee
10
24 October 2013
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
The site lies approximately 1700m (approx 1 mile) south of the southern boundary of
the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a designated
landscape. The AONB was designated in 1968 in recognition of its scenic beauty,
remarkable landscape and cultural diversity and unique and special wildlife.
The Norfolk Coast Partnership have been consulted and, based only on an
assessment of the potential effects of the development on the landscape quality of
the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and on the views from
the AONB, the Norfolk Coast Partnership does not object to this planning application.
Officers consider that, although resulting in a change in land use from arable to
industrial, the impact of the proposal on the ‘special qualities’ of the AONB could not
be assessed as significant.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, particularly those conditions required to
secure proposed landscape mitigation, Officers consider that the proposal would
accord with Core Strategy Policy EN 1.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
An Ecological Report prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology, dated March 2013 has been
submitted and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers the
report to have been carried out to accepted guidelines and comprised a Desk Study
and Phase One Habitat Survey. The Survey concluded that the development would
have ‘no significant impacts on valued ecological interests’ and the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager considers this is a fair assessment.
The mitigation measures put forward in Section 6 of the Report are considered to be
proportionate and in line with the landscape proposals.
Officers conclude that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would not
have a significant detrimental impact on biodiversity interests in the area and would
comply with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN 9.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
In respect of impact on residential amenity, the nearest property to the site is the
applicant's dwelling known as Pond Farm, which lies approximately 30m due west on
the other side of New Road. This property is well screened from the development by
existing mature hedging along New Road.
Other properties nearby include Hill Farm, which is located at the junction of New
Road with Rectory Road and is located approximately 100m due north on the
proposed solar farm site. This property currently has a reasonably clear view into the
field and the applicant has recognised this through proposed landscape mitigation to
help screen the proposal. 1 and 2 Camp Farm Cottages and 'The Pylons' are located
approximately 250m east north east of the solar farm site on Osier Lane. These
properties would have a view of the proposed solar farm across the fields, particularly
1 and 2 Camp Farm which are two storey in height.
The Committee has had the opportunity to view the development site from various
locations and therefore will be able to appreciate the relationship between residential
properties and the application site.
Development Committee
11
24 October 2013
Whilst the proposed solar farm may be visible from the properties, given the distance
between residential properties and the application site and having regard to the
height of the panels, it is not considered that the proposal solar farm would in any
way result in overbearing impacts or loss of daylight or sunlight. The panels are
designed to absorb sunlight and therefore glare is not likely to occur from the panels
themselves.
In respect of the CCTV system, whilst they are generally required for insurance
purposes, the applicant has provided basic details setting out the type of cameras to
be used and the number and intended location of cameras on site. Having learned
from the experience of systems on other sites within the District, Officers consider
that, because of the distance from properties (in excess of 100m), cameras would not
be likely to pose a significant risk to the amenity of residents. Nonetheless, it is
recommended that a condition be imposed requiring approval of the details of the
CCTV system prior to its installation to ensure that the CCTV to be installed is an
inobstrusive as possible both in terms of visibility in the landscape and impact of
amenity. Furthermore, conditions are suggested to ensure that additional landscape
mitigation is secured, which will assist in reducing the impact of the proposal on the
amenity of the nearest residential properties.
Officers are of the understanding that no loudspeaker system is proposed and
conditions could be imposed to ensure this remains so.
In respect of noise or other disturbance it is not considered that the proposal would
give rise to unacceptable impacts.
Officers consider that the proposal would not likely result in any significant adverse
impacts to residential amenity and the proposal would comply with the requirements
of Core Strategy Policy EN 4. Nonetheless it is recommended that conditions be
imposed to ensure, amongst other things, that noise impacts remain acceptable and
to ensure that the CCTV system to be installed is first approved by the Local
Planning Authority.
LIGHT POLLUTION
In respect of any concerns about light pollution, it is understood that the applicants
are not proposing to erect external lighting. In any event, were the Committee minded
to approve the application, conditions could be imposed which would prevent
external lights being installed without the prior approval of the Local Planning
Authority.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
It is considered that the proposed development would not pose a highway safety risk
during its operational life with very few vehicle movements associated with
maintenance and repair of the panels once constructed and few vehicles movements
associated with the maintenance of the grassland. It is only during the construction
phase when a significant number of vehicle movements will be generated and it is
delivery of the panels to site that would be likely to create the most number of vehicle
movements. The Highway Authority have raised concerns regarding the size of
delivery vehicles and the narrow, sinuous nature of the proposed route along the
C308 Church Road/Osier Lane. The Highway Authority have requested that the
applicant considers revising the size of vehicles utilised for delivery to a smaller unit
capable of easily negotiating the narrow country lanes and have also recommended
revision of the delivery route to provide a one way loop to prevent an increase in
conflicting vehicle movements on these narrow roads, as implemented on other solar
developments in the vicinity. The route suggested by the Highway Authority would
Development Committee
12
24 October 2013
inbound from the north using the C309 Sheringham Road, onto C309 Long Lane to
the site with exit movements utilising the originally proposed route via C308 Church
Road, emerging within the 30 mph limit at High Kelling.
The applicant has confirmed that he would be happy to implement the suggested
circular delivery route detailed by the Highway Authority. With regard to vehicle size
the applicant has indicated that he would be happy to bring the solar modules to site
on rigid lorries as opposed to articulated lorries. This would increase the number of
traffic movements but decrease their size.
A further response has been sought from the Highway Authority and Committee will
be updated orally.
On the basis that the applicant has agreed to implement the majority of the
suggestions put forward by the Highway Authority, subject to no further objections
from the Highway Authority, it is considered that the proposal would accord with Core
Strategy Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
IMPACT ON FOOTPATHS
In relation to the impact of the development on footpath users, Bodham Footpath
No.9 runs north-south approximately 200m due east of the application site. Whilst the
solar farm may be visible from the footpath and views of slow moving receptors such
as walkers would therefore be affected by the proposal it is not considered that the
development would have a significant adverse effect on users of the footpath.
FLOOD RISK
The application site area is above 1 hectare in size and therefore the applicant needs
to consider surface water flooding issues. The Environment Agency has provided
some comments on measures to deal with surface water discharge, in respect of
which the applicant has responded indicated that he would not expect the nature of
the development to increase significantly the surface water run-off and does not
consider the application to pose any additional flood risk. The Environment Agency
have been asked for further comments and the Committee will be updated orally
Subject to no further concerns from the Environment Agency, the proposal would
accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the proposed development is not considered to pose any
significant risks nor are there any previous land-uses on site which would require
consideration in relation to contamination.
The proposal would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
ARCHAEOLOGY & IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDINGS AND OTHER HISTORIC
ASSETS
The applicant has submitted a desk-based assessment produced by nps
archaeology which suggests that there is considered to be a 'reasonably low
potential for archaeological remains of any period to be located below ground within
the proposed site of the solar array'.
Norfolk Historic Environment Services have noted the conclusions of the desk-based
assessment submitted by the applicant and have commented that 'The application
contains a desk based assessment of the proposed development area. However, the
desk based assessment fails to address the numerous cropmarks visible across the
Development Committee
13
24 October 2013
site on GoogleEarth imagery (particularly that dated 9/10/2006). There are numerous
parallel linear features and enclosures, together with circular features, partially
masked by larger-scale geological changes. The nature and significance of these
features is not known, but it is possible that the circular features are formed by burial
mounds (frequently found on hilltops in Norfolk), which frequently form the focus for
later settlement and funerary activity'.
Norfolk Historic Environment Services have recommended that a geo-physical
(magnetometer) survey be undertaken ahead of permission being granted to
ascertain whether there are likely to be any deposits on site which would require
further investigation. The applicant has indicated that a survey will be carried out but
would be happy for it to be attached as a condition if the scheme were approved.
Having regard to other similar development recently approved at East Beckham (ref:
PF/13/0772), archaeological works were secured by way of planning condition and
Officers consider that suitable conditions may also be appropriate in this instance,
particularly as the time to undertake a survey will take the planning decision out of
time. There is clearly a risk that archaeological deposits may be found but, in the
event that further archaeological evaluation or investigation is required following
receipt of the results of the magnetometer survey, Officers propose planning
conditions which require those works to take place before each panel mount, base or
fence post is erected on site and will require the results of any further required
evaluation or investigation to be shared with Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Services and the Local Planning Authority.
In respect of impact on other heritage assets in the area, the closest designated
heritage asset is All Saint Church, Bodham (Grade II* listed) approx 1km north west
of the site and the Grade II listed Chestnut Farmhouse, The Street, West Beckham
approximately 800m due north away. Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe
Hall) - Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade I listed building (Castle), Grade II listed
building (Hall) is located approximately 1.3km west of the site
In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a
listed building or its setting, Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the local planning authority shall have
special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any
features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Having regard
to these requirements, it is not considered that the proposed solar farm would
adversely affect the setting of the above identified listed buildings or any features of
special architectural or historic interest which they possess.
In addition Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 places a general duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a
Conservation Area. This is coupled with the requirements of Core Strategy policy
EN8, which requires development to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. The nearest Conservation Area is located at
Baconsthorpe and Officers conclude that the proposal would have no impact on the
Baconsthorpe Conservation Area on any other Conservation Area in the District.
It is considered that the proposal would therefore accord with the general aims of
Core Strategy Policy EN 8.
Development Committee
14
24 October 2013
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Policy EN 7 requires that large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver
economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area.
The applicants have commented as to how the proposal would comply with this
element of Policy EN 7 in their design and access statement and that the benefits are
primarily related to renewable energy generation.
The applicants have indicated that the proposed solar farm would generate
approximately 2.88GWh (2,880,000KWh) of electricity per annum based on a stated
capacity of the solar farm of approximately 3.6MW. Putting the predicted electricity
generation into context and using the latest Department for Environment and Climate
Change (DECC) figures (approximately 4715.5 kWh of electricity were used per
consumer (household) annually in North Norfolk). Using this figure the proposed
solar farm would generate enough electricity to power approximately 610 homes
annually. This would make a significant contribution towards meeting national
renewable energy targets, to which significant weight can be attached.
It is considered that the proposal would broadly comply with the requirements of
Policy EN 7.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS AND
PROJECTS IN THE AREA
A number of representations have been received in relation to concerns about the
cumulative impact of proposed renewable development in and around Bodham and
East Beckham. In addition to the proposed solar farm, concerns have been
expressed about the cumulative impact of this scheme together with the 86.5m high
wind turbine approved at Bodham by the Planning Inspectorate under planning ref:
PF/11/0983. Whilst the Local Planning Authority are currently seeking to challenge
the Planning Inspectorate's decision regarding the Bodham turbine, until such time
as the Courts decide otherwise, permission is granted for the turbine and therefore
cumulative impact considerations should be taken into account, where appropriate
and relevant to do so.
The proposed Bodham wind turbine together with the proposed solar farm would be
clearly visible together, particularly from views to the north of the site along Osier
Lane and Rectory Lane and this in-combination impact would take time to mitigate
through the addition of proposed hedgerows and woodland copses to help screen the
solar farm. However, because of the topography of the site and the presence of
existing hedgerows along the western boundary, wider views of the solar farm and
the turbine together would not be likely to occur. Likewise, Officers consider that the
solar farm approved at East Beckham (ref: PF/13/0772) would not be visible together
with the proposed solar farm at Pond Farm.
Whilst the turbine at Bodham would be visible on the skyline from certain locations
and also visible with the proposed solar farm, this relationship and cumulative impact
in itself is not considered to be significantly detrimental to the wider landscape
setting, particularly as there will only be limited views of the solar farm development
with the turbine. Refusal based on cumulative impacts of the Bodham turbine and the
solar farm(s) could not therefore be justified.
Based on the available evidence there is no reason to suggest that the Committee is
unable to determine this solar farm application, particularly if the Committee has
taken account of other developments in the area.
Development Committee
15
24 October 2013
SUMMARY
Whilst the installation of a 3.6MW solar farm would, amongst other things, have some
adverse visual impacts on the surrounding landscape, it is considered that these
impacts can be made acceptable. It is considered that the proposal would not have a
significant adverse impact on residential amenity and, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan
policies.
In addition, the public benefit of the proposal in terms of renewable energy
generation is a material consideration to which significant weight should be afforded
in accordance with the guidance set out in paragraph 98 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to no new grounds of objection from
outstanding consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including those relating to landscape mitigation, landscape
management and biodiversity enhancement.
2.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0783 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 3 of
planning permission reference: 10/1030 to permit revised layout and
appearance including retention of existing lean-to previously indicated as
being demolished; The Barn, The Street, Saxthorpe for Mr M Mace
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 August 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Flood Zone 3 1:200 chance sea/1:100 chance river
Flood Zone 2 - 1:1000 chance
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/10/1030 PF - Conversion of barn to dwelling
Approved 21/12/2010
PLA/20021449 PF - Change of use from storage and distribution to residential
Withdrawn 22/11/2002
PLA/20020689 PF - Change of use from storage and distribution to residential
Refused 29/08/2002
PLA/19890527 PF - Use of barn for storage and distribution of frozen foods
Approved 26/04/1989
PLA/19870173 PF - Storage and distribution of frozen foods
Temporary Approval 06/04/1987
PLA/20021775
PF - Continued use of land for siting of refrigerated storage
containers
Temporary Approval 24/01/2003
PLA/20030474 PF - Retention of refrigerated storage container
Refused 30/04/2003 D 02/01/2004
PLA/20031215 PF - Extension to barn to provide storage and secure parking of
vans
Withdrawn 09/10/2003
Development Committee
16
24 October 2013
THE APPLICATION
The application proposes amendments to the scheme as approved under
PF/10/1030, including the retention of a lean-to (previously to be demolished), a
change to the positioning and design of openings, a change to the internal layout and
re-location of a flue.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor J Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issues:
Overlooking.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response to date
REPRESENTATIONS
2 representation have been received (from the same objector) raising the following
objections:
 Advertised as incorrect address;
 Primary concern in respect of North-West elevation which is in close proximity;
 Loss of privacy;
 Overbearing;
 Overlooking to house on east, south and north sides and garden nearest to
house (being part of garden with most south light);
 Closeness to boundary;
 Openings appear substantially greater in terms of opening sizes than previously
approved;
 Integrity of barn as a former historic agricultural building impaired by introducing
this style and scale of openings on the gable end at all. Would, therefore, oppose
introduction of openings in any event;
 If decision made to introduce openings in that elevation, then concerns are that
the top height of the first floor opening should be kept as low as possible and that
the total opening area should be kept as low as possible;
 Both barn and Chestnut House previously in same ownership.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: no objection subject to conditions: Changes proposed do not
alter previous comments made in respect of PF/10/1030. The requirement to
undertake a full contamination land risk assessment remains.
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Development Committee
17
24 October 2013
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of development
 Design
 Impact on neighbouring dwellings
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site lies within an area of designated Countryside. The conversion of the barn
was given permission under Planning Permission Reference PF/10/1030 with
consideration to the Saved North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 29. This application seeks
to amend this previously approved scheme.
Design
The retention of a single-storey extension (to be partly demolished under the
previous scheme) is considered to be acceptable.
Amended openings proposed under this scheme would broadly respect those
openings already approved without significantly enlarging upon them. The
introduction of roof lights on the south-west elevation has already been accepted
under the previous scheme and, as such, whilst it is considered unfortunate that this
scheme would introduce further roof lights, it is not considered that this would warrant
a refusal. Windows on the north-west elevation would be increased in number, with
four windows at ground floor level and three at first floor level. Whilst it is unfortunate
that the openings would not now be as balanced, it is not, in this instance, considered
to warrant a refusal, given that the amendments have been proposed to help and
alleviate some of the neighbour concerns and given that the elevation would not be
overly visible within the streetscene.
As such, the design of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and
compliant with the aims of Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Impact on neighbouring dwellings
In respect of the potential for loss of amenity, overlooking and overbearing impact,
concern has been expressed by the owner of the property to the north-west. It is
understood that this property was in the same ownership of The Barn at the time of
the original approval.
The north-west elevation would see an increase in the number of openings, from 4 to
7. Openings would be wider, with glazing measuring approximately 2.2 wide at
ground floor level and 1.6m at first floor level.
The ground floor windows would continue to serve a living room as before. At first
floor level, the larger window would become the main window serving the master
bedroom (on the original scheme, 2 windows had been proposed, serving Bed 1 and
Bed 2).
Development Committee
18
24 October 2013
In this instance, given existing boundary treatment, it is not considered that there
would be any significantly detrimental increase in terms of overlooking from the
ground floor window.
In terms of the first floor windows, the amount of glazing would increase, however, it
is also recognised that any overlooking would be limited to one room. Given this and
given that distances are in excess of those recommended by the Design Guide Basic
Amenity Criteria, it is not considered that refusal of permission would be justified in
respect of increased overlooking or overbearing impact to the original scheme.
In summary, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including the below:
1
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plan (drawing
number D2.1-176-pro C) received by the Local Planning Authority on 7
October 2013.
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 development hereby permitted shall be constructed in full accordance
with the flood mitigation measures identified in the email from the agent to the
Local Planning Authority on 16 September 2013.
Reason:
To protect the property and its inhabitants from the potential risk of flooding, in
accordance with the requirements of Policy EN10 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
3.
NORTHREPPS - AI/13/1037 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 2 Old
Station Yard, Norwich Road for Mr A Oxtoby
- Target Date: 28 October 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Advertisement Non-Illuminated
CONSTRAINTS
Advertising Control
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to display a non-illuminated oblong sign on the gable end of the industrial unit
facing the Norwich Road. The advertisement would provide general details of the
business and would be made of aluminium composite with silver lettering on slate
grey.
(Application has been amended by removing previously proposed illumination to the
advertisement.)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is married to the Council's Chief Executive.
Development Committee
19
24 October 2013
PARISH COUNCIL
Raise no objection to the non-illuminated advertisement but raise concern in respect
of the illuminated advertisement which is outside the Dark Skies Policy.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: No objection
County Council (Highways):No objection
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 Design Guide (Adopted December 2008):
Chapter 8: Shopfronts and Advertisements
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Visual impact and highway safety
APPRAISAL
The application originally proposed a non-illuminated advertisement and an
illuminated advertisement to be positioned on the front and side elevations of the
industrial unit. The non-illuminated advertisement to be positioned above the
pedestrian entrance does not however require express consent. Following concern
raised by the Parish Council in respect of the proposed illumination of the
advertisement proposed to the gable end of the building, the applicant has amended
the proposal and omitted the illumination. The application to be determined is
therefore for the display of one non-illuminated advertisement.
Part 8 of the Design Guide allows businesses to advertise themselves successfully. It
is, however, recognised that advertisements must pay due regard to their
surroundings and to be part of the overall design of the host building. When
considering their suitability, consideration should be given to the scale, form,
detailing, lettering style and colour to ensure that the advertisements do not appear
as unsympathetic.
Given the nature of the use and the position of the building close to other businesses,
there are no objections to the principle of advertisements. In terms of detail, the
design is vital in ensuring the compatibility of the of the advertisements with their
surroundings.
In this instance, it is considered that the size, position, style and form of the proposed
advertisement would be in keeping with the prevailing character of the building and
surrounding area.
Development Committee
20
24 October 2013
No objections have been received from the Highway Authority or the Council's
Environmental Health Officer. The Parish Council raised concern in respect of
illumination and the proposal has been amended to the display of non-illuminated
signage only.
It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would introduce no
adverse visual impact on the building or surrounding area and no adverse impact on
highway safety and as such the proposal is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the imposition of standard
advertisement condition.
4.
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
Minor Development
- Target Date: 04 September 2013
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0148 PF
Erection of first and second floor rear extensions to provide self-contained unit of
holiday accommodation
Refused 18/04/2013
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a single storey rear extension to provide a self-contained unit of
holiday accommodation and installation of roof light.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Pedestrian access and parking
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of inadequate access, lack of amenity space and the lack of
parking.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the following
points:



Pedestrian access
Not adjacent to car park
Existing parking problems
Development Committee
21
24 October 2013







Will result in noise, disturbance and detriment of neighbouring properties
Does not afford adequate privacy
Human Rights
Un-neighbourly
No vehicular access
No disabled access
Security issues with rear access
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The site
lies within the designated Sheringham Conservation Area. The building forms the
end property to the original terrace fronting onto Morris Street. Whilst the building is
not of special architectural merit it does make a contribution to the prevailing
character of the area.
In regards to the proposal, the buildings position being adjacent to the public car park
means the rear elevation is visible from the public domain. The previous application
submitted (PF/13/0148) was for a two-storey extension which carried much more
visual impact and was much bulkier in its massing the current proposal being
considered.
This revised scheme being single-storey is subservient and in terms of design is
much more in-keeping in terms of form and proportions. The use of render and tiles
raise no heritage cause for concern.
In the event of the application being approved the following conditions should be
attached:Prior to the commencement of development samples of the proposed tiles shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The work shall then be carried out
only in strict accordance with the approved details.
By virtue that the proposal will not harm the significance of the heritage asset,
Conservation, Design and Landscape raise no objection to the application.
County Highways - Whilst this development for holiday accommodation does not
provide any parking provision, given the sites proximity to public car parks and the
availability of suitable on street parking places, I find that I am unable to raise any
sustainable objection. Therefore, I am able to comment that in relation to highways
issues only that Norfolk County Council does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
22
24 October 2013
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 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 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 neighbouring properties
3. Impact on Conservation Area
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
This application follows the refusal of application reference 13/0148 which was for
first and second floor rear extensions to provide for a unit of holiday accommodation.
That application was not considered acceptable by Officers and was refused under
delegated authority for the following reasons:
"The Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposal constitutes an
unacceptable form of development. It is considered that the proposed alterations
would result in a building out of proportion with the existing terrace form, and that the
overall scale and massing of the proposal is unsympathetic to its surroundings and
would result in a development that would be overbearing, overshadow and would
exacerbate overlooking and loss of privacy to the significant detriment of the privacy
and amenities of the occupiers of the immediate surrounding dwellings.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development Plan
policies."
However, since that refusal the current application has been submitted for
consideration (13/0851).The site is located within the Residential Policy Area and
Conservation Area. The High Street and designated Town Centre are located just to
the east of the site. There is on street parking along Morris Street as well as a public
car park. Given the location of the proposed development the principle is considered
to be acceptable, subject to appropriate scale, design and materials, relationship to
neighbouring dwellings and car parking.
The current application has quite significantly reduced the scale of the proposed
extension from the previous application to single storey only. The extension will
project approximately 0.5m further to the rear with the addition of a rear bay of
approximately 1.3m x 3m. The width at ground floor has been increased for only part
of its length from 3.5m to 4.5m. A pitched roof will be added to the rear with highest
point to the ridge being some 4.3m, the gable ends would face south west and north
east. There is no change to the scale or form of the first floor from that which is
already there. In the existing south west first floor elevation instead of a window to a
bedroom and wc there will only be a single window to a bedroom. At ground floor
Development Committee
23
24 October 2013
there are currently windows to a kitchen, utility/porch and back door. Under this
proposal the windows in this ground floor elevation will be to a bedroom and
bathroom and a door to the entrance hall. There is also a high level circular window
in the gable end of the extension. There will also be a roof light in this elevation to the
roof space in the loft. It is considered that the alterations to the fenestration are
minimal and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and
amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, the scale of the
single storey extension is also acceptable in this location and would not have a
significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of
neighbouring dwellings.
The Committee will note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
raised no objection to the application. Whilst the building is not considered to be of
special architectural merit it does make a contribution to the prevailing character of
the area. However, the proposal under this application is subservient in terms of its
design and more in keeping with the form and proportion with the existing dwelling. It
is not therefore considered that the proposal would have significant harm on the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The holiday accommodation proposed would be self-contained, and have its own
pedestrian access to the rear of the site. The existing dwelling of 8 Morris Street
would maintain its pedestrian access onto Morris Street. It should be noted that any
one of the dwellings along this road could be used for holiday accommodation and
this would not actually require planning permission. It is not therefore considered that
this proposal would cause any more noise or disturbance to residents than if it was a
dwelling.
With regard to car parking the existing dwelling has no on site car parking provision,
which is the same for the majority of dwellings along Morris Street. Parking for
dwellings in this location is on the road. Whilst one unit of holiday accommodation
would be created, if this application were to be approved, and would normally require
the provision of two car parking spaces the site is located within the Conservation
Area and in close proximity to the Town Centre where there is on street parking and
a public car park. The site is located within a Conservation Area where a reduced
provision may be appropriate. In this case the Highway Authority have been
consulted and have advised that whilst the proposal does not provide any parking
provision given the sites proximity to public car parks and the availability of on street
parking they are not able to raise an objection in this case. In view of this it is not
considered that there is sufficient justification to warrant a refusal on lack of parking
grounds.
Whilst the objections of local residents and the Town Council have been taken into
consideration the Committee will note that the scale and design of the proposal is
considered acceptable and that no objections have been received from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Highways Officer. It is not
therefore considered that a refusal can be justified in this instance. The proposal is
therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan
policies for the reasons explained in this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to appropriate conditions including agreeing roof tiles prior to
use, removal of permitted development rights for alterations and extensions
including insertion of further windows and rooflights, and holiday occupancy
restriction.
Development Committee
24
24 October 2013
5.
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0897 - Variation of Condition 2 and Removal of Condition
9 of planning permission reference 10/0126 to permit installation of render in
lieu of timber cladding.; 7 Museum Cottages, Station Road for Mr W Jepson
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 September 2013
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070989 PF - Alterations to building to provide bin store
Approved 20/07/2007
PLA/20081228 PF - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to two-storey dwelling and relocation of bin-store
Refused 21/09/2009
PLA 28/09/2010 PF/09/1140 PF - Conversion of A1 (Retail Shop) to Two-Storey
Dwelling
Refused 27/01/2010
PF/10/0126 PF - Conversion of Redundant Shop to Dwelling
Approved 14/05/2010
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a variation to Condition 2 and the removal of Condition 9 of planning
permission reference PF/10/0126. The variation to the conditions would allow a
change to the permitted materials to the exterior walls of the property. The
application seeks to substitute the permitted timber cladding with render.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor R. Smith having regard to the following planning issues:
1) Policy EN4: The property is within a Conservation Area and as such the alterations
are not in keeping with the surrounding properties.
2) Policy EN8: The use of render has implications for failing to protect and enhance
the historic environment.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the application on the grounds that rendering would make the property
substandard and would not be in keeping with the cottages behind the property.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): No
objection to the principle of render, however, concern was raised regarding the colour
of the render. The applicant suggested 'White' coloured render whereas the
Conservation and Design Officer suggested 'Cream' coloured render.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Development Committee
25
24 October 2013
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 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Would the proposed changes be out of keeping with the surrounding properties?
2) Would the proposed changes fail to protect the special qualities and
distinctiveness of the Conservation Area?
APPRAISAL
The principle of the development has previously been established with the granting of
approval to planning application number PF/10/0126. The current application relates
to the finish applied to the exterior walls of the property, and it is this which is to be
considered against North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy
Policies EN2, EN4 and EN8
Policy EN2 requires that the development should demonstrate that its 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).
Policies EN4 and EN8 require that all development be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness.
The property currently has timber cladding; albeit in poor condition:
1) Below the roof line to the front and rear elevations
2) Above the eaves to the (west) side elevation (limited access/viewing prevented
confirmation of cladding to the (east) side elevation)
Museum Cottages, nearby, are of brick and flint construction, and although they have
first-floor timber doors (no longer in use) they do not feature timber cladding. With the
exception of a second-storey extension to the rear of a property on Station Road,
which can be viewed from Museum Cottages, there are no other properties in the
immediate vicinity with timber cladding. This is in contrast to the number of properties
that are of either brick and flint construction or have render applied to their exterior
walls. Given that the host property is located away from public view the proposed
rendering of the exterior walls would not compromise the character, special qualities
or local distinctiveness of the neighbourhood or the wider Sheringham Conservation
Area.
Development Committee
26
24 October 2013
It is considered that the change of exterior materials from timber cladding to render
accords with Development Plan Policies
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the following condition:
Details of the external colour finish to the render shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. The development shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/0990 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden;
Land rear of Rosebank, Thurgarton Road for Mr D Biss
(Full Planning Permission)
AYLMERTON - NMA1/13/0628 - Non material amendment request to permit
insertion of additional French doors in north elevation; Dunroamin, Holt Road
for Mr J Umphray
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BACTON - PF/13/0906 - Erection of single-storey extension (retrospective); 1
Bacton Wood Cottages, Plantation Road, Witton for Mr K Hart
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/13/0987 - Change of use from public house to residential dwelling;
The Ship Public House, Coast Road for Mrs M Delaney
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/13/0982 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 13/0447 to permit change of roof tile; Hersanmine, Smallburgh Road
for Mr J Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0998 - Erection of side and rear extensions and front
porch; 14 Abbey Park for Mr & Mrs Linstead
(Householder application)
BINHAM - LA/13/0944 - Retention and alterations to garage to provide habitable
accommodation; 4 Field Dalling Road for Mr A Farley
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/1011 - Part demolition of workshop/store and raising of flat
roof to pitched and installation of cladding; Sedges, Back Lane for Mr R Jones
(Householder application)
Development Committee
27
24 October 2013
BLAKENEY - LA/13/0801 - Removal of rendering to expose flint work to north
elevation; 83, 85, 87 & 89 High Street for Blakeney Neighbourhood Housing
Society
(Listed Building Alterations)
BODHAM - PF/13/1013 - Removal of Condition 1 of planning permission ref:
10/1034 to permit permanent retention of bore hole housing and portable toilet;
The Fishing Lakes, Hart Lane for Mr D Wright
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/13/1007 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 06/1051 to permit permanent residential occupation; Watermere
Barn, Thurning Mill Lane for Mr A Horwood
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/13/0904 - Variation of Condition 5 of planning permission
reference: 12/0449 to permit access and parking arrangements to be made
available within three months of occupation and variation of Condition 8
(revised contamination condition); The Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs M Daniels
(Full Planning Permission)
BRUMSTEAD
PF/13/0138
Conversion
of
outbuildings
to
classrooms/workshops and offices; The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Road for
Clover Childcare Services
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - LA/13/0966 - Insertion of and enlargement to doors on rear
elevation and lantern window to flat roof of existing extension; The Cottage,
Wood Street for Mr P Miller
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0978 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Woodside, The Fairstead for Mr T Savory
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/13/0256 - Non material amendment request to
enclose the ground floor area below the balcony on south west elevation and
insert bi-folding door; Riverside, High Street for Mr A Livsey
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0748 - Variation of condition 2 of
planning permission ref: 10/0961 to permit installation of first floor window and
revised first floor layout.; Barns adjacent Manor Farm, Norwich Road, Corpusty
for Mr L Walsh
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0149 - Retention of attached garage; Field
Cottage, Town Close Lane, Little London, Corpusty for Mr J Bannister
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/13/0967 - Erection of 1.8 metre fence (retrospective); 18 Burnt
Hills for Mr R Armstrong
(Householder application)
Development Committee
28
24 October 2013
CROMER - AN/13/0913 - Continued display of non-illuminated advertisements;
Carpet Right Unit D, North Norfolk Retail Park, Holt Road for Carpetright
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
CROMER - AI/13/0916 - Continued display of one externally illuminated and one
non-illuminated advertisement hoardings; Lidl, Holt Road for Lidl
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/13/0890 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 16 Norman
Trollor Court for Miss L Jamieson
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/1016 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 06/1298 to permit continued permanent residential occupation;
Swallow Barn, Old Farm, Drabbs Lane for Mr A Davison
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/13/0655 - Erection of garden wall and installation of revised
fenestration; Lowes Farm, Hunworth Road for Stody Estate
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - LA/13/0656 - Erection of garden wall, revised fenestration and
installation of front door and rooflight and external and internal alterations
including alterations to stair; Lowes Farm, Hunworth Road for Stody Estate
(Listed Building Alterations)
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/1039 - Removal of conservatory and erection of orangery;
Corner Cottage, Chapel Road for Mr Chambers
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0995 - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of
seven two-storey dwellings; Sanders Coaches, Claypit Lane for Sanders
Coaches Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/1023 - Erection of single-storey replacement rear extension;
219 Norwich Road for Mr A Codling
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0957 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings with
accommodation in roof space; 1 Howland Close for JP Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0958 - Erection of first floor side extension; 32A Hayes Lane
for Mr J Edwards
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0961 - Continued siting of portable office building; Stable
Studios, Oxborough Lane for A&B Management Services Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PO/13/0601 - Variation of Conditions 3,4,5,6,7 & 10 of planning
pemission reference: 12/1005 to permit revised layout for erection of five
dwellings; Abbeyfield, 134 Norwich Road for GCMD Developments Ltd
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Committee
29
24 October 2013
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0893 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 17
Olivia Close for Mr & Mrs Loades
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0827 - Erection of 1.8m high boundary fence; 142 North
Park for Mr P Knowles
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0881 - Erection of play equipment on grass amenity area.;
Amenity Area Near 9 Mervyn King Close for Wherry Housing Association
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/13/0917 - Removal of garage and erection of single-storey
side/rear extension; Belmont, Aylsham Road for Mr Vass
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - NMA1/13/0389 - Non-material amendment request for revised
window and door arrangements; School Lane Cottage, 10-11 School Road,
Saxlingham for Mr & Mrs I Farmer
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HANWORTH - PF/13/0779 - Erection of one and a half-storey replacement
dwelling; Woodside, The Common for Mr & Mrs J Askew
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - LE/13/0789 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling; Woodside, The
Common for Mr & Mrs J Askew
(Conservation Area Demolition)
HEMPTON - PF/13/0932 - Retention of tree house; Heworth House, 5 Raynham
Road for Mr D White
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/13/0888 - Erection of attached replacement garage and
single-storey rear extension and insertion of side rooflights; 58 Pineheath Road
for Mr V Buck
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/13/0833 - Retention of summerhouse; 79 The Street for Mr
R G Hulett
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/13/0834 - Internal first floor alterations and installation of
replacement rear windows and door; 5 & 5a Market Place for Mr B GarnhamSmith
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - NMA1/13/0494 - Non-material amendment request for installation of solar
panels; Land at Ainsworth Road for Cripps Developments Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOLT - PF/13/0894 - Erection of single-storey side extension (retrospective); 16
Mill Street for Mr S Edwards
(Householder application)
Development Committee
30
24 October 2013
HOLT - PF/13/0939 - Erection of single-storey extension to detached garage to
create annexe; Prospect House, Norwich Road for Mr M Beck
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/13/0854 - Variation of Conditions 3 & 7 of planning permission
reference: 11/0978 (residential development of up to 85 dwellings) to permit
revised specification for Cley Road access which would serve 15 dwellings in
lieu of 12 dwellings; Land off Cley Road and Woodfield Road for Norfolk Homes
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/13/0959 - Internal alterations to first/second floor flat, re-instatement
of rear window, removal of door and installation of window; 22A High Street for
Miss D Bottrill
(Listed Building Alterations)
HONING - PF/13/1025 - Erection of first floor side extension; 3 North End
Cottage, East Ruston Road for Mr and Mrs Chambers
(Householder application)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/13/0981 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 11 The
Street for Mr G Thompson
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/13/0887 - Erection of two-storey side extension and single-storey
rear extension; 27 Weynor Gardens for Mr & Mrs Starling
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - NMA2/06/0770 - Non material amendment request to replace pair of
single windows with French doors and insertion of window to ground floor rear
elevation of plots 15, 16 and 17; The Langham, North Street for Avada Langham
Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LANGHAM - NMA1/11/0890 - Non-material amendment request to permit
reduction of width of dwelling frontage by 0.6m; Land adjacent Rowan Cottage,
Hollow Lane for Ms P Booden
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/13/0427 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning
permission reference: 03/1237 to permit permanent residential occupation;
Church Farm Barns, The Street for Oak Park Farms Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - PF/13/0396 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 97/0999 to permit permanent residential occupation; Bramble
Cottage, Fritton Road for Mr T Woolcock
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - PF/13/0926 - Change of use of land from agricultural to garden and
construction of tennis court (part retrospective); Land rear of The Old Manor
House, The Street for Ms K Neill
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
31
24 October 2013
MELTON CONSTABLE - NMA1/13/0208 - Non material amendment request to
permit the change of pitched roof to flat roof and the installation of roof lantern
to rear extension; 15 Gordon Road for Mr W Basham
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/13/0925 - Erection of detached garage/storage
building; Stables at Burgh Parva Barns, Holt Road for Mrs K Paterson
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - NP/13/1120 - Prior notification of intention to erect
agricultural storage building; Land at Intwood House, Melton Park for Mr
Lockhart
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/0368 - Retention of wall-mounted freezer unit; Royal Hotel,
30 Paston Road for Mr A Fotis
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/1055 - Erection of extension to site manager's office; 65
Links Chalet Park, Links Road for Mundesley Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
NEATISHEAD - PF/13/0943 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Glen View,
77 The Street for Mrs A Little
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0785 - Conversion of A1 (retail shop) to residential
flat; 8A Kings Arms Street for Mr M Cubitt
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0876 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use
of A3 (restaurant) and A5 (hot food take-away); 9 Market Street for Mr B
Myumyun
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0681 - Erection of first floor side extension and twostorey rear extension; 9 Manor Road for Mr M Dennis
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/13/0905 - Installation of air conditioning unit; 40 Market
Place for Wiggly-Amps Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0920 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; The
White House, Holgate Road for Mr D Coop
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0922 - Erection of rear extension to garage
(retrospective); 35 Swafield Rise for Mr D Mason
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0927 - Change of use from B8 (storage) to D1 (day
care centre); Unit 12a, Folgate Road for Your Choice Social Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
32
24 October 2013
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0942 - Erection of front porch; 22 Long Barrow Drive
for Mr & Mrs Botting
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - HN/13/1056 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey
rear extension which would project from the original rear wall by 3.6m and
would have a maximum height of 3.8m and eaves height of 2.7m; 16 Kimberley
Road for Mr P Millard
(Householder Prior Notification)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA2/11/0517 - Non material amendment request to permit
replacement black mortar to plinths and installation of electricity substation;
Land off Wood View for Youngs Homes
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0992 - Erection of first floor side extension; 7 Willow
Close for Mrs K Kerfoot
(Householder application)
PLUMSTEAD - HN/13/0988 - Notification of intention to erect rear conservatory
which would project from the original rear wall by 7.3 metres and which would
have a maximum height of 2.4 metres and eaves height of 2.4 metres; Fenmoor,
Cherry Tree Road for Mr Small
(Householder Prior Notification)
PUDDING NORTON - PF/13/0996 - Erection of two-storey side extension, singlestorey rear extension, insertion of dormer window and door; 3 and 4 Colkirk Hill
for Mr and Mrs Latter
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/13/0946 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Sunny
Brook, Thorpe Market Road for Mr & Mrs Ellis
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/13/0947 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Heath View,
Thorpe Market Road for Mr & Mrs R Ellis
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/13/0675 - Demolition of outbuildings and erection of twostorey side/rear extension, single-storey side/rear extension and garage with
link extension; Hill Farm House, Thorpe Market Road for Mr & Mrs Baldwin
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PO/13/0684 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 6 Brownsfield for Mr M Ward
(Outline Planning Permission)
RUNTON - HN/13/1030 - Notification of intention to erect rear extension which
would project from the original rear wall by 3.375m, would have a maximum
height of 3.720m and eaves height of 2.5m; 14 Renwick Park East, West Runton
for Mr and Mrs K Hones
(Householder Prior Notification)
SEA PALLING - PF/13/0868 - Construction of replacement roof with higher ridge
and front and rear dormer windows; Alfrogem, Beach Road for Mrs J Cocker
(Householder application)
Development Committee
33
24 October 2013
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0949 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; Land at
Cremer Street for Badger Building (East Anglia) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AI/13/1020 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements and ATM sign; Tescos, Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/13/0595 - Non material amendment request to permit
change to external boarding from vertical to horizontally fixed; 3 Hillside for Mr
& Mrs Busby
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0929 - Erection of single-storey extension with balcony
above; St. Davids Nursing Home, 52 Common Lane for Lakeshore Healthcare
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AN/13/0930 - Display of two non-illuminated signs; Abbeyfield
House, 62 Cromer Road for Sheringham Baptist Church
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0936 - Erection of single-storey front/side/rear extension
(revised submission); 39 St Austins Grove for Mr D Cotogno
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - NMA1/13/0049 - Non material amendment request to permit change
of door type to slide opening patio door to side elevation of proposed rear
extension; 4 Highview, Felmingham Road for Mr P Davison
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SKEYTON - PF/13/0139 - Erection of replacement two-storey dwelling; Oakhurst,
Cross Road for Miss Ford
(Full Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - NMA1/13/0471 - Non material amendment to permit single storey rear
extension roof to change from mono-pitch to pitched; Maids Head, Low Street
for Mr A Ross
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
STALHAM - PF/13/0884 - Conversion and extension of garage to provide B1
(workshop); 110 High Street for Mr J Dace
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/13/0420 - Erection of two-storey building to provide four flats;
Land adjacent 3 Lower Staithe Road for Mayes Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PF/13/0885 - Variation of Condition 5 of planning permission ref:
04/2000 to permit full residential occupation; 2 Swallow Barns, Pond Road,
Bradfield for Mr D Marshall
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
34
24 October 2013
SWAFIELD - PF/13/0908 - Variation of Condition 5 of planning permission
reference: 04/2000 to permit permanent residential occupation; 1 Swallow
Barns, Pond Road, Bradfield for Mrs D Marshall
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/13/1014 - Erection of two-storey rear extension
(revised design); Arbrook House, Aylsham Road for Mr & Mrs E Clapham
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/13/0837 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 07/1651 to permit permanent residential occupation; Wicken Barn,
Tattersett Road, Syderstone for Mrs M Texier
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/13/1003 - Erection of double garage and extension to existing
drive to create parking space; 2 Pine Coombe, Wicken Green Village for Mr D
Cranmer
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/13/0933 - Alterations to vehicular access; Town Farm, The
Street for Mr J Pugh-Smith
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - LA/13/0934 - Demolition and re-building section of boundary wall;
Town Farm, The Street for Mr J Pugh-Smith
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - LA/13/0974 - Installation of solar panels and repairs to
roofs; Green House, Cromer Road for Mr A Stewart
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/13/0975 - Installation of solar panels to rear roof slope;
Green House, Cromer Road for Mr A Stewart
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/13/0843 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0911 to permit erection of enlarged marquee; Thursford
Collection, Laurel Farm, North Lane, for Thursford Enterprises Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/13/0956 - Erection of attached garage; Ty-Cornel, The Street
for Mr D Davies
(Householder application)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/13/0459 - Use of land for siting 22 static caravans; Woodland
Holiday Park for Woodland Caravan Park (Trimingham) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PF/13/0807 - Erection of single-storey and two storey rear
extension and a one storey annexe with side link extension; Carinya, Anchor
Street for Mr A Smith
(Householder application)
Development Committee
35
24 October 2013
WALCOTT - HN/13/1044 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 7m and would have
an eaves height of 2m and maximum height of 3.80m; Cliff View, Archibald Road
for Mr and Mrs Peel
(Householder Prior Notification)
WALSINGHAM - LA/13/0784 - Installation of replacement windows and rear
door; Post Office, 31 High Street for Mrs M Strickland
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - NMA2/13/0168 - Non material amendment request to vary the
plans referred to in Condition 4 of planning permission ref: 13/0168; Land at
North Creake Airfield, Egmere for British Solar Renewables Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1015 - Variation of Conditions 11, 12, 14 and 15 of
planning permission ref: 12/1256 to vary the time when feed-stock can be first
brought onto the site.; A D Site, Bunkers Hill, Wells Road, Egmere for Egmere
Energy Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0841 - Conversion of former field study centre to
10 dwellings; Field Study Centre, Polka Road for Homes for Wells
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/0842 - Alterations to former school/field study
centre to facilitate conversion to ten dwellings; Field Study Centre, Polka Road
for Homes for Wells
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/13/0950 - Erection of first floor extension and balcony; The
Mill, Beach Lane for Mr M Girling
(Householder application)
WICKMERE - PF/13/1022 - Demolition of side extension and erection of twostorey and single-storey side extension and insertion of first floor window to
rear elevation; White Cottage, Lower Street for Mr B Higham
(Householder application)
WICKMERE - LA/13/0951 - Alterations to agricultural building to facilitate
conversion of Barn 5 to residential unit (revised internal and external design);
Barn 5, Park Farm Barns, Wolterton Park, Wolterton for Michael McNamara
Associates
(Listed Building Alterations)
WICKMERE - NMA1/05/1993 - Non material amendment request to permit
internal layout alterations, fenestration and door changes to south, north and
east elevations and insertion of sun tunnels to east and west roof slopes.; Barn
5, Park Farm Barns, Wolterton Park, Wolterton for Michael McNamara
Associates
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
36
24 October 2013
WIVETON - PF/13/0566 - Erection of agricultural/wood chippings storage
building; Wiveton Hall Farm for Mr D MacCarthy
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0762 - Erection of first floor side extension; Lavenders, 1
Cubitts Yard for Mr & Mrs Austin
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/1042 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
reference: 13/0463 to permit extension of period for implementation of
permission for revised terrace; The White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
7.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
KELLING - PF/13/0848 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 16 Weynor
Gardens for Mr A Flint
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1009 - Erection of part two-storey/single-storey rear
extension, part two-storey/first floor front extension and first floor side
extension; 5 Havelock Road for Mr M Bywater
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0791 - Removal of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 of planning
permission reference: 12/1032 to permit permanent residential occupation; The
White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0792 - Removal of Conditions 3, 4 & 5 of planning
permission reference: 11/1278 to permit permanent residential occupation and
variation of Condition 2 to permit retention of access from Front Street; The
White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
8.
NEW APPEALS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/0135 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extension; Greenside, The Green for Mr P Clark
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1219 - Erection of two-storey replacement
dwelling and detached studio/annexe; Arcady, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M Warren
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31 Norwich
Road for The Royal British Legion
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Development Committee
37
24 October 2013
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for
McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for McCarthy
and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
INFORMAL HEARING
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0961 - Conversion of agricultural storage building to
residential dwelling; The Old Pavilion, Old Playing Field, Waxham Road for Mr P
Brown
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
9.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
10.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31 Norwich
Road, Cromer, NR27 0BA for The Royal British Legion
HORNING - BA/PF/12/0377 - Proposed new boathouse together with new and
replacement quay heading; Adjacent to Box End, 2 Grebe Island, Lower Street,
Horning, Norwich, NR12 8PF for Mr and Mrs N Foster
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive, Hoveton for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
SITE VISIT:- 17 September 2013
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road, Little Snoring for Norfolk Wildlife
Trust
SITE VISIT:- 18 October 2013
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
SITE VISIT:- 23 September 2013
STALHAM - BA/PF/12/0020 - Replacement of existing cottages Utopia and
Arcady with 2 new cottages; Arcady, Mill Road for Mr & Mrs H Leventon
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1419 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0874 to permit installation of opening lights in glazed screen; Barn
3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
Development Committee
38
24 October 2013
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1330 - Retention of extension to terrace, installation of
steps and raise height of restaurant extension roof; The White Lady, Front
Street for Mr D Gilligan
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
11.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No items
Development Committee
39
24 October 2013