Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
17 February 2016
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 25 February 2016 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
1
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 7 or 9 below)
4.
5.
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
6.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF BROADLAND ST BENEDICTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN BINHAM, EDGEFIELD, ERPINGHAM GREAT
RYBURGH & TRUNCH
Page 4
(Appendix 1 – page 84; Appendix 2 – page 86)
This report relates to five full planning applications for residential development on
land in the above locations. The report provides an overview of planning policy and
financial viability related issues and precedes individual reports on each application.
2
(2)
BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station; Land off
Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, Norfolk for Broadland St
Benedicts
Page 12
(3)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1223 - Erection of twenty two residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works.; Land off Rectory Road and Holt
Road, Edgefield, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts
Page 32
(4)
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1461 - Erection of twenty four residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works; Land off Eagle Road,
Erpingham, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts LLP
Page 49
(5)
RYBURGH - PF/15/1228 - Erection of five residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway and landscape works.; Land off Highfield Close, Great
Ryburgh for Broadland St Benedicts
Page 67
(6)
TRUNCH - PF/15/1227 - Erection of twelve residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway and landscape works; Land off Cornish Avenue, Trunch for
Broadland St Benedicts
Page 74
7.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 3 ABOVE
8.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
9.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
10.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
3
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 25 FEBRUARY 2016
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF BROADLAND ST BENEDICTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN BINHAM, EDGEFIELD, ERPINGHAM GREAT
RYBURGH & TRUNCH
This report relates to five full planning applications for residential development on land
in the above locations. The report provides an overview of planning policy and financial
viability related issues and precedes individual reports on each application.
Note
This report is for informative purposes only. It is intended to assist members of the
committee in their understanding of the principal issues relating to the planning
applications which are subject to individual reports later on this agenda. Members are
invited to ask questions of officers regarding the content of the report, but it is not
subject to public speaking. The opportunity for public speaking will take place when the
individual reports on each planning application are considered.
Introduction
Five, full planning applications for residential development have been submitted by the
applicant, Broadland St Benedicts, for separate parcels of land across the North Norfolk
District.
The applications are as follows:
Ref: PF/15/1121 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with associated
highway, landscape works and a new pumping station - Land off Priory Crescent and
Walsingham Road, Binham, Norfolk.
Ref: PF/15/1123 - Erection of twenty two residential units (Class C3) with associated
highway and landscape works - Land off Rectory Road and Holt Road, Edgefield,
Norfolk.
Ref: PF/15/1461 - Erection of twenty four residential units (Class C3) with associated
highway and landscape works - Land off Eagle Road, Erpingham, Norfolk.
Ref: PF/15/1128 - Erection of five residential units (Class C3) with associated highway
and landscape works - Land off Highfield Close, Great Ryburgh, Norfolk.
Ref: PF/15/1127 - Erection of twelve residential units (Class C3) with associated
highway and landscape works - Land off Cornish Avenue, Trunch, Norfolk.
The applications together would provide a total of 91 dwellings, 55 of which would be
affordable dwellings (60%) and 36 would be open market dwellings (40%).
Development Committee
4
25 February 2016
With the exception of application PF/15/1228 at Great Ryburgh, each application
represents a departure from the development plan in that the three sites at Binham,
Edgefield and Erpingham lie outside of any defined development boundary, propose
more than 10 dwellings and propose a mix of market and affordable housing.
Application PF/15/1227 at Trunch proposes more than 10 dwellings but consists of
100% affordable housing.
The Council will need to reach a separate decision in relation to each application.
The case put forward by the applicant in support of their proposals is that a District-wide
development strategy will enable the delivery of a greater amount of affordable housing
to meet indentified local need. This would be brought about through an element of
market housing, the proceeds of which would be used to cross subsidise the delivery of
affordable housing.
The purpose of this report is to highlight a range of material planning considerations that
are common to all five proposals, namely:




Mechanisms for Delivery of Affordable Housing - The case being put forward in
support of the proposal by the applicant;
The main planning policy implications of the proposals;
Development viability; and
Proposed S.106 Obligation – Draft Agreement
Individual reports and recommendations for each application follow on from this report.
Mechanisms for Delivery of Affordable Housing - The Case for Development put
forward by the Applicant
The applicant has provided a statement as part of the application to clarify their position
in terms of the provision of housing and have also provided an explanation, using their
experience, of how the delivery of affordable housing is currently achieved and is likely
to be achieved looking to the future in light of, amongst other things, changes to funding
mechanisms and national policy changes. The key points are provided below;
Housing Associations look to reduce housing demand by finding alternative ways of
delivering new housing. Many Housing Associations are already providing houses for
market rent or sale. They do this to meet a housing need, but also in some markets,
this will generate proceeds that can be used to subsidise affordable housing delivery to
counteract the funding shortfalls that now exist to supply an affordable house to rent as
the Government promotes in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Government funding in the form of Homes and Communities Agency funding bid round
2011-15, operated in a way where capital grant from Government reduced from £55 60,000 per rented house to the current £15,000 per rented house. Housing
Associations were encouraged to increase rents in line with the new affordable rent
(80% of market rent), look at disposals of poor performing houses in high value areas
and increase rents of existing owned rented housing to generate more revenue to fill the
funding gap of £40-45,000 per house. The 2015-18 bid round carried on in the same
vain and as build costs increase, additional solutions have to be found to continue to
deliver affordable housing.
Last years budget announcements added another layer of reduced viability by reducing
current rents by 1% per annum for the next 4 years and capping the Local Housing
Allowance. This has added a further £16,000 per £100,000 of cost to the funding gap.
Development Committee
5
25 February 2016
Looking to the future the Government has signalled a housing strategy that promotes
the purchase of housing for the general public rather than rented accommodation,
shifting the smaller amounts of grant investment available away from rented housing
towards products to aid purchase. This is reducing significantly the opportunity to
deliver rented housing in local communities.
The Homes and Communities Agency, the source of grant funding for delivering
affordable rented accommodation by Housing Associations, have no funding
programmes open for the rented tenure, with remaining monies being funnelled
towards home ownership products. The next programmes are not yet finalised,
however it is likely that they will be heavily weighted towards sales type tenures such as
shared ownership and starter home delivery.
The inclusion of starter homes within the definition of what is an affordable home is
likely to change the delivery of tenures on affordable developments which will impact on
the delivery of rented housing, for which there is a clear need in North Norfolk. All of
these proposed national policy changes do not reduce the need and have the potential
to increase the need due to a potential lack of supply in the coming years.
In this instance, Broadland St Benedicts are responding to the delivery of affordable
housing by constructing a range of tenures that create the cross-subsidy required to
deliver affordable housing in rural villages. The viability has had to take into account all
the impacts of the Government’s current policies in addition to keeping the affordable
housing provision at the highest level possible. Broadland Housing Association,
because of its charitable status, is unable to deliver market housing so its wholly owned
subsidiary Broadland St Benedict’s (the applicant) will be helping to deliver the crucial
gap funding by constructing and selling open market housing. The Company structure
allows any surplus monies to be Gift Aided to Broadland Housing Association so
maximising the monies that can be invested into the affordable housing. The link
between the delivery of market housing and the subsequent delivery of affordable units
can be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement.
A Draft S.106 Agreement has been included with the applications and will secure the
provision of the affordable housing units, together with commuted sums for education,
libraries, off-site public open space and monitoring and mitigation of European
designated sites, where applicable.
A single detailed confidential Viability Assessment has been submitted in support of the
applications. The applicant has put forward an argument that the five applications are
intrinsically linked, and that failure to deliver one of the three applications that include
open market accommodation, would likely prejudice their ability to deliver any of the 55
affordable units that the strategy provides. The key elements of the Viability
Assessment and the principle behind development on one site facilitating development
on another will be discussed in more detail in the viability section later in this report.
Planning Policy Implications - Development Plan Considerations and material
considerations
The applicant has asked the Council, as Local Planning Authority to consider the five
sites together as a District-wide strategy for the provision of affordable homes. They
also recognise however that each application has to be assessed individually on its own
merits.
Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning
applications to be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan,
Development Committee
6
25 February 2016
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for North
Norfolk comprises:


The North Norfolk Core Strategy (adopted 2008), and
The North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (adopted 2011).
The sites subject to the current five applications are all located outside of defined
development boundaries and are therefore situated in the 'Countryside' policy area.
The adopted Development Plan supports, in principle, the development of affordable
housing in the Countryside. Core Strategy Policy SS2 (Development in the
Countryside) considers 'Exception' affordable housing schemes’ as an acceptable
type of development which requires a rural location, subject to compliance with other
relevant policies within the plan including the policy specifically concerned with the
provision of affordable housing in the countryside (Policy H03).
Core Strategy Policy HO3 (Affordable Housing in the Countryside) requires firstly
the demonstration of proven local housing need, then provides location based criteria
for assessing site suitability, stating that proposals for ten or more dwellings should be
situated within 100m of a development boundary while proposals for ten or less
dwellings should adjoin an existing group of ten or more dwellings and not lie within a
1km radius of any other scheme permitted under the policy. Any such affordable
housing should have its occupation linked to a local allocations agreement to ensure
local housing needs are met.
Of the five applications under consideration, four (Binham, Edgefield, Erpingham and
Trunch) are seeking to deliver more than 10 units, but are not within 100 metres either
of a Principal or Secondary Settlement as identified by Core Strategy Policy HO3. In
addition, the sites at Binham, Edgefield and Erpingham incorporate an element of
market housing.
The development at Great Ryburgh proposes less than ten units, all of which will be
affordable; is not within a 1 kilometre radius of any other scheme which has been
permitted under Policy HO3; and is immediately adjacent to a group of ten or more
dwellings. Accordingly, the principle of the proposed development at Great Ryburgh is
acceptable and therefore does not need to be considered further in the context of the
initial section of this report.
Therefore, with the exception of Great Ryburgh, the proposed development of the sites
at Binham, Edgefield, Erpingham and Trunch would, in principle, represent a departure
from the adopted Development Plan by virtue of their location; the number of units
proposed and also in the case of Binham, Edgefield and Erpingham the tenure mix
which proposes market housing to enable subsidies to be generated to deliver
affordable housing to meet local needs.
Each of the applications should also be assessed against other relevant development
plan policies and this is covered in detail in the individual report for each application.
It is necessary to then consider the material considerations relevant to the
development proposed. Firstly, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a
material consideration in the determination of all planning applications. The Council's
Core Strategy (2008) pre-dates the publication of the NPPF (2012) and paragraph 215
of the NPPF makes in clear that due weight should be given to relevant policies in
existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
Development Committee
7
25 February 2016
In April 2012 the Council’s Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party and a
subsequent agreement by Cabinet resolved that the Council should continue to apply
full weight to the adopted Core Strategy policies. However with regards Policy H03 and
the provision of affordable housing in the Countryside the Council’s approach to rural
affordable housing (exception schemes) should be altered and the inclusion of
elements of market housing within such developments where it would facilitate the
provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs, as required by
paragraph 54 of the NPPF should be considered as a material consideration to be
afforded significant weight.
A second material consideration is that there is a significant local need for affordable
housing in North Norfolk, with an identified demand in each of the five settlements. In
each of the locations the need exceeds the number of affordable dwellings proposed on
each site. The table below outlines the need for affordable housing in each of the
locations, based on information taken from North Norfolk District Council’s Housing
Register in November 2015 when Housing Strategy formally assessed the applications.
Location
Binham
No. of Households on
Housing Register
80
Edgefield
120
Trunch
182
Great Ryburgh
36
Erpingham
46
Housing Mix Requirements
1 bed (48.75%), 2 bed
(28.75%), 3 bed+ (22.5%)
1 bed (53.33%), 2 bed
(24.17%), 3 bed+ (22.50%)
1 bed (42.86%), 2 bed
(32.42%), 3 bed+ (24.72%)
1 bed (47.22%), 2 bed
(36.33%), 3 bed+ (19.45%)
1 bed (45.65%), 2 bed
(32.61%), 3 bed+ (21.74%)
In addition to this the Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)
published January 2016, identifies a need in the North Norfolk district to provide 2,200
affordable dwellings over the period 2012-2036, an average of 92 affordable dwellings
per year. This highlights the fact that there is a large unmet need for affordable housing
across the district, due to the absence of affordable supply and low earnings across the
district.
The applicant rightly maintains that there is a significant shortfall in the annual provision
of affordable units across the District and the provision of 55 units in areas with an
identified local need represents a significant contribution to the District’s affordable
housing stock. However, they highlight that due to a change in the way the
development of affordable units are funded, affordable housing of the amount proposed
can only be delivered through the provision of the identified amount of open market units
proposed. More specifically in this instance, the revenue generated by the sale of the
36 open market residential units is required to cross-subsidise the delivery of the 55
affordable units, with cross subsidy required between development sites.
In order to justify this approach, a single, detailed confidential Viability Assessment has
been prepared as part of these planning applications.
Development Viability
The applicant has provided a full viability assessment. The key highlights are
summarised below and within the two tables of summary financial information included
as Appendix 1.
Development Committee
8
25 February 2016
The five schemes have been appraised by looking at the project as a whole to increase
the delivery of affordable housing. This means that surplus monies from schemes will be
used between the villages rather than only being used in a single location. This has
enabled a 60% level of affordable housing to be provided across the five schemes.
A policy compliant, baseline position has been provided to show how the proposal would
look taking a standard situation where a standard Section 106 allows the developer to
include a 15% average blended profit across all the tenures, includes the current Section
106 prices payable by a housing association and the market sales prices supported by
Sowerbys appraisal of the schemes. In addition Broadland Housing are supporting the
proposed application with additional capital subsidy, this has been removed to show a
true baseline position that has no additional contributions to help the viability. The land
price is as agreed in the signed option arrangements (£15,000 per market dwelling plot
and £10,000 per affordable plot). The result is that there would be a decreased delivery
of affordable housing to 25 dwellings (from 55), while the number of market dwelling
reduces to 30 (from 36). The affordable housing sites at Great Ryburgh and Trunch
could not be delivered if this method of delivery was utilised. Below is a summary of the
dwellings delivered in the baseline scenario, full details are available in Table 1 of
Appendix 1;
Site
Binham
Edgefield
Trunch
Great
Ryburgh
Erpingham
Total
Total
19
17
0
0
Market
8
10
0
0
Affordable
11
7
0
0
% Affordable
57%
41%
0
0
19
55
12
30
7
25
36%
45%
The applicant maintains that the proposed District-wide strategy that consists of the five
separate planning applications maximises the supply of affordable housing using the full
extent of the principle of cross subsidy. The detailed figures in Table 2 of Appendix 1,
show that monies generated from market sales at Binham, Erpingham and Edgefield
cross subsidise the affordable dwellings on each of these sites and also provide a
surplus which is recycled and invested in the delivery of the 100% affordable housing
developments at Trunch and Great Ryburgh. This development strategy proposes
market housing in higher value locations to cross subsidise additional affordable housing
on sites that would not otherwise be viable. Broadland Housing Group consider this to
be the most efficient way of generating the subsidies required considering the sites in
question, their size and location; while maximising the supply of affordable housing.
Below is a summary of the dwellings delivered in the District-wide strategy, full details
are available in Table 2 of Appendix 1;
Site
Binham
Edgefield
Trunch
Great
Ryburgh
Erpingham
Total
Development Committee
Total
28
22
12
5
Market
14
10
0
0
Affordable
14
12
12
5
% Affordable
50%
55%
100%
100%
24
91
12
36
12
55
50%
60%
9
25 February 2016
The District-wide strategy in simple terms demonstrates that just 6 additional market
dwellings are required at Binham to facilitate the delivery of 30 additional affordable
dwellings across all five sites, which increases the overall proportion of affordable
housing provided across the sites from 45% to 60%.
A delivery programme has been provided which demonstrates the release of open
market sales to release affordable housing delivery. This information is provided within
Appendix 2 and demonstrates that once the first phase of the Binham site is completed
and selling, the delivery of affordable housing begins to flow through the sites.
Each of the five separate applications involve the delivery of affordable housing on each
individual site that meets the local need of that parish or adjoining parishes and this has
been confirmed for each application by the Councils Housing Strategy and Community
Support Team. Utilising this method of delivery requires no public subsidy/grant
funding as set out in the definition of a ‘rural exception site’ in annexe 2 of the NPPF.
The surplus on each site varies from £234,946 at Edgefield and £339,724 at Erpingham,
to a £1,265,495 surplus at Binham, which is much more significant.
The Council has commissioned an external consultant to review the submitted viability
assessment. The conclusions reached are as follows:








A full review and examination of the viability appraisal and supporting information
has been undertaken and the methodology is sound.
The applicant has submitted evidence from a reputable and experienced agent
supporting the proposed sales prices of the market units on the three mixed tenure
schemes and these are considered to be a reasonable assessment of the likely
outcome.
The proposed price of the affordable units is based upon the assessment of value by
Broadland Housing and these are a fair reflection of current values of the tenures
proposed on each scheme.
The proposed development programme set out in Appendix 2, is for a total of four
years and three months from commencement of construction. The proposed build
costs and development programme are considered to be reasonable.
The on costs (including site acquisition costs, planning and design fees, site surveys,
sales and marketing costs, development /project management fees, s106 payments
and interest on development finance) in overall terms appear to be higher than
normally expected. However, they are not considered to be unreasonable having
regard to the proposed form of development and the management, fees and other
associated costs.
The appraisal provides an overall developer surplus of £853,167 which is 5.1% of the
gross development value of £16,864,172. This level of return is substantially below
that normally acceptable in undertaking purely open market schemes as well as the
return of 15% used by the Council in s106 agreements for enabling development
schemes where market housing is allowed in order to ensure the delivery of
otherwise unviable affordable housing.
The development proposed on the five sites results in a developer return equating to
5.1% which is well below a level which would normally be regarded as an acceptable
level of risk. In addition this level of return is supported by the additional payment
made by Broadland Housing across all sites of more than £400,000 which in effect
almost doubles the rate of return.
Therefore, should any market units not be provided across the sites then the
potential impact on the viability of the scheme is significant in that the resulting
reduction in the overall scheme surplus may well lead to the developer calling into
Development Committee
10
25 February 2016

question the risk of proceeding with any or all of the sites in view of the additional
risk.
In conclusion, having reviewed the submitted viability appraisals and supporting
information for all five the case made in support of the outcome is reasonable and
therefore the Council can have full regard to this information when considering the
determination of each planning application.
Using cross subsidy from market housing to fund the delivery of affordable housing is not
a new concept and indeed Broadland Housing Association secured planning permission
in 2015 on a site at Hall Close, Bodham (ref PF/14/0859) using this principle to deliver 16
dwellings of which 10 are to be affordable. What is being suggested by the applicant is
the use of cross subsidy across a number of sites to provide a greater amount of local
needs affordable housing than would be delivered on an individual site basis. This
could be considered as an innovative approach to the provision of affordable housing in
a climate when it is becoming increasingly difficult to deliver such a product and in
particular deliver dwellings on an affordable rent basis. The applicant has set out a
clear intention to deliver a greater amount of affordable housing to meet identified local
need.
The Viability Assessment highlights that the provision of open market units is required to
make the District-wide strategy for the provision of affordable homes viable. On the basis
of the foregoing, the applicant considers the proposed development to be consistent with
paragraph 54 of the NPPF and maintains that the provision of a considerable amount of
affordable housing is a significant material consideration in determining the applications,
which outweigh the fact that approval would represent a departure from development
plan policy.
Section 106 Draft Agreement
The applicant has submitted a draft Section 106 Agreement encompassing all five sites
in the event of all five applications being granted permission. The agreement will
include financial contributions towards the following:
Education
Libraries
Off-site public open space
European sites visitor pressure monitoring
Provision will be made within the agreement for the delivery of market dwellings to
trigger the delivery of affordable dwellings of a quantum that is considered reasonable
while fitting within the applicant’s cash flow based delivery programme to ensure that
delivery remains viable.
Summary and Conclusions
Four of the five planning applications under consideration represent departures from the
development plan in relation to the detailed criteria concerning the provision of
affordable housing in the countryside.
The material considerations which are relevant in determining the applications are:
 Policies of the NPPF where they are relevant to the proposed development
 Any public benefits perceived to arise from the developments, including identified
local housing need.
The key issue is what level of weight should be attached to each of these material
considerations. The weight to be attributed to a material consideration is entirely for the
Development Committee
11
25 February 2016
decision maker.
The view of officers is that each of these individual applications involves delivery of local
needs affordable housing and the primary consideration should therefore be that they
are assessed on this basis on an individual site basis. Weight may then legitimately be
attached to the facilitating development argument and assessment of the extent to which
development on one site enables the provision of affordable housing on other sites
based on submitted viability information.
Independent advice provided to the Council by way of a review of the viability
assessment concluded that the development across the five sites results in a very low
level of developer return equating to 5.1%. Therefore, should any market units not be
provided across the sites then the potential impact on the viability of the scheme is
significant in that the reduction in the overall scheme surplus may well lead to the
developer calling into question the risk of proceeding with any or all of the sites in view of
the additional risk.
Finally the public benefits associated with the delivery of affordable housing should also
be weighed against any identified harm associated with each scheme as identified in the
individual report for each application.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station; Land off
Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, Norfolk for Broadland St
Benedicts
Major Development
- Target Date: 08 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Unclassified Road – Priory Crescent
C Road – Walsingham Road
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19921593 VO
Residential development
Refused 05/02/1993
PLA/19801499 HR
Proposed 4 no 6 type bungalows deemed permission
27/10/1980
Development Committee
12
25 February 2016
PLA/20042193 PF
Erection of nine dwellings and construction of access road
Approved 13/04/2005
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for 28 dwellings on approximately 1.14 hectares of land on the
south west edge of the village. Existing residential development is located adjacent to
the north and east of the site. The existing access from Priory Crescent will serve 12 of
the affordable dwellings and a new point of vehicular access will be created from
Walsingham Road to serve 16 dwellings, with no route for vehicles provided through the
site.
A public footpath runs to the west of the site and provides access to the Village
Memorial Hall and playing fields to the north. A small area of on-site open space is
proposed to the north of the site adjacent to Priory Crescent.
The application site also includes a small area of land to the south of the Walsingham
Road junction with Hindringham Road and Front Street which is required to provide
junction improvements to improve visibility at that road junction.
50% of the units (14 dwellings) are proposed to be affordable and 50% (14 dwellings)
are proposed to be for sale on the open market.
The affordable dwellings will consist of 10 dwellings on an affordable rent basis
consisting of;
 2 x one-bed bungalows,
 4 x one-bed houses,
 3 x two-bed houses,
 1 x three-bed house.
While 4 dwellings are proposed on a shared ownership basis consisting of;
 2 x two-bed houses,
 2 x three-bed houses.
The market dwellings mix consists of;
 8 x three-bed houses,
 5 x four-bed houses,
 1 x five -bed house.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Overarching Planning Statement (Amended)
 Overarching Viability Assessment (Commercially Confidential)
 Design and Access Statement (Amended)
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Flood Risk Assessment
 Desk Study Summary Investigation
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement
 Ecological Survey
 Screening Under Habitat Regulations for Broadland Housing Sites
 Archaeological Evaluation
 Landscape, Visual and Heritage Statement
 Social Impact Report of Proposed Housing Development within Binham Village
 Transport Note and Trip Rates, Front Street Automatic Traffic Count,
Development Committee
13
25 February 2016

Walsingham Road Automatic Traffic Count (to be read alongside the Transport
Note)
Generic Energy Strategy
The application is also accompanied by a draft S.106 Agreement which makes
provision for fourteen of the 28 dwellings on this application site to be used for the
provision of affordable housing and confirms contributions relevant to this application
site to libraries of £1,680 and to off-site public open space improvements and allotment
provision of £6,000, as requested by the relevant consultees.
Amended plans have been submitted in response to comments received from local
residents and consultees revising parts of the site layout and to address concerns
raised relating to design, highways, parking and landscaping issues.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the wide range of planning
considerations connected with this package of proposals.
PARISH COUNCIL
Response to original plans: The Parish Council does not oppose the plan but would ask
for a number of alterations to be made.
 The density should be lowered to match the average of the present houses to
Priory Crescent;
 Visibility at the junction of Front Street/Hindringham Road/Walsingham Road
should be improved before construction vehicles access the site and
Walsingham Road should be the only access for construction traffic;
 Traffic calming measures should be taken on Hindringham Road;
 Concerns about lack of parking spaces and suggestions in relation to this and
the green space provision;
 Issues surrounding intrusion of bollard's into the public footpath;
 Comments/suggestions in relation to boundary treatments;
 Query in relation to maintenance of landscaping and open space;
 Comments in relation to window frame specifications;
 Suggestions in relation to setting up a Liaison Group;
 Comments in relation to ‘planning gain’ and restricting the sale of the dwellings
for investment purposes and preventing the future sale of housing association
properties at a discount.
However, further responses were received following receipt of the amended plans.
Although accepting the principle of building a mixed development on the site to attract
young families to the village the Parish Council now oppose the amended plans. Again
comments are provided in relation to concern about the high density of the development
and in particular the affordable housing element of the scheme. Comparisons are
made between existing affordable housing adjacent to the site and relative plot sizes,
parking provision being directly in front of the dwellings, which is not considered
appropriate in a rural setting and inadequacy of the common parking area.
In order to be positive and engage in on-going discussion the Parish Council have
tabled an alternative proposal for 14 affordable and 10 market dwellings, using the
figures provided within the applicant’s viability summary, producing a £36,000 surplus
for cross subsidy of other schemes. Justification is provided to taking this approach to
provide a more balanced scheme given that 90% of the subsidy generated by the
current scheme will be used to build affordable houses in four other villages/Parishes,
not adjacent to Binham. Also removing 4 market houses will free up land to increase
Development Committee
14
25 February 2016
plot size and provided more parking as the current parking provision is inadequate for
rural communities. They also suggest spreading new market housing across the
village to generate funds locally.
Also additional comments are made in relation to timing of highway works and
restriction of construction access.
Clarification is requested on landscape
maintenance responsibilities and the Parish Council request a firm commitment from
the applicant to set up a development liaison committee.
REPRESENTATIONS
11 letters of objection have been received of which the main issues are summarised
below:

The development is disproportionate to the existing housing stock in the village
and a smaller development should be considered which would also allow new
and existing residents to use the remaining green area for amenity purposes;

Density is quite significant, there are too many houses on a small piece of land
and is not in keeping with Binham;

The density is more appropriate to an urban setting not a rural village;

Any significant incremental expansion of villages should be avoided and
development should be limited to individual housing or small groups of houses
which enhance the form and character of the village and its setting;

Affordable housing targets should be met by appropriate and sustainable
development. The proposed plan is not appropriate and is not supported by
the majority of residents in its current form;

The proportion of affordable to open market is wrong;

The affordable houses need to be bigger for people to comfortably live in;

We already have affordable homes that were built a few years ago and
therefore is there a need for the amount suggested?

The market houses are very tall and are too close and over powering;

The affordable housing will bring extra traffic to Priory Crescent where lots of
children live;

Junctions to both Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road are concealed,
creating an accident waiting to happen;

There will be a large influx of vehicles travelling on single track country lanes
not designed for additional traffic;

Detailed comments relating to potential highway safety measures that could be
put in place;

The plans appear to show insufficient parking for the number of properties
proposed;

Parking is already a problem with no room for visitors;

2 existing bungalows will lose their allocated parking;

If not enough parking the green areas will be used and become muddy and will
not look good for the village;

Bollard's and a concrete area at the pumping station intrude into the public
footpath;

The large wall to Walsingham Road does not seem in keeping with the
surrounding village designs;

The plan overdevelops the site and would have an adverse impact on the
landscape in a conservation area;

What are the special circumstances to override the harm to the conservation
area and greenfield site?

The plan would adversely affect the visual amenity of the occupiers of adjacent
dwellings;
Development Committee
15
25 February 2016













Insufficient local material such as flint is being used and design is out of context
with the character of the village;
Concern over the pumping station and potential associated leaks, overflows
and noise;
The sewers in Priory Crescent are a problem and the sewage needs to
definitely go out to the Walsingham Road;
The plan is nothing but a money pot for other developments elsewhere;
There is no statutory requirement for profit from one development to cross fund
proposed developments in other areas. Affordable housing needs in other
areas could be met in the same way as proposed for Binham (a mix of open
market and affordable properties).
Any profit made from the development should be invested for the benefit of the
village and ring fenced for future development of the remaining land on this
exception site;
Inappropriate development would have an adverse impact on the continued
viability of a community that currently functions well;
Lack of school places, long appointment waiting times at doctors, lack of
infrastructure in Binham to accommodate a large influx of new residents, lack
of jobs in Binham and high unemployment in North Norfolk;
Large distances to doctors/pharmacies/vets and supermarkets requiring car
journeys due to lack of bus service, against the Government’s own sustainable
agenda;
Sales for non-permanent occupation should be prevented and restrictions
should be placed on the sales of houses on exception sites for investment
purposes;
The new houses will be bought by second home owners;
New residents will be isolated and stuck;
People living in Binham are either very elderly or second home owners, there is
no thriving village community;
1 comment has been made raising the following issues;
 Density – there seem to be to many houses for the area;
 The open market houses seem very large and over-bearing scale;
 A beautiful old hedge is set to be removed from the Walsingham Road
boundary, can this not be retained preserving the natural habitat and preventing
an eye sore.
1 letter of support has been made but raises the following issues;
 The number of houses proposed is too great for the space and the number of
parking spaces is too small;
 The density of houses proposed must be decreased as it is not appropriate for a
small Norfolk village;
 Understand the principle of affordable houses being partly financed by privately
purchased houses, so if the proposal is to be viable the numbers of both may
need to be reduced.
A further 5 letters of objection (3 of which had made representations previously) were
received further to reconsultation on the amended plans. Issues raised again related
to;
 the parking not being improved and not being sufficient,
 the affordable housing being cramped,
 the development not being in the interests of the current or future residents of
Binham,
Development Committee
16
25 February 2016



19 properties (from the viability calculations) is the maximum number of
properties that should be allowed as being appropriate for this small rural
conservation village,
The NPPF allows small sites to be developed for affordable housing in rural
communities, the proposed development is too large,
Other villages not adjacent to Binham will use the profits from the market
dwellings to build in their village which is not in line with the definition of an
exception site.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection. Still awaiting final conditions, but
likely to relate to; roads, footways, foul and surface water drainage construction,
provision and maintenance of the required visibility splay, details of a construction traffic
management plan, on-site construction worker parking, full details of off-site highway
improvements and promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order in relation to extension of the
30mph speed limit.
County Council (Public Rights of Way) – No objection as the proposals no longer
represent an obstruction to a public footpath.
County Council (Infrastructure Requirements) - Requires the following financial
contributions to be secured via a Section 106 obligation:
 Nil requirements towards education.
 £60 per dwelling for library provision (£1,680 total)
Norfolk Fire Service
hydrant.
-
Planning condition required for provision of one fire
County Council (Historic Environment Service) – No objection and confirm that a
planning condition requiring a programme of archaeological works comprising an
archaeological excavation will be required.
Housing Strategy - Supports the application. Binham is designated as Countryside
Area and as such the new dwellings are required to be provided in line with Policy HO3
as Exception Scheme Housing and the National Planning Policy Framework – March
2012 section 54, Part 6.
There is an identified local housing need for affordable housing in Binham. The
inclusion of market housing in the scheme proposal, to enable the delivery of the
exception scheme housing is subject to a financial viability assessment. The Section
106 agreement will need to stipulate the dwellings are let in accordance with the Local
Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are met.
There are 80 households on the Housing List who have a local connection to Binham
and the adjoining parishes. The requirement for 1 bed dwelling is (48.75%) 2 bed
(28.75%) and 3 bed or larger (22.50%) properties indicates there is an overriding
requirement for 1 bedroom properties.
There are currently 9 local lettings properties in Binham. However there is a further
local housing need for affordable housing in Binham. The proposed development
would therefore assist in meeting some of the proven local housing need.
The proposed housing development is 14 affordable dwellings and 14 market dwellings.
It is noted the affordable dwellings are located predominately in the north east section of
Development Committee
17
25 February 2016
the site. We would welcome greater integration of the affordable and market dwellings.
The proposed housing mix supports the identified local housing need.
Conservation and Design Team Leader – No in principle objections as the land in
question has the appearance and feel of an infill site which offers an opportunity to
create a more representative gateway into what is predominantly an attractive,
traditional village.
Rather than following the strict regimentation of Priory Crescent, the layout has instead
turned to the traditional village core for its inspiration. Hence, it features variations in
building orientation and spaces, and provides good links through to the existing
infrastructure.
In terms of density, the scheme certainly features a closely packed arrangement of
dwellings which would be denser than that found across significant parts of the village.
However, with the village core characterised by the close-knit relationships between its
buildings, it is considered that it would not be so out of character as to justify an
objection on this ground. This said there would definitely be support for a reduction in
the numbers to increase compatibility. This would particularly apply in respect of Plot 9
which feels like an ‘extra-curricular’ part of the scheme which impinges upon the
existing landscape buffer by separating the built form from the wider countryside and
thus reduces the immediacy of its visual impact.
Although the larger market houses are slightly larger than some of the existing
properties found in the area, the overall scale of the scheme is not considered
incompatible with the locality. The fact that the new buildings generally drop in size on
the eastern flanks of the development helps in this regard. Overall the new build units
are of a domestic scale which is considered appropriate for a village location.
The scheme mixes traditional styles on the principal plots and buildings of more neutral
appearance where the site abuts the existing social housing. Because there are also
historic buildings within reasonably close proximity, and because the individual designs
have a reasonable authenticity, it is anticipated that the principal buildings would add
visual interest and architectural quality to the immediate vicinity.
The prominent position of the site within the Binham Conservation Area means that the
emphasis should be on using natural products and the use of conditions is
recommended to secure appropriate materials for construction.
The green spaces within the scheme have a major role to play in terms of breaking up
the hard elements. It is therefore imperative that they are properly designed and do not
become overspill parking areas. They therefore need timber bollards, estate railings
and/or trees around their edges to prevent this happening.
Landscape Officer - The layout is broadly appropriate, picking up on the prevailing built
form of the village, providing a mix of architectural styles and incorporating informal
desire lines. The areas of open space are well located, providing linkage with the
existing dwellings along Priory Crescent and pedestrian routes through the
development to footpaths and the open countryside to the east. The green and the
three areas of green space along the main spine road form appropriate spaces within
the built form.
With regards the small piece of land required for provision of the visibility splay at the
Walsingham Road junction with Front Street/Hindringham Road, three trees require
removal, along with most of the boundary hedge and a 9m section of flint wall. While
Development Committee
18
25 February 2016
some of the trees are able to be retained, a significant amount of vegetation is to be
removed to facilitate the required vision splay. However, it is confirmed that no
replanting is required, given the amount of remaining vegetation on this corner plot.
The reinstatement proposed is a grassed verge and this should also include bulb
planting to add visual amenity to this key junction in the village. There is no proposal for
a new boundary to this site at the back of the visibility splay, this will require some
definition and a post and rail fence with new hedge planting would be appropriate.
The application was accompanied by an Ecological Survey and Arboricultural Impact
Assessment, Tree Protection Plan & Method Statement and the mitigation measures
and recommendations within these reports should form a specific condition of any
formal consent.
The Landscape, Visual & Heritage Statement includes a landscape strategy the
components of which are compatible with the rural setting and edge of settlement
location. The scale of the development together with the landscape proposals will not
result in significant landscape or visual effects.
Historic England – These proposals would amount to harm to the significance of the
conservation area and would change the way the conservation area is seen from the
south and west. Due to the increased density of housing on the western side of the site
and the reduction of an open, green feeling to the edge of the settlement Historic
England would not support this application in its current form and suggest that the
Council considers the degree of harm in terms of paragraph 132 of the NPPF and
weighs it against the public benefit that would be delivered, in accordance with
paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Binham village is most notable for the Scheduled priory site which contains the parish
church. Both the priory and the application site are towards the western edge of the
settlement but it is not believed that the proposals would result in harm to the
significance of the heritage asset by development in its setting.
Considering the current proposals in light of the NPPF and relevant Historic England
guidance, developing the site has potential to be implemented without resulting in harm
to the conservation area. However, there is concern that the density and distribution of
the proposed buildings would result in a more densely built edge to the western side of
the area. This would erode the open, green feeling of the settlement edge and would
result in harm to the significance of the conservation area in terms of paragraph 132 of
the NPPF. In this instance, there is a degree of public benefit from new housing. The
council should weigh this public benefit delivered by the development against this harm
as stated in paragraph 134 and seek the 'clear and convincing justification' required
(paragraph 132). If minded to approve, we suggest that the Council seeks clarification
on materials, boundary treatments and improved fenestration pattern, to better satisfy
the good design required by the NPPF.
Environmental Health – Comments made relating to the following.
The findings of the contamination desk study have not identified any obvious sources of
contamination. However, given the number of properties proposed and sensitivity of the
proposed use, the recommendations of the report are agreed with and further
examination of the site is requested which must include a Phase 2 intrusive
investigation, to be secured by condition.
It is understood that the local backing up of sewers issues has been resolved.
Development Committee
19
25 February 2016
Should air source heat pumps be proposed, noise data should be requested before
approval to enable appropriate siting and any noise control measures that may be
necessary to be secured.
Conditions are requested in respect of details of disposal of sewage, disposal of surface
water, contaminated land and provision of air source heat pumps.
Anglian Water
Confirm that Langham Water Recycling Centre does not
currently have capacity for flows from the site but they are obliged to accept flows from a
development with the benefit of planning consent and would take the necessary steps to
ensure sufficient treatment capacity exists if permission is granted. The foul sewerage
network has available capacity to cater for the development.
Environment Agency - No comments received to date.
Internal Drainage Board – Should discharge be made into the IDB boundary then a
one off Surface Water Development Contribution will need to be paid for any increase in
rate or volume of flow.
Crime Prevention Design Advisor – Confirm that they are happy with the overall
layout of the development and the crime prevention measures and have no concerns or
recommendations to make.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The proposals would deliver approximately
377m2 of new public open space. This is well below the standard of about 2000m 2.
However, the proposed development is situated close to the village playing-field which
can be accessed via the public right of way running along the western side of the
development site. They have spoken to the Parish Clerk who has indicated that there is
some demand for more allotments. The existing allotments are situated on land rented
from a local landowner and there is a waiting list for two plots. The play area on the
village playing-field is in need of improvement being in a state of partial completion.
The three small areas of open-space in front of plots 6 – 8 may be problematic. They
are very small and could be used as un-official parking spaces. This would result in the
grass becoming worn and rutted. It is therefore important to make sure that these areas
are properly designed to deter parking either by planting the trees in strategic positions
or by the use of bollards.
It is suggested that the developer provides a contribution of £5,000 for improvements to
the existing children’s play area on the nearby playing-field. It is also suggested that
£1,000 be provided to rent and set out three or four additional allotments to cater for
existing need together with the probable further need generated by the new
development.
North Norfolk District Council would not be minded to adopt the on-site open space and
this should be managed by others.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
20
25 February 2016
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 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 CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Development Committee
21
25 February 2016
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 54 - in rural areas, Local Planning Authorities should be responsive to local
circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for
affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local
Planning Authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market
housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet
local needs.
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s
conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal.
Paragraph 137 - Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and within the setting of heritage assets to
enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of
the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the
asset should be treated favourably.
Paragraph 173 (Ensuring viability and deliverability) states that development should not
be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be
developed viably is threatened.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
Annexe 2: Glossary a definition of ‘rural exception sites’ as “small sites used for
affordable housing in perpetuity which seek to address the needs of the local
community, where sites would not normally be used for housing. Small numbers of
market homes may be allowed at the local authority’s discretion, for example where
essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding”.
Other material considerations – Section 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and Design
Development Committee
22
25 February 2016








Impact on designated heritage assets
Landscape, biodiversity and open space
Highways issues
Drainage
Other issues
Habitats Regulations Assessment
S.106 requirements
Development Viability
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda which
relates to this application and the other four applications submitted on behalf of
Broadland St Benedicts (refs: PF/15/1223, PF/15/1227, PF/15/1228 & PF/15/1461).
The application site comprises open rough grassland, which is located to the south-west
of Binham. Residential development is located adjacent to the north and east of the
site. To the south and west is agricultural land. The site’s southern boundary fronts
Walsingham Road, with Priory Crescent a residential estate road, providing access to
the village centre to the north. A public footpath runs to the west of the site and
provides access to the Village Memorial Hall and playing fields.
The site adjoins a group of nine existing affordable housing units on Priory Crescent.
This adjacent scheme was granted planning permission in 2005 under the now
superseded Local Plan.
The Committee visited the site on 18 February 2016.
Principle of the development
The site lies within the ‘countryside’ policy area where under Policy SS2 of the adopted
Core Strategy, the principle of erecting affordable housing in designated Countryside is
acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies including the Council's rural
exception site policy (HO3).
Policy HO3 includes a number of criteria which control the location, scale and tenure
mix of affordable housing schemes. In summary, these require:
 The demonstration of a local housing need;
 Proposals for ten or more dwellings to be situated within 100m of a development
boundary;
 Proposals for ten dwellings or less to adjoin an existing group of ten or more
dwellings and not to lie within a 1km radius of any other scheme permitted under
the policy;
 Occupation limited to people with a local connection to the Parish and adjacent
Parishes.
Within the Design & Access Statement that accompanies the application the applicant
states that ‘the site is part of the District-wide development strategy to deliver affordable
housing and is one of five rural exception sites. The housing will in part, provide
affordable homes for people with a recognised local need. The remainder will
comprise market accommodation, which in accordance with national planning policy is
required to cross subside the development of affordable housing.’
You will note that this application is of a scale in excess of the provisions of Policy HO3
given its location adjacent to a group of ten or more dwellings but some distance from a
settlement with a development boundary and the scheme includes the provision of
Development Committee
23
25 February 2016
market dwellings.
However, the more recently published NPPF sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and this document is a
material consideration that is afforded significant weight in determining planning
applications. Paragraph 54 of the NPPF states that in rural areas local planning
authorities are required to be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing
development to reflect local needs, including affordable housing through rural exception
sites and does not set a quantum of development that is permissible and also allows the
inclusion of some market housing to facilitate the provision of significant additional
affordable housing to meet local needs.
The current complexities surrounding the financing and delivery of affordable housing
are explained within the initial summary report accompanying this application and this is
a consideration that spans each of the five development sites proposed as part of the
applicant’s District-wide strategy and is discussed in more detail in a later section of this
report.
Therefore, given recognised changes in the availability of public funding and the
publication of the NPPF, the Council has taken an approach to affordable housing
provision that reflects the requirements of the NPPF through flexibility in respect of the
scale of development and the inclusion of some market housing, where its provision
would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local
needs.
The Committee will note that the Strategic Housing team have confirmed that there is a
local affordable housing need in the Parish/adjacent Parishes for the number of
affordable dwellings proposed and that this proposal has been designed to specifically
address that local need.
To conclude, it is considered that there are sufficient material considerations in this
instance to permit a departure from development plan Policy HO3 in respect of the scale
and location of the dwellings, due to the identified local need and justification provided
by paragraph 54 of the NPPF which allows the provision of market housing to subsidise
additional affordable housing to meet local needs.
Further, whilst the site is not in a selected village and the sustainability of the location
therefore needs to be questioned, Binham is not without certain facilities, including a
public house, village hall, butchers shop and small store with petrol pumps and
development of this site would help to support these existing facilities and enhance the
vitality of the village as paragraph 55 of the NPPF promotes.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare,
it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for exception sites
in the Countryside and indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests that local planning
authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local
circumstances.
Density is an issue that has been raised by a number of local residents who are
concerned that too many dwellings are proposed, resulting in cramped development
which is not in keeping with the character of the area. In comparison the existing
Development Committee
24
25 February 2016
development at Priory Crescent takes two forms with the older original development
being of a density of approximately 17 dwellings per hectare, while the more recent
development granted consent in 2005 has been constructed at a density of
approximately 45 dwellings per hectare.
In this instance, the proposed scheme would represent a housing density across the
site of 25 dwellings per hectare. It is acknowledged that the density varies across the
site between the area of affordable dwellings and the area of market dwellings. This is
due to a large extent on the mix of properties identified to meet local housing need being
smaller 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings which command a smaller area of outside amenity
space and also these properties not having on plot parking, thus reducing plot size.
The Conservation and Design section acknowledges that the scheme features a
close-knit arrangement of dwellings. However, with the village core also characterised
by the close-knit relationships between its buildings, it is considered that the
development would not be so out of character as to justify an objection on this ground.
A reduction of one or two units from the scheme would clearly help to create more space
for parking and help to overcome issues that have been raised in relation to
development in the north-west corner of the site. It is recognised however that a
reduction in density can only be achieved by reducing the overall number of dwellings
proposed to be built on the site and on this site in particular this will have a significant
impact on the viability of the scheme and its significant contribution towards the delivery
of the District-wide strategy.
Therefore, with consideration given to the context of the site and surrounding densities,
it is considered that the density proposed would be acceptable and makes the best and
most efficient use of land.
Housing Mix
There are a wide range of dwelling types and sizes proposed as part of the scheme to
cater for and attract a variety of people to the village, including the provision of family
accommodation.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings (11 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace
not more than 70sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 40% (11 units) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and 70sqm floor space or
less. Also 29% (8 units) have ground floor bedrooms which are suitable or easily
adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled, in compliance with Policy
HO1 of the Core Strategy and the North Norfolk Design Guide.
The Committee will note that comments from the Council's Housing Strategy team
conclude that the size and type of affordable dwellings proposed under this scheme
(including the four units proposed for shared ownership) reflects the local housing need.
Layout and design
The scheme has been designed to provide a coherent and sympathetic entrance to the
village in a way that is sensitive and reflects the overall character of the village. Priory
Crescent currently has an incomplete feel to it and the proposed layout seeks to resolve
this by completing the streetscape to Priory Crescent and creating a frontage to
Walsingham Road. However, rather than follow the strict regimentation of Priory
Crescent, the layout has instead turned to the traditional village core for its inspiration.
Development Committee
25
25 February 2016
Hence, it features variations in building orientation and spaces, and provides good links
through to the existing infrastructure, including providing a pedestrian link through the
site from Walsingham Road to Priory Crescent and to the public footpath to the western
boundary that provides access to the Village Memorial Hall to the north of the village.
The scheme mixes traditional styles on the principal plots, adding visual interest and
architectural quality to the immediate vicinity, with buildings of more neutral appearance
where the site abuts the existing housing to the north.
Comments from the Councils Conservation and Design team and from Historic England
suggest that the western edge of the site and its interaction with and transition into the
open countryside beyond is an important consideration. The development on Plot 9 in
the north west corner is considered a somewhat removed part of the development that
extends into the part of the site that provides the green buffer to the countryside. In an
attempt to address this concern the applicant has altered the house type to a ‘barn style’
dwelling and moved it off of the western boundary to create the appearance of a building
which would stand in this location adjacent to open countryside. Although this is not
considered to be an entirely convincing argument it will not result in substantial harm
being caused to the conservation area and a refusal of the scheme could not be justified
on this basis.
There are a mix of building types, heights, styles and designs both on the site and within
the vicinity and, against this backdrop, the dwellings are of a domestic scale considered
appropriate for a village location. It would usually be the case that tenures are
interspersed across a site, however it has not been possible in this instance to achieve
this. The layout of existing development that surrounds the site and the large variation
in house sizes proposed does not easily allow for a layout that integrates smaller
affordable dwellings across the development. The Committee will note that the
Conservation and Design Team Leader has no overriding objection to the scheme,
subject to conditions regarding materials.
It is recognised that there would be some shortfalls in the Basic Amenity Criteria
recommendations for window-to-blank gable distances between a small number of
proposed dwellings to the east of the site. Also the dwelling on Plot 11 is located a
relatively short distance from the northern boundary, but the arrangement of the
fenestration at first floor level together with existing boundary screening will be sufficient
to mitigate unacceptable levels of overlooking. Therefore, on balance, it is considered
that the small number of basic amenity criteria shortcomings of the scheme do not
warrant a refusal of the whole scheme and would be outweighed by the public benefits
of the proposal.
Impact on designated heritage assets
In terms of the Council exercising its statutory duties under Section 66(1) and 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, special regard/attention
needs to be paid to the preservation or enhancement of the District’s heritage assets.
In the event of any harm being identified, this affectively acts as a statutory presumption
against development unless outweighed by other material considerations or public
benefits. This is reiterated in paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF which states that
any harm to a heritage asset or development within its setting should be quantified and
requires a clear and convincing justification. Where harm is less than substantial this
should be weighed against any public benefit of the proposals.
The assessment of the degree of harm to designated heritage assets is something that
both the Councils Conservation and Design Team Leader and an Inspector from
Historic England have commented on. Binham’s Scheduled priory site which contains
the parish church is towards the northern edge of the settlement and it is not considered
that the proposals would result in harm to the significance of this heritage asset by
Development Committee
26
25 February 2016
development in its setting.
The site however occupies an important position on the south western approach to the
village and at the southern extent of the Binham Conservation Area. At present the site
represents a featureless piece of land that remains left over from previous incremental
development of the area to the north and east. The site does however help to provide
a green edge to the settlement in this location although it is currently contained behind
hedging to the Walsingham Road to the south and to the public right of way to the west.
In this case, it is considered that the proposed development would amount to ‘less than
substantial harm’ to the significance of the Binham Conservation Area, resulting from
the increased density of housing on the western side of the site and the reduction of an
open, green feeling to the edge of the settlement which will impact upon the way the
conservation area is viewed from the south and west. The Historic England Inspector
has placed greater emphasis on the degree of harm to the conservation area than the
Councils own Conservation and Design Team Leader, although both acknowledge that
the harm is less than substantial in scale. Also it should be recognised that the effected
part of the conservation area is a rather peripheral element of a much larger
designation.
The degree of harm in terms of paragraph 132 of the NPPF should be weighed against
the public benefit that would be delivered, in accordance with paragraph 134 of the
NPPF. In this instance, the public benefit is the provision of affordable housing to meet
an identified local need on this site and acknowledgement of the contribution that this
site in particular makes to the delivery of a substantial amount of affordable housing on
this and other sites across the District through the generation of a substantial level of
surplus. In weighing this public benefit against the identified harm as stated in
paragraph 134, it is considered that the provision of the significant amount of affordable
housing that would be secured as part of the District-wide strategy represents the 'clear
and convincing justification' sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to a
designated heritage asset as required by paragraph 132.
Landscape, biodiversity and open space
A Landscape, Visual & Heritage Statement accompanies the application and includes a
landscape strategy with content that is considered compatible with the rural setting and
edge of settlement location, ensuring that the proposed development will not result in
significant landscape or visual effects. The landscape strategy is centred on the
creation of a landscaped green located to the north of the site, bound by Priory
Crescent. The green will provide a focal point for the site and create a sense of space.
The scheme also provides three landscaped areas along the main spine road which
also provide landscape features, increasing the amenity of the area. The areas of
open space will be maintained by Broadland Housing Group or the Highway Authority in
areas that contain highways drainage features. Planning conditions will be used to
secure appropriate boundary treatment (including planting), to the edges of the open
space to ensure its continued use for this purpose and to prevent use for parking.
Individual householders will maintain new boundary hedging associated with individual
plots.
The layout picks up on the prevailing built form of the village and the areas of open
space are well located, providing linkages with the existing dwellings along Priory
Crescent and pedestrian routes through the development to footpaths and the open
countryside to the west.
An existing oak tree to the south west corner of the site is to be retained and although
the existing hedgerow along the southern site boundary is required to be removed to
Development Committee
27
25 February 2016
deliver highway improvements, new hedges will be planted to the new front garden
boundaries to Walsingham Road. A weldmesh fence with hedge planting alongside is
proposed to the boundary of the site to the public footpath on the western site boundary
and is considered an appropriate means of softening the transition between the site and
the countryside beyond.
Tree and vegetation works required to the small piece of land required for provision of
the visibility splay at the Walsingham Road junction with Front Street/Hindringham
Road, are considered appropriate subject to satisfactory reinstatement of the grassed
verge and appropriate boundary treatment which can be secured by planning condition.
The application was also accompanied by an Ecological Survey and Arboricultural
Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan & Method Statement and the mitigation
measures and recommendations within these reports should form a specific condition of
any formal consent.
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer has no objection to the proposed
development subject to conditions securing elements of remaining detail and
implementation in accordance with submitted plans and surveys.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
As a competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 (as amended) the council must have regard to the requirements of the
Regulations when determining planning applications. The Council must decide if a
proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, either alone or
in-combination with other plans or projects, on the conservation objectives of a
European designated nature conservation site (Natura 2000 site).
The increasing residential development within the District has been identified as having
the potential to result in in-direct effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000
sites, arising from in-combination recreational disturbance effects. For some of the
residential allocations within the District (those that form part of the Site Allocations
DPD) a mitigation and monitoring package is required to mitigate for the potential
significant effects that may arise as a result of the development. This package is
secured through a financial contribution to the council from the developer of £50 per
dwelling.
The in-combination effects arising from residential recreational disturbance from these
additional dwellings together with other additional dwellings permitted in the District
cannot be ruled out. A solution for the impact of the additional residential development
would be to secure mitigation to offset any potential effects that may occur as a result of
the development. The mitigation could take the form of the previously agreed
mitigation package for other residential development within the District, that of securing
£50 per dwelling to contribute to the council's monitoring and mitigation package. A
conclusion of no likely significant effect on Natura 2000 sites could then be established
and the council will have discharged its duties under the Regulations.
The applicant is aware that the charge relating to this site amounts to £1400.
Highways issues
The application proposes a new point of vehicular access from Walsingham Road to the
south to serve 16 dwellings. This necessitates junction improvements to improve
visibility at the junction of Walsingham Road and Hindringham Road/Front Street, which
will also deliver a wider benefit to road users at this junction. In order to achieve the
required junction improvements the acquisition of third party land is necessary and such
works will be secured utilising necessary planning conditions and legal agreements.
Development Committee
28
25 February 2016
The existing access from Priory Crescent will serve 12 of the affordable dwellings.
There will be no route for vehicles through the site, reducing the amount of traffic
utilising Priory Crescent, although the Highway Authority have confirmed in principle
that the entire development could be served off Priory Crescent.
The supporting information suggests that the impact of the proposed development on
the surrounding highway network is likely to be very small and therefore the proposed
development would not give rise to any inherent safety concerns or highway safety
issues which may impact upon the local area. A number of measures to enhance
highway safety are proposed, including the offsite junction improvements to
Walsingham Road and Front Street/Hindringham Road junction, and the extension of
the 30mph speed limit along Walsingham Road.
The Council's parking standards require a maximum of 59 spaces for this development.
As amended, the scheme proposes a total of 61 car parking spaces through a
combination of on plot parking spaces and garages together with one communal
parking court. Additionally there are four proposed spaces for the two existing
dwellings owned by Victory Housing Association that will have their parking displaced
as a result of the development proposed. The Parish Council and some local residents
have raised concerns about insufficient parking provision for the proposed scheme.
Attempts have been made by officers to negotiate an improved parking layout as it is
recognised that the allocation of spaces within the parking court relative to the
corresponding dwellings is not ideal and could give rise to localised parking issues in
this area of the site. There is also no provision of formal visitor parking, however this is
not a requirement of Core Strategy Policy CT6 or the Councils Car Parking Standards.
Some improvements have been made to the initial layout plan with regards parking
provision and across the development as a whole it is recognised that the number of
spaces provided is in accordance with the required standard and therefore complies
with Core Strategy Policy CT6. The Committee will note that the Highway Authority
have not raised any objection to the scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Drainage
In relation to drainage, the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy
provided in support of the application concludes that the ground conditions of the site
are mixed. The drainage strategy proposes surface water to be directed to local
soakaways for the 100 year flood event with a 30% allowance for climate change.
Private driveways and parking areas will also be constructed using permeable paving,
in addition to drainage within the estate road via trapped gullies to soakaways within the
areas of open space. Further details of the surface water drainage system will be
required and can be secured by way of an appropriately worded planning condition.
With regards to foul drainage, due to concerns over capacity and flooding in Priory
Crescent, the proposal is to direct all foul drainage south towards Walsingham Road
and then east to the public foul sewer. Anglian Water has confirmed that the foul
system at this location has capacity for the development but the discharge will need to
be pumped through an on-site pumping station, located near Plot 6. The facility will be
accessed via the junction of Walsingham Road and the footpath along the western
boundary. The location has been agreed in discussions with Anglian Water.
The FRA and Drainage Strategy concludes that the risk of flooding from all sources is
low, that the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and subject to the
provision of a pumping station, capacity exists within the local network to handle the foul
drainage requirements of the development. On this basis, the proposed development
Development Committee
29
25 February 2016
complies with the requirements of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy SS4 and EN10.
Other issues
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Policy EN6 is no longer applicable as
government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing the Code for
Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer require
compliance with these standards.
Policy EN6 also requires 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the development to
be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. The applicant has by way of a
basic generic ‘Energy Strategy’ concluded that the capital building costs to install the
necessary renewable technologies in tandem with enhanced thermal insulation to meet
directly with policy EN6 is economically unviable. High levels of insulation, solar
thermal or PV, air source heat pumps and high efficiency mechanical heat recovery
ventilation will be adopted to reduce energy demand. Given the known and well
documented viability issues associated with delivering sites that contain a high
proportion of affordable housing and the specific viability information that has been
provided in support of this planning application it is considered that sufficient information
has been provided to justify non-compliance with the energy generation requirements of
Policy EN6 on viability grounds. Precise details including the location of any air source
heat pumps to be installed will be secured by planning condition, to ensure a full
assessment of noise impacts are taken into account before agreeing to their installation.
In respect of land contamination, Environmental Health has advised that further
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants affecting the
site is required. This will form part of a condition.
Further to the comments from Anglian Water relating to capacity issues at Langham
Water Recycling Centre, further comment has been requested to determine whether
there are any associated implications. Committee will be updated verbally on this
matter once comments are available.
You will note that comments have been received from the Internal Drainage Board
requesting a one off Surface Water Development Charge be paid by the developer
should discharge be made to within their boundary. This is ultimately a matter to be
resolved between the applicant and the IDB, separate from this planning application.
A fire hydrant would be required as part of the development.
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards improvements to the
existing children’s play area on the nearby playing-field and provision of
allotments
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies for mitigation and monitoring of
potential impacts on European designated sites.
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and submitted for consideration.
Development Viability
The subject of development viability is set out within the initial summary report that
accompanies this application and provides details of how the applicant considers the
Development Committee
30
25 February 2016
five rural exception sites as contributing towards a District-wide strategy for the
provision of affordable housing (Further details can be found in Appendix 1.)
Details suggest that the development at Binham includes a level of market housing to
directly finance the amount of affordable housing proposed on the site itself and would
result in a significant amount of surplus at £1,265,495, equating to a developer return of
18.7%. This identified surplus will be reinvested in the provision of affordable housing
on other sites.
It is recognised that the means of delivering affordable housing has changed due to
reduced availability of grant funding and with further impending changes to Government
policy. Looking for more innovative ways of delivering affordable housing will therefore
be required. In this instance the overarching viability appraisal highlights that the
delivery of this site will generate a significant amount of surplus, including subsidy from
Broadland Housing Association, that will be recycled back in to the provision of
affordable housing on the other development schemes that form part of the District-wide
strategy. The delivery of development on this site is therefore linked to delivery of the
District-wide affordable housing strategy. Without the surplus generated from this site
the resulting reduction in the overall scheme surplus could potentially have a significant
impact on the viability of the District-wide strategy.
Summary
As a proposed rural exception housing scheme, whilst not in strict compliance with Core
Strategy Policy HO3, in terms of the scale of development and tenure mix; the
development is considered to nonetheless accord with paragraph 54 of the NPPF which
does not set a quantum of development acceptable on rural exception sites where the
numbers proposed reflect local needs and allows the inclusion of market housing. The
guidance within the NPPF is a material consideration that should be afforded significant
weight.
Any harm in landscape and visual amenity terms is considered to be negligible in the
long term. It is acknowledged that less than substantial harm has been identified to a
designated heritage asset, that being the Binham Conservation Area. Considering
paragraph 132 and 134 of the NPPF, the public benefit of providing much needed local
needs affordable housing on this site, together with the contribution that the delivery of
development on this site will make to the overall District-wide strategy, is considered a
clear and convincing justification sufficient to outweigh the limited harm to the
designated heritage asset in this case.
Although it is acknowledged that a not insignificant amount of local objection and
concern has been raised concerning the development of this site, including objection
from the Parish Council, the development accords with relevant development plan
policies other than in the instances already identified above where justification is
provided by provisions of the NPPF. Also there are no objections from statutory
consultees, subject to the imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms
set out in the report.
(ii) Appropriate conditions relating to; highways construction and
construction worker parking, provision of a visibility splay, construction
traffic management plan, off-site highway works and Traffic Regulation
Development Committee
31
25 February 2016
Order, securing appropriate design details and materials, hard and soft
landscaping, arboricultural and ecological mitigation, surface and foul water
drainage, provision of a fire hydrant, contamination site investigation,
details of use of renewable technologies and any other conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning
3.
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1223 - Erection of twenty two residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway and landscape works.; Land off Rectory Road and Holt
Road, Edgefield, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts
Major Development
- Target Date: 05 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Countryside
Conservation Area
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
B Road – Holt Road
Unclassified Road
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19921600 VO
Low density residential development
Refused 17/02/1993
Also, below are applications relevant to land directly adjacent to the application site.
PLA/19960583 PF
Change of use to children's playground and installation of play equipment
Approved 25/07/1996
PF/15/1200 PF
Erection of single-storey extension and conversion of agricultural barn to four dwellings
Approved 11/11/2015
LA/15/1201 LA
Internal and external alterations to facilitate conversion and extension of agricultural
barn to four dwellings
Approved 11/11/2015
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for 22 dwellings on 1.48 hectares of land towards the northern
edge of the village of Edgefield. The land extends between Holt Road to the east and
Rectory Road to the west. A new single point of vehicular access to the site will be
created from Holt Road with no vehicular access provided from Rectory Road (as
required by the Highway Authority). Pedestrian access is provided through the site to
Rectory Road to the west and the children’s play area to the south. A small area of
on-site open space is proposed to the south of the site.
55% of the units (12 dwellings) are proposed to be affordable and 45% (10 dwellings)
are proposed for sale on the open market, with tenures interspersed across the site.
Development Committee
32
25 February 2016
The affordable dwellings will consist of 9 dwellings on an affordable rent basis
consisting of;
 1 x one-bed bungalow,
 4 x one-bed houses,
 1 x two-bed bungalow,
 2 x two-bed houses’
 1 x three-bed house.
While 3 dwellings are proposed on a shared ownership basis consisting of;
 2 x two-bed houses,
 1 x three-bed house.
The market dwellings mix consists of;
 2 x two-bed houses,
 6 x three-bed houses,
 2 x four-bed houses.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Overarching Planning Statement (Amended)
 Overarching Viability Assessment (Commercially Confidential)
 Design and Access Statement
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Flood Risk Assessment
 Desk Study Summary Investigation
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement
 Ecological Survey
 Screening Under Habitat Regulations for Broadland Housing Sites
 Geophysical Survey
 Landscape, Visual and Heritage Statement
 Transport Note and Trip Rates, (to be read alongside the Transport Note)
 Generic Energy Strategy
The application is also accompanied by a draft S.106 Agreement which makes
provision for twelve of the 22 dwellings on this application site to be used for the
provision of affordable housing and confirms contributions relevant to this application
site to education of £46,576 and to off-site public open space improvements of £7,600,
as requested by the relevant consultees.
Amended plans have been submitted in response to initial comments received from
consultees to address concerns raised relating to highways, design and landscaping
issues.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the wide range of planning
considerations connected with this package of proposals.
PARISH COUNCIL
Response to original plans: The Parish Council fully supports this application and would
like to comment that they feel the small development will benefit the village hugely.
No further response received following consultation on the amended plans.
Development Committee
33
25 February 2016
REPRESENTATIONS
3 letters of objection have been received of which the main issues are summarised
below:
 Approaching the village from Holt the development will be a blot on the
landscape and will affect the character and appearance of the conservation
area;
 This is too many houses for the size of the village, the housing is not needed;
 The road access is on a section of road already subject to lots of accidents;
 The sewage and drainage is questionable;
 Is the electricity supply to the village adequate?
 Is the water supply to the village adequate?
 There is no school in the village and schools in Corpusty, Briston and Holt are
full;
 There is no shop, post office or petrol filling station in the village, there is a
limited bus service and employment in the parish is minimal;
 The village should be allowed to grow more naturally and slowly;
 Do not agree with the conclusions of the drainage report.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions relating to; roads,
footways, foul and surface water drainage construction, provision and maintenance of
the required visibility splay, details of on-site construction worker parking and wheel
cleaning facilities and promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order in relation to extension of
the 30mph speed limit.
County Council (Infrastructure Requirements) - Requires the following financial
contributions to be secured via a Section 106 obligation:
 £46,576 required towards primary education at Holt Primary School.
 Nil requirements for library provision.
Norfolk Fire Service - Planning condition required for provision of one fire hydrant.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) – No objection. No further works or
conditions are required.
County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority) – No comments as the application falls
below the current threshold for detailed comment.
Housing Strategy - Supports the application. Edgefield is designated as Countryside
Area and as such the new dwellings are required to be provided in line with Policy HO3
as Exception Scheme Housing and the National Planning Policy Framework – March
2012 section 54, Part 6.
There is an identified local housing need for affordable housing in Edgefield. The
inclusion of market housing in the scheme proposal, to enable the delivery of the
exception scheme housing, is subject to a financial viability assessment. The Section
106 agreement will need to stipulate the dwellings are let in accordance with the Local
Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are met.
There are 114 households on the Housing List who have a local connection to Edgefield
and the adjoining parishes. The requirement for 1 (53.33%) 2 (24.17%) and 3 or larger
(22.50%) bedroom properties indicates there is an overriding requirement for 1
bedroom properties.
Development Committee
34
25 February 2016
There is currently no Exception Scheme Housing in Edgefield. The proposed
development maximises the amount of households who can be housed and would
therefore assist in meeting some of the proven local housing need.
The proposed housing mix supports the identified local housing need. The Housing
Strategy and Community Support team supports the application for the provision of the
affordable dwellings as local lettings to be set out in the S106 agreement in accordance
with the Local Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are met.
Conservation and Design Team Leader - This particular site is situated within the
south east corner of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area which itself runs straight into
the Edgefield Conservation Area. It consists of two distinct areas; i) a piece of infill land
between the former local authority properties on Rectory Road to the west and those
fronting the B1149 to the east, and ii) a corner of an existing arable field which slopes
gently down to the Grade II Listed Old Hall Farm complex.
Of these two areas, the infill land is relatively self-contained and could be built on
without any real detriment to the appearance and character of the designated areas.
By contrast, the field to the north is relatively open and makes a significant contribution
to the setting of the village on its northern approach, as existing the built form is strongly
contained behind the mature tree belt and hedging which marks the southern boundary
of the field. To build upon this field would constitute a clear and artificial intrusion into
the countryside irrespective of the house types and any new planting. Given it would
also begin to impinge upon the setting of the Grade II Listed, Old Hall site, which
currently stands in splendid isolation, this is considered to be an inappropriate form of
development which is being unduly driven by highway safety requirements.
On this basis, Conservation & Design remain at odds with the submitted Landscape,
Visual & Heritage Statement that concludes that existing incongruous elements detract
from the sites character and amenity and therefore prevent the site making a positive
contribution to the area. The statement also suggests that the development “would be
an opportunity to create a new defined edge to Edgefield that would be more
sympathetic to the local vernacular”. However, the existing northern boundary has
marked the northern extent of the village core for the last 100 years or so and before
that was a longstanding, field enclosure. Instead, it is considered that the new planting
on the proposed boundary line would achieve little more than softening what would be a
compromised form of development in a subdivided corner of a field.
It is considered that the proposed development would impact upon two heritage assets,
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and Old Hall Farmhouse, a Grade II Listed
Building to the north-west. The application site lies in the south east corner of the
Conservation Area and is for the most part undeveloped and has a gentle rolling quality.
This enables it to make a positive contribution within its wider landscape setting. To
build upon the agricultural land would result in a suburbanising impact, which would
lead to “less than substantial harm” being caused to the overall significance of this
particular heritage asset.
With regards Old Hall Farmhouse and its ancillary farm buildings (that have recently
been granted consent for conversion to four dwellings), they are surrounded by fields
and occupy a strategic and solitary position to the north of the main village. When
viewed from the south-east, east and north, there are currently uninterrupted and
filtered views of the listed entity. These would be both blocked and impinged upon
should the development go ahead. The open outlook helps to define the building’s
physical setting, but it also contributes to its enjoyment as a rural and relatively tranquil
heritage asset. For these specific reasons, it can only be concluded that the
Development Committee
35
25 February 2016
development would lead to “less than substantial harm” being caused to the overall
significance of this particular heritage asset.
It is however acknowledged that the development is an important component of a much
wider series of sites across the District. As such, it is potentially offering a range of
public benefits which must be assessed alongside the harm identified (as per para 134
of the NPPF). Should it ultimately be considered that the benefits outweigh the harm, it
will be important to get the best possible result for the village visually, for which some
design suggestions have been made and in the main addressed.
In summary, although aware of the wider context around the supply of affordable
housing within the District, we are also specifically charged with protecting its built and
natural environments. It is therefore with a great deal of regret that it is not possible to
support this application as it is considered that this scheme would fail to preserve or
enhance the identified heritage assets. No doubt this view will be considered
alongside the public benefits accruing from the scheme when the application is
determined.
Landscape Officer – In terms of landscape and visual effects, it is the northern section
of the site that will incur the most significant impact, essentially by extending the built
form into the rural landscape that currently forms the setting of the settlement.
The landscape character of the site and its significance within the wider landscape has
been undervalued within the LVIA. To conclude that the site makes a Positive
Contribution to the local landscape character would be a more accurate depiction.
The North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (SPD June 2009) places the site
within the landscape type defined as Tributary Farmland (TF3). Suburban features
such as kerbing, roadside paths and street lighting, walling and fencing as additions to
the settlement structure are specifically highlighted as suburban features which may
diminish the character of these rural isolated villages. Within the design layout, a new
road access into the site directly off the main road, B1149 is proposed. This is an
elevated site in a highly prominent location and to achieve the required visibility splays
will reportedly require 50.5m of mature field boundary hedgerow removal which will
significantly open up the site and make it very prominent from Holt Road altering the
approach into the village. New hedge planting is proposed along a new alignment but it
will be at least 5 years before this is effective in terms of screening. Therefore, although
mitigation planting is proposed, this element of the scheme alone will incur significant
landscape and visual impact.
The existing triangular arable field with its defined hedge boundary with the main road
mirrors the open fields on the opposite side of the road and these landscape features
combine to form a clear definition between the built form of the village and its rural
landscape setting at this prominent approach.
The applicant’s LVIA concludes that ‘the proposed development presents an
opportunity to create a new defined edge to Edgefield that would be more sympathetic
to the local vernacular and in keeping with local character guidelines.’ Conservation
Design & Landscape are of the opinion that the existing northern edge to the settlement
is already well defined by virtue of the existing mature hedge and tree field boundary
and that this field boundary and the small arable field that it encloses already forms an
entirely appropriate setting to the village that is in keeping with the stated local
landscape character.
The Ecological Survey concluded no issues of concern relating to protected species
Development Committee
36
25 February 2016
and that licences would not be required. A suite of mitigation and enhancement
measures are proposed including a lighting plan to ensure the ‘dark corridor’ remains
along the central hedge. All these elements should be secured by condition, should the
proposals go forward for approval.
The northern boundary comprises of a few trees and a native hedge, this important
boundary remains weak. Given that there are fundamental concerns regarding the
landscape and visual impact of this development particularly to the north, it is surprising
that more substantial planting proposals have not been put forward along this boundary
to mitigate these impacts.
The revised AIA proposes removal of more mature trees which will have an adverse
impact on what is currently a continuous tree line. The requirement for removal and
reduction of so much of the canopy structure and height of at least 8 trees to address
shading issues confirms that the buildings are positioned too close to this line of mature
vegetation.
Therefore, the latest plans and planting proposals address some minor landscape
issues raised previously, but fail to consider some of the wider issues that are of
concern, namely loss of so much of the existing landscape features of the site and lack
of landscape mitigation to address the landscape and visual impact incurred by the
layout approaching the site from the north. The economic and social benefits of
schemes such as these must no doubt be weighed against the landscape, heritage and
ecological impacts. In this case Conservation Design and Landscape consider that the
impact on the local landscape character Tributary Farmland TF3, on the identified
heritage assets and the cumulative loss of biodiversity and mature habitat that would
result from the amount of ‘important’ hedgerow removal is such that the proposal cannot
be recommended for approval in its present form.
Historic England – Do not object to the application but would urge the Council to
consider the degree of harm in terms of paragraph 132 of the NPPF and weigh it against
the public benefit that would be delivered.
The use of the site for residential dwellings has potential to harm the significance of the
conservation area by erosion of the existing northern boundary of the village which
consists of substantial, well established vegetative boundary treatment providing a clear
definition between the residential and agricultural areas.
Developing the site could result in a low level of harm to the significance to the
conservation area and not make the positive contribution referred to in paragraph 137 of
the NPPF. There is a degree of public benefit from the new housing, particularly a
higher proportion of affordable units and the council should weigh the public benefit
delivered by the development against the harm and seek the ‘clear and convincing
justification’ required by para 132 of the NPPF.
Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions to secure a further
investigation into potential contamination on site as part of a phase two investigation
and also further detail of the surface water drainage system.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The proposals would deliver approximately
400sqm of new public open space. This is below the standard of about 1500sqm.
However the development is situated next to a large area of public open space, which
also contains children’s play equipment in a state of decline. The Parish Clerk has
indicated that there is no demand for allotments but has stated that the play area is in
need of improvement.
Development Committee
37
25 February 2016
The developer should provide a contribution of £7,600 for improvements to the existing
children’s play area.
North Norfolk District Council would not be minded to adopt the on-site open space and
this should be managed by others.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy 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 CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
Development Committee
38
25 February 2016
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).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 54 - in rural areas, Local Planning Authorities should be responsive to local
circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for
affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local
Planning Authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market
housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet
local needs.
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s
conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal.
Paragraph 173 (Ensuring viability and deliverability) states that development should not
be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be
developed viably is threatened.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
Annexe 2: Glossary a definition of ‘rural exception sites’ as “small sites used for
affordable housing in perpetuity which seek to address the needs of the local
community, where sites would not normally be used for housing. Small numbers of
Development Committee
39
25 February 2016
market homes may be allowed at the local authority’s discretion, for example where
essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding”.
Other material considerations – Section 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and Design
 Impact on designated heritage assets
 Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
 Highways issues
 Drainage
 Other issues
 Habitats Regulations Assessment
 S.106 requirements
 Development Viability
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda which
relates to this application and the other four applications submitted on behalf of
Broadland St Benedicts (refs: PF/15/1221, PF/15/1227, PF/15/1228 & PF/15/1461).
The application site is situated at the northern edge of the village and consists of two
distinctly separate areas of land. The southern part of the application site consists of two
rectangular paddocks separated by hedged/treed boundaries, one currently used as a
smallholding and the other remains as overgrown grassland. The northern part of the
site is a triangular shaped piece of a larger arable field, separated from the southern
part of the site by a mature boundary consisting of trees. The whole application site is
irregular in shape and land across the site is generally falling from north-east to
south-west. Residential development is located adjacent to the south and west
boundaries of the site consisting of two storey dwellings. To the north and east is
agricultural land. The northern boundary of the site is open to the remainder of the
arable field, while the eastern boundary with the Holt Road (B1149) has a long section
of agricultural hedgerow. The site’s southern boundary consists of mature trees. While
travelling further west into the site the southern boundary consists of a post and wire
fence on to the existing play area and the western boundary consists of similar fencing
on to an access track to the rear of a pair of two storey dwellings to the west.
The Committee visited the site on 18 February 2016.
Principle of the development
The site lies within the ‘countryside’ policy area where under Policy SS2 of the adopted
Core Strategy, the principle of erecting affordable housing in designated Countryside is
acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies including the Council's rural
exception site policy (HO3).
Policy HO3 includes a number of criteria which control the location, scale and tenure
mix of affordable housing schemes. In summary, these require:
 The demonstration of a local housing need;
 Proposals for ten or more dwellings to be situated within 100m of a development
boundary;
Development Committee
40
25 February 2016


Proposals for ten dwellings or less to adjoin an existing group of ten or more
dwellings and not to lie within a 1km radius of any other scheme permitted under
the policy;
Occupation limited to people with a local connection to the Parish and adjacent
Parishes.
Within the Design & Access Statement that accompanies the application the applicant’s
state that ‘the site is part of the District-wide development strategy to deliver affordable
housing and is one of five rural exception sites. The housing will in part, provide
affordable homes for people with a recognised local need. The remainder will
comprise market accommodation, which in accordance with national planning policy is
required to cross subside the development of affordable housing.’
You will note that this application is of a scale in excess of the provisions of Policy HO3
given its location adjacent to a group of ten or more dwellings but some distance from a
settlement with a development boundary and the scheme includes the provision of
market dwellings.
However, the more recently published NPPF sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and this document is a
material consideration that is afforded significant weight in determining planning
applications. Paragraph 54 of the NPPF states that in rural areas local planning
authorities are required to be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing
development to reflect local needs, including affordable housing through rural exception
sites and does not set a quantum of development that is permissible and also allows the
inclusion of some market housing to facilitate the provision of significant additional
affordable housing to meet local needs.
The current complexities surrounding the financing and delivery of affordable housing
are explained within the initial summary report accompanying this application and this is
a consideration that spans each of the five development sites proposed as part of the
applicant’s District-wide strategy and is discussed in more detail in a later section of this
report.
Therefore, given recognised changes in the availability of public funding and the
publication of the NPPF, the Council has taken an approach to affordable housing
provision that reflects the requirements of the NPPF through flexibility in respect of the
scale of development and the inclusion of some market housing, where its provision
would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local
needs.
The Committee will note that the Housing Strategy team have confirmed that there is a
local affordable housing need in the Parish/adjacent Parishes for the number of
affordable dwellings proposed and that this proposal has been designed to specifically
address that local need.
To conclude, it is considered that there are sufficient material considerations in this
instance to permit a departure from development plan Policy HO3 in respect of the scale
and location of the dwellings, due to the identified local need and justification provided
by paragraph 54 of the NPPF which allows the provision of market housing to subsidise
additional affordable housing to meet local needs.
Further, whilst the site is not in a selected village and the sustainability of the location
therefore may need to be questioned, the location of the site is clearly not in such an
unsustainable location to be considered contrary to the general provisions of the NPPF
Development Committee
41
25 February 2016
regarding sustainable development. Also the village of Edgefield is not without certain
facilities, including a public house and village hall and development of this site would
help to support these existing facilities and enhance the vitality of the village as
paragraph 55 of the NPPF promotes.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare,
it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for exception sites
in the Countryside and when considering development in a Conservation Area and
indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests that local planning authorities should set
their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
In this instance, the proposed scheme would represent a housing density across the
site of 15 dwellings per hectare. With consideration given to the context of the site,
surrounding densities and heritage designations, it is considered that the density
proposed would be acceptable and makes the best and most efficient use of land.
Housing Mix
There are a wide range of dwelling types and sizes proposed as part of the scheme to
cater for and attract a variety of people to the village, including the provision of smaller
sized family accommodation.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings (10 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace
not more than 70sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 50% (12 units) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and 25% (6 units) have
floorspace of 70sqm or less, while the figure rises to 50% (12 units) if dwellings with a
floor space of 74sqm or less are included. Also 17% (4 units) have ground floor
bedrooms or dining rooms that are suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the
elderly, infirm or disabled. Therefore, although the scheme falls slightly short when
considering the 20% requirement of Core Strategy Policy HO1 and the North Norfolk
Design Guide, Officers consider that this very minor non-compliance with Policy HO1
does not, in itself warrant a refusal of the scheme.
The Committee will note the comments from the Council's Housing Strategy team who
conclude that the size and type of affordable dwellings proposed under this scheme
(including the three units proposed for shared ownership) reflects the local housing
need.
Layout and design
The applicant considers that the proposals seek to positively address the village edge
location through the creation of a high quality and attractive village extension that
respects the character of the existing settlement and the special qualities of the
adjoining countryside. They maintain that careful consideration has been given to the
composition of the wider views into the site from the north, through the positioning,
typology, scale, and massing of the individual properties, to ensure a positive
contribution to the landscape setting of the conservation area and the creation of a clear
and defensible settlement boundary to Edgefield.
Unfortunately the layout of the development has been driven to a large extent by
Development Committee
42
25 February 2016
highway authority requirements. No further vehicular access is permitted from Rectory
Road as increased use of Rectory Road and the substandard existing highway network
is not acceptable on highway safety grounds. The position of the new vehicular access
from Holt Road is influenced by access visibility requirements, however through
negotiations with the highway authority a revised visibility splay requires the removal of
a shorter length of existing roadside hedge and this together with proposed hedge
repair and new hedge planting to the Holt Road boundary to the north of the site will help
in the longer term to provide screening to the development.
The Conservation and Design Officer considers the “subtly contemporary interpretation
of rural housing in North Norfolk” to be a commendable design approach in principle,
although a significant proportion of the house types are actually of relatively neutral
appearance. It is acknowledged that attempts have been made to align the
development with its village context. Some detailed design suggestions were made and
these have all been carried through on to the revised plans and provide overall design
benefits to the scheme itself. The issue is more that of the site itself and its location in
the landscape rather than the layout or design of the built form proposed.
The development is located sufficient distance from existing residential properties that
adjoin the site to not give rise to unacceptable residential amenity issues.
Impact on designated heritage assets
In terms of the Council exercising its statutory duties under Section 66(1) and 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, special regard/attention
needs to be paid to the preservation or enhancement of the District’s heritage assets.
In the event of any harm being identified, this affectively acts as a statutory presumption
against development unless outweighed by other material considerations or public
benefits. This is reiterated in paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF which states that
any harm to a heritage asset or development within its setting should be quantified and
requires a clear and convincing justification. Where harm is less than substantial this
should be weighed against any public benefit of the proposals.
The assessment of the degree of harm to the designated heritage assets is something
that both the Councils Conservation and Design Officer and an Inspector from Historic
England have offered comment upon. In this case, it is considered that the proposed
development would impact upon two heritage assets, the Glaven Valley Conservation
Area and Old Hall Farmhouse, a Grade II Listed Building to the north-west.
The application site lies in the south-east corner of the expansive Glaven Valley
Conservation Area, defined by the rolling arable landscape forming the rural setting to
the village. To build upon the area of open agricultural land would result in a
suburbanising impact by eroding the existing northern boundary of the village, which
consists of substantial, well established vegetative boundary treatment that provides a
clear definition between the residential and agricultural areas. The proposed access off
Holt Road together with the associated hard landscape elements, the loss of vegetation
across the site and the development of the northern section of the site will effectively
extend the built form into the countryside. The resulting landscape and visual impact,
even with the proposed landscape mitigation could not be considered to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and as
such would lead to “less than substantial harm” being caused to the overall significance
of this particular heritage asset.
With regards Old Hall Farmhouse and its ancillary farm buildings (which it is
acknowledged have recently been granted consent for conversion to four dwellings),
they are surrounded by fields and occupy a solitary position to the north of the main
village. When viewed from the south-east, east and north, there are currently
Development Committee
43
25 February 2016
uninterrupted and filtered views of the listed entity which would be impinged upon
should the development go ahead. The open outlook helps to define the building’s
physical setting, but it also contributes to its enjoyment as a rural and relatively tranquil
heritage asset. By contrast, the new development would sit in the corner of the arable
field and would sit on the horizon as a suburbanising influence. For these specific
reasons, it is concluded that the development would lead to “less than substantial harm”
being caused to the overall significance of this particular heritage asset.
The degree of harm identified above in terms of paragraph 132 of the NPPF should be
weighed against the public benefit that would be delivered, in accordance with
paragraph 134 of the NPPF. In this instance, the public benefit is the provision of
affordable housing to meet an identified local need on this site and acknowledgement of
the contribution that this site makes to the delivery of a substantial amount of affordable
housing on this and other sites across the District, through the generation of surplus that
is recycled back in to the District-wide strategy. In weighing this public benefit against
the identified harm as stated in paragraph 134, it is considered that the provision of the
significant amount of affordable housing that would be secured as part of the
District-wide strategy represents the 'clear and convincing justification' sufficient to
outweigh the identified less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets as
required by paragraph 132.
Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
The applicant has provided a landscape strategy with associated detailed landscaping
plans and a ‘landscape, visual and heritage statement’ (LVIA) in support on the
application. The LVIA concludes that the overall site is considered to offer fair visual
amenity, whilst the existing landscape amenity of the site is assessed as offering a
limited contribution to the local landscape character of the District. The assessment
concludes that as a result of the design approach, together with the provision of
appropriate planting and mitigation, the effect of the proposed development in
landscape and visual terms, will be minimal and once proposed planting has had a
chance to establish, the development will be integrated successfully into its
surroundings.
The landscape strategy is said to have been designed to ensure that the proposals
make maximum provision for landscaping to ensure that the visual amenity and
historical integrity of this site is retained and enhanced, whilst taking opportunities to
enhance the biodiversity value of the site and establish a development, which, is well
integrated with the surrounding area. The applicant’s highlight some of the benefits
that the scheme offers which include the provision of new public space as well as
reinforced boundary hedgerow and native tree planting which will screen the
development from views to the north. The proposed landscape works once
established (5-7 years) will provide an enhanced feature over the existing.
Planting is proposed along the northern boundary of the site with the countryside and
this is subject to ongoing discussion with the applicant’s landscape designers to
negotiate the best possible boundary planting solution in the space available. The
precise detail can be secured by planning condition. The southern part of the site is
quite effectively screened from wider views due to its position in the landscape and
existing planting around the boundaries of the site.
It is unfortunate that some
existing hedgerow removal is required on the southern part of the site to accommodate
the layout proposed, however new tree, hedge and shrub planting is proposed across
the development providing compensation for what has to be lost.
However the Councils Landscape Officer is of the view that the landscape character of
the existing site and its significance within the wider landscape has been undervalued
Development Committee
44
25 February 2016
within the LVIA, and instead concludes that the existing site makes a positive
contribution to the local landscape character and the existing northern edge to the
settlement is already well defined by virtue of the existing mature hedge and tree field
boundary and that this field boundary and the small arable field that it encloses already
forms an entirely appropriate setting to the village that is in keeping with the stated local
landscape character.
The rolling arable landscape forming the rural setting to the village is typical of the
character of the Conservation Area. The proposed access off Holt Road together with
the associated hard landscape elements, the loss of vegetation across the site and the
development of the northern section of the site will effectively extend the built form into
the countryside. The resulting landscape and visual impact, even with the proposed
landscape mitigation could not be considered to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and as such will cause harm to this
heritage asset.
The amended plans and planting proposals address some minor landscape issues
raised previously, but fail to consider some of the wider issues that are of concern,
namely loss of so much of the existing landscape features of the site and lack of
landscape mitigation to address the landscape and visual impact incurred by the layout
extending into the countryside when approaching the site from the north. Planting
proposals by way of species choice do not reflect the location of the site adjacent to
open countryside and the prevailing species that define the field boundaries and
woodland in the immediate surrounding area.
The proposals do not accord with the defined Landscape Type (Tributary Farmland
TF3) and are considered contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN2. Given the cumulative
loss of habitat and biodiversity that could result from the amount of vegetation and
‘important’ hedgerow removal, that is not proportionately compensated for in the
landscape proposals, the application could also be viewed as contrary to Policy EN9.
The applicant is aware of the identified deficiencies in the landscaping strategy and
officers are continuing to seek more substantial planting to the new site boundaries and
confirmation that the loss of existing landscape and ecological features are properly
compensated. Such information can be secured by planning condition.
Therefore on balance, the public benefit of the provision of the significant amount of
local needs affordable housing that would be secured on this site and as part of the
District-wide strategy is considered a material consideration sufficient to outweigh any
remaining landscape and visual impacts associated with the scheme and its location.
Highways issues
The application proposes a new point of vehicular access to the site from Holt Road to
the east. This necessitates the removal of a section of existing roadside hedge to
provide an adequate visibility splay from the new access and to provide a short section
of new footway across the frontage of the site linking in to the existing footway that
continues south along Holt Road providing access to some of the village facilities on
foot. The initial plans that accompanied the application looked to use the existing
informal footpath along the southern boundary of the site with No.10 Holt Road (the
northern most existing residential property) as a means of residents from the new
dwellings accessing the existing footway on Holt Road and to access facilities to the
south of the site without the need to provide a new footway across the site frontage.
This however was not considered to be an acceptable solution due to the enclosed
nature of the existing path and its associated lack of surveillance. Therefore as part of
the revised proposals a short section of footway is proposed to the Holt Road frontage
Development Committee
45
25 February 2016
of the site to allow access to existing footway provision on Holt Road from a point
between Plots 4 and 5. This is considered to be an acceptable solution to providing the
continuous footway provision. An extension of the 30mph speed limit further north along
Holt Road is also proposed to beyond the site visibility splay, to reduce the speed of
vehicles when entering the village.
The Council's parking standards require a maximum of 38 spaces for this development.
The scheme meets this parking requirement through a combination of on plot parking
spaces and garages, together with shared, cart shed garaging. Small elements of the
parking arrangements are not ideal, for example the relative position of the rear parking
provision to the dwelling on Plot 9, which has sought to be rectified through the provision
of a layby parking space to the front of the dwelling and also Plots 14 and 22 are one
bedroom units with one parking space each which could give rise to localised parking
issues in this area of the site.
Some minor improvements have been made to the initial layout plan with regards
parking provision and across the development as a whole it is recognised that the
number of spaces provided is in accordance with the required standard and therefore
complies with Core Strategy Policy CT6.
The Committee will note that Edgefield Parish Council have asked the applicant’s to
provide a bus shelter at an existing bus stop on Rectory Road as part of this application.
The applicants have indicated that they are willing to provide this facility. However, this
is not something that the Highway Authority has requested and, as the provision would
not meet the legal tests of being:
 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
 Directly related to the development; and,
 Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development,
it is not considered that this application can be used to secure such infrastructure.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority have not raised any objection to the
scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Drainage
In relation to drainage, the site specific Flood Risk Assessment provided in support of
the application concludes that the ground conditions of the site are suitable for
infiltration drainage. Therefore, a sustainable approach is proposed for surface water
management, through the incorporation of soakaways for the dwellings and highway
soakaways for the estate roads within the areas of open space on the site. In addition,
private drives and parking areas will be constructed using permeable paving.
The applicants have clarified that features of the drainage system would be adopted
and maintained by a combination of the highway authority, Broadland Housing
Association and individual householders and the confirmation of such details together
with the specific design details of the surface water drainage strategy is something that
can be secured through a planning condition.
In relation to foul drainage, it is proposed that the new dwellings connect to an existing
foul drainage sewer, which crosses the area adjacent to the site, subject to approval by
Anglian Water.
The NPPF requires that sustainable drainage systems for the management of surface
water should be used to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Core
Strategy Policies SS4 and EN10 state that sustainable drainage systems to deal with
surface water run off from new development will be required. The proposed
development complies with the requirements of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policies
SS4 and EN10 subject to planning conditions securing matters of detail.
Other issues
Development Committee
46
25 February 2016
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Policy EN6 is no longer applicable as
government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing the Code for
Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer require
compliance with these standards.
Policy EN6 also requires 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the development to
be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. The applicant has by way of a
basic generic ‘Energy Strategy’ concluded that the capital building costs to install the
necessary renewable technologies in tandem with enhanced thermal insulation to meet
directly with policy EN6 is economically unviable. High levels of insulation, solar
thermal or PV, air source heat pumps and high efficiency mechanical heat recovery
ventilation will be adopted to reduce energy demand. Given the known and well
documented viability issues associated with delivering sites that contain a high
proportion of affordable housing and the specific viability information that has been
provided in support of this planning application it is considered that sufficient information
has been provided to justify non-compliance with the energy generation requirements of
Policy EN6 on viability grounds. Precise details including the location of any air source
heat pumps to be installed will be secured by planning condition, to ensure a full
assessment of noise impacts are taken into account before agreeing to their installation.
In respect of land contamination, Environmental Health has advised that further
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants affecting the
site is required. This will form part of a condition.
A fire hydrant would be required as part of the development.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
As a competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 (as amended) the council must have regard to the requirements of the
Regulations when determining planning applications. The Council must decide if a
proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, either alone or
in-combination with other plans or projects, on the conservation objectives of a
European designated nature conservation site (Natura 2000 site).
The increasing residential development within the District has been identified as having
the potential to result in in-direct effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000
sites, arising from in-combination recreational disturbance effects. For some of the
residential allocations within the District (those that form part of the Site Allocations
DPD) a mitigation and monitoring package is required to mitigate for the potential
significant effects that may arise as a result of the development. This package is
secured through a finial contribution to the council from the developer of £50 per
dwelling.
The in-combination effects arising from residential recreational disturbance from these
additional dwellings together with other additional dwellings permitted in the District
cannot be ruled out. A solution for the impact of the additional residential development
would be to secure mitigation to offset any potential effects that may occur as a result of
the development. The mitigation could take the form of the previously agreed
mitigation package for other residential development within the District, that of securing
£50 per dwelling to contribute to the council's monitoring and mitigation package. A
conclusion of no likely significant effect on Natura 2000 sites could then be established
and the council will have discharged its duties under the Regulations.
The applicant is aware that the charge relating to this site amounts to £1100.
Development Committee
47
25 February 2016
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing,
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards primary education
provision,
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards improvements to the
existing children’s play area.
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies for mitigation and monitoring of
potential impacts on European designated sites.
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and submitted for consideration.
Development Viability
The subject of development viability is set out within the initial summary report that
accompanies this application and provides details of how the applicant considers the
five rural exception sites as contributing towards a District-wide strategy for the
provision of affordable housing (Further details can be found in Appendix 1.)
Details suggest that the development at Edgefield includes a level of market housing to
directly finance the amount of affordable housing proposed on the site itself and would
result in a surplus of £234,946, equating to a developer return of 6%. This identified
surplus will be reinvested in the provision of affordable housing on other sites.
It is recognised that the means of delivering affordable housing continues to change due
to reduced availability of grant funding and with further impending changes to
Government policy. More innovative ways of delivering affordable housing will
therefore be required. In this instance the overarching viability appraisal highlights that
the delivery of this site will generate a surplus, including subsidy from Broadland
Housing Association, what will be recycled back in to the provision of affordable housing
on the other development schemes that form part of the District-wide strategy. The
delivery of development on this site is therefore linked to delivery of the District-wide
affordable housing strategy. Without the surplus generated from this site the resulting
reduction in the overall scheme surplus could potentially have a significant impact on
the viability of the District-wide strategy.
Summary
As a proposed rural exception housing scheme, whilst not in strict compliance with Core
Strategy Policy HO3, in terms of the scale of development and tenure mix; the
development is considered to nonetheless accord with paragraph 54 of the NPPF which
does not set a quantum of development acceptable on rural exception sites where the
numbers proposed reflect local needs and allows the inclusion of market housing. The
guidance within the NPPF is a material consideration that should be afforded significant
weight.
It is recognised that there has been continued support for the scheme from Edgefield
Parish Council, as they consider the development “will provide huge benefit to the
village as there are very few affordable properties currently in the village and it will allow
young families to remain in the locality and retain the vibrancy of the village”. The
Statement of Community Involvement submitted as part of the application also appears
to demonstrate some support locally for the development and only a small number of
objections were received by residents as part of the consultation for the application.
Development Committee
48
25 February 2016
As identified in the earlier sections of this report pertaining to designated heritage
assets and landscape and visual impacts, there is objection to the principle of
development on the open area of agricultural land forming the northern part of the
application site. It is acknowledged that less than substantial harm has been identified
to designated heritage assets through a failure to preserve or enhance the identified
heritage assets, that being the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and Grade II Listed,
Old Hall Farmhouse. Considering paragraph 132 and 134 of the NPPF, public benefit
is provided through securing affordable housing to meet a local need on this site and
acknowledgement of the contribution that this site makes to the delivery of a substantial
amount of affordable housing on other sites through the generation of surplus that is
recycled back in to a District-wide development strategy. In weighing this public
benefit against the identified harm as stated in paragraph 134, it is considered that the
provision of the significant amount of affordable housing that would be secured as part
of the District-wide strategy represents the 'clear and convincing justification' sufficient
to outweigh the identified ‘less than substantial harm’ to designated heritage assets as
required by paragraph 132.
Therefore on balance the provision of a significant amount of local needs affordable
housing and justification provided by provisions of the NPPF represent material
considerations sufficient to outweigh the development plan in this case.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms
set out in the report.
(ii) Appropriate conditions relating to; highways construction and
construction worker parking and wheel cleaning, provision of a visibility
splay and Traffic Regulation Order, securing appropriate design details and
materials, hard and soft landscaping, arboricultural and ecological
mitigation, surface and foul water drainage, provision of a fire hydrant,
contamination site investigation, details of use of renewable technologies
and any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning
4.
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1461 - Erection of twenty four residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works; Land off Eagle Road, Erpingham,
Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts LLP
Major Development
- Target Date: 21 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
C Road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761015 HR
Residential estate development
Development Committee
49
25 February 2016
Refused 26/10/1976
PLA/19882918 PO
Housing
Refused 22/02/1989
PLA/19921597 VO
Residential development
Refused 17/02/1993
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for 24 dwellings on approximately 1.4 hectares of land on the
eastern edge of the village. The site is a gently domed plateau on which land rises
steadily from Eagle Road to the south towards an area of woodland to the north, with the
village hall and recreation ground including playing field further north at a lower level,
accessed from The Street. There is informal pedestrian access around and through the
site to the Village Hall and recreation ground to the north. A new single point of
vehicular access to the site will be created from Eagle Road. Also a section of new
footway is proposed to connect with an existing footway further south along Eagle
Road, together with a one-way priority traffic calming feature to the south of the site. A
small area of on-site open space is proposed adjacent to Eagle Road.
50% of the units (12 dwellings) are proposed to be affordable and 50% (12 dwellings)
are proposed to be for sale on the open market, with tenures interspersed across the
site.
The affordable dwellings will consist of 8 dwellings on an affordable rent basis
consisting of;
 1 x one-bed bungalow,
 4 x one-bed houses,
 2 x two-bed houses’
 1 x three-bed house.
While 4 dwellings are proposed on a shared ownership basis consisting of;
 3 x two-bed houses,
 1 x three-bed house.
The market dwellings mix consists of;
 9 x three-bed houses,
 3 x four-bed houses.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Overarching Planning Statement (Amended)
 Overarching Viability Assessment (Commercially Confidential)
 Design and Access Statement (Amended)
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Flood Risk Assessment
 Desk Study Summary Investigation
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement
 Ecological Survey
 Screening Under Habitat Regulations for Broadland Housing Sites
 Geophysical Survey
 Landscape, Visual and Heritage Statement
 Transport Note and Trip Rates, Eagle Road Automatic Traffic Count (to be read
Development Committee
50
25 February 2016

alongside the Transport Note)
Generic Energy Strategy
The application is also accompanied by a draft S.106 Agreement which allows for
twelve of the 24 dwellings on this application site to be used for the provision of
affordable housing and confirms contributions relevant to this application site to libraries
of £1,440 and to off-site public open space improvements of £2,000 as requested by the
relevant consultees.
Amended plans have been submitted in response to comments received from local
residents and consultees to address concerns raised relating to landscaping, design,
parking and highways issues.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the wide range of planning
considerations connected with this package of proposals.
PARISH COUNCIL
Response to original plans: The Parish Council object on a number of grounds
including:








Inadequacy of the existing foul and surface water drainage system throughout
Erpingham which needs to be addressed before any further housing scheme is
permitted,
The highway solutions are based on a traffic survey which was improperly
placed,
Local GP surgeries in Aldborough and Aylsham need to be consulted to ensure
sufficient capacity particularly taking into account new development in Aylsham,
Widening of Eagle Road will destroy the rural character of the area and remove
historic banks and verges,
The properties have small windows, not in keeping with the character of the
village,
The concerns raised by residents in the community involvement phase have not
been addressed,
There is a low demand for housing from the immediate vicinity,
A previous development on this site was refused and this application should be
treated similarly.
Further to consultation following receipt of the amended plans the Parish Council have
confirmed that they continue to object for the original reasons stated above.
REPRESENTATIONS
23 letters of objection have been received of which the main issues are summarised
below:
 Erpingham is an undesignated village which cannot sustain a major
development such as this;
 Erpingham is designated countryside with no further development
recommended;
 No development should be greater than 10 dwellings;
 The existing foul water system is deficient causing flooding in the low lying area
of the village and raw sewage in peoples gardens;
 There is a lack of existing foul sewer maintenance;
 Increased surface water would potentially result in flooding further down the
road;
Development Committee
51
25 February 2016


























School Road regularly floods across the width of the road;
There is an issue with low water pressure in the village;
More traffic would be generated on a narrow and dangerous stretch of road;
As a working agricultural village heavy lorries and farm traffic pass through
Eagle Road;
The narrowing of the stretch of Eagle Road is unacceptable as the designated
access road for Erpingham and HGV access essential for businesses operating
in the area;
The highway infrastructure is not sufficient, with single lanes increasing the
possibility of accidents and danger to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders;
Erpingham has become a rat run with drivers paying little attention to speed.
Any data from the speed check is completely unfounded as it was damaged
within days and never repaired;
The additional traffic will feed on to bad junctions with the A140;
The proposed footpath will narrow the road and cause chaos;
There are no street lights or pavements in the village creating a possibility of
accidents with additional traffic;
There are little employment opportunities, no shops, post office, doctors or
dentist in the village;
There is a limited bus service in the village, increasing car usage;
The local school is full to capacity, according to the headmaster and chair of
governors;
The land rises above the main body of the village and the erection of two storey
dwellings would be a dreadful dominant, intrusion into open countryside;
The development would be in the line of sight from conservation areas to the
north and south;
The appearance and design bears no resemblance to other housing in the
village;
Many young oak trees and a mature road frontage hedge will need to be
removed from the site, replacements will not fully compensate for years;
The market dwellings may become holiday lets;
The development will impact on quality of life, create noise pollution, increase
traffic flow;
The smaller site near the Erpingham Arms public house would make a better
option in the heart of the village where road access is safer and improved access
to the school;
Question the need for the number and type of housing among Erpingham
residents;
A development of this size could affect tourism as people come to the area and
the village to enjoy open spaces and quiet village life;
This is publicly owned land and the feelings of those members of the public
(local residents) most directly affected, should be considered;
As North Norfolk District Council are the direct beneficiaries of the sale of the
land they should not be allowed to make a decision on such a contentious
application;
Few people are in favour of the development in the village;
1 comment has been made raising no objection, highlighting the need to consider the
impact of the installation of the new footway along Eagle Road and also raising
opposition to any proposed street lighting within the development or along Eagle Road;
5 letters of support have been made, below is a brief summary of the comments;
 The presence of affordable homes in the development is welcomed. Norfolk
Development Committee
52
25 February 2016



needs to provide more of these homes for local residents to be able to remain in
the county, instead of being unable to compete with holiday home or second
home purchasers;
A village such as Erpingham needs to provide housing for a younger generation;
This is an ideal position for 24 dwellings, the land is only used by dog walkers;
This is a more appropriate, accessible site, which will affect fewer people in a
direct manner.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection, subject to conditions relating to; roads,
footways, foul and surface water drainage construction, provision and maintenance of
the required visibility splay, details of on-site construction worker parking, full details of
off-site highway improvements and promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order in relation to
extension of the 30mph speed limit.
County Council (Infrastructure Requirements) - Requires the following financial
contributions to be secured via a Section 106 obligation:
 Nil requirements towards education.
 £60 per dwelling for library provision (£1,440 total)
Norfolk Fire Service
- Planning condition required for provision of one fire hydrant.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) – Still awaiting formal comments
although verbal comment has confirmed that there is no objection and no further works
or conditions are required.
Housing Strategy – Supports the application.
Erpingham is designated as
Countryside Area and as such the new dwellings are required to be provided in line with
Policy HO3 as Exception Scheme Housing and the National Planning Policy Framework
– March 2012 section 54, Part 6.
There is an identified local housing need for affordable housing in Erpingham. The
inclusion of market housing in the scheme proposal, to enable the delivery of the
exception scheme housing is subject to a financial viability assessment. The Section
106 agreement will need to stipulate the dwellings are let in accordance with the Local
Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are met.
There are 46 households on the Housing List who have a local connection to Erpingham
and the adjoining parishes. The requirement for 1 (45.65%) 2 (32.61%) and 3 or larger
(21.74%) bedroom properties indicates there is an overriding requirement for 1
bedroom properties.
There is currently no Exception Scheme Housing in Erpingham. The proposed
development maximises the amount of households who can be housed and would
therefore assist in meeting some of the proven local housing need.
The proposed housing mix supports the identified local housing need. The Housing
Strategy and Community Support team supports the application for the provision of the
affordable dwellings as local lettings to be set out in the S106 agreement in accordance
with the Local Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are met
Conservation and Design Team Leader – No objection. Although not the subject of
any heritage designation, the site is sandwiched between two projections of the large
Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area which wraps around the outside of
Erpingham. An assessment of any impacts the proposed development would have on
Development Committee
53
25 February 2016
the setting of this designation is required. The site has an undeveloped quality which
enables it to contribute to the overall rurality of the area and provides a valuable soft
buffer for the relatively recent developments on Eagle Road. Factoring in the views
between the application site and the conservation area designation, it becomes clear
that the site does make a positive contribution to the overall significance of the heritage
asset. However the contribution is relatively modest in real terms as the affected parts
of the conservation area are rather peripheral elements of a much larger designation,
there is clear separation between the conservation area and the application site, and
the existing views between the two are for the most part intermittent, filtered and not
truly public.
The proposed development will inevitably have a suburbanising impact upon the
existing locality, stemming from its buildings, its highway infrastructure and its hard
landscaping. In terms of heritage impact, however, the development would not block
any noteworthy views into the conservation area, or materially impact upon any
important views out from it. As a result, the findings of the Landscape, Visual and
Heritage Statement where it concludes that the proposed development would “cause a
negligible deterioration to the overall quality and character of the extensive conservation
area” are concurred with. This essentially means that the scheme would result in harm
being caused to the overall significance of the heritage asset but that the quantum of
harm would come some way down the “less than substantial” spectrum. This
notwithstanding, any harm identified is still harm for the purposes of the NPPF and must
be considered against the public benefits accruing from the scheme.
In summary, the proposed development would result in a limited amount of harm being
caused to heritage assets and the scheme would have a landscape impact.
Landscape Officer – No objection. Earlier concerns raised regarding the proposed
development have been considered, the proposals have been amended and a number
of the issues raised have now been addressed. The amendments will result in a
softening of the eastern boundary of the site and, as a result, a more sympathetic
boundary is now proposed for the development with the additional planting shown on
the revised plans.
The integration of the development with the countryside has always been the main
concern with the proposals, and it is still maintained that the existing mixed grassland
site provides a more attractive edge of settlement boundary than the proposed
residential development. However, taking into account the amended proposals it is
considered that the proposed development is likely to have a minor negative, short to
medium term impact on the local landscape character and visual amenity, which is likely
to reduce to a negligible impact in the long term. Based on the long term impacts, the
Landscape Section removes its previous objection to the development.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The policy requirement for public open space for
this development is 1685sqm. The design and access statement indicates that
1412sqm is to be provided but it is unclear how much of the land will be publicly
accessible. Furthermore the open space ‘shapes’ render them not particularly useful
for public amenity.
The need for a landscape buffer on the northern boundary of the development is
recognised but this is only about 4m wide and it is not clear whether it forms part of the
open space or how it is to be accessed for maintenance.
The application refers to ‘an area which has potential as a local wildlife site’. This area
does not form part of the application site boundary and remains under the ownership of
Development Committee
54
25 February 2016
North Norfolk District Council (NNDC). This area is strategically situated between the
proposed development and the village recreation ground offering opportunities for
informal recreation. This area could indeed be developed into a local wildlife site to
include more formal access between the proposed development and The Street.
Given the relatively poor provision of open space on-site it is suggested that the
developer makes a contribution of £15,000 to NNDC for improvements and
management of this land together with a contribution of £2,000 for improvements to the
village recreation ground to be made by Erpingham Parish Council.
North Norfolk District Council would not be minded to adopt the on-site open space and
this should be managed by others.
Environmental Health - The findings of the contamination desk study have not
identified any obvious sources of contamination, however given the number of
properties proposed and sensitivity of the proposed site use the recommendations of
the report are agreed with and further examination of the site is requested which must
include a Phase 2 intrusive investigation, to be secured by condition.
Comments made in relation to management of water to the north of the site where the
impermeable paving is and clarification required of responsibilities for managing the
surface water system.
Environmental Protection last had a complaint about sewer flooding in 2007.
Anglian Water - Confirm that Aldborough Thwaite Hill Water Recycling Centre will have
available capacity for these flows. The foul sewerage system at present has available
capacity for these flows.
The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning
application where it is relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable.
Internal Drainage Board – The development passes flows into an Anglian Water
system which discharges into an area maintained by the IDB putting additional strains
on the system and requiring consent from the IDB. A one off Surface Water
Development Charge will need to be paid by the developer.
Crime Prevention Design Advisor – Confirm that they are happy with the overall
layout of the development and the crime prevention measures.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
Development Committee
55
25 February 2016
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy 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 CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Development Committee
56
25 February 2016
Paragraph 54 - in rural areas, Local Planning Authorities should be responsive to local
circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for
affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Local
Planning Authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market
housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet
local needs.
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s
conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal.
Paragraph 137 - Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and within the setting of heritage assets to
enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of
the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the
asset should be treated favourably.
Paragraph 173 (Ensuring viability and deliverability) states that development should not
be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be
developed viably is threatened.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
Annexe 2: Glossary a definition of ‘rural exception sites’ as “small sites used for
affordable housing in perpetuity which seek to address the needs of the local
community, where sites would not normally be used for housing. Small numbers of
market homes may be allowed at the local authority’s discretion, for example where
essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding”.
Other material considerations – Section 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and Design
 Impact on designated heritage assets
 Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity and open space provision
 Highways issues
 Drainage
 Other issues
 Habitats Regulations Assessment
Development Committee
57
25 February 2016


S.106 requirements
Development Viability
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda which
relates to this application and the other four applications submitted on behalf of
Broadland St Benedicts (refs: PF/15/1221, PF/15/1223, PF/15/1227 & PF/15/1228).
The application site is situated on the eastern side of the village and consists of a
sloping grass field punctuated with trees and a small area of woodland, which is
currently used for informal recreation, with informal public access available around and
through the site. The site is a gently domed plateau, land falls across the site generally
to the west, and rises up from Eagle Road to the south, however further back from Eagle
Road the land then begins to fall to the north. The site forms a rough rectangle,
narrower to the road frontage but wider further back into the site. Existing residential
development is located adjacent to the west of the site consisting of a mix of single and
two storey dwellings. To the south and east is agricultural land and to the north is a
further area of woodland and beyond this are the village hall, recreation ground and
playing field, accessed from The Street. The eastern boundary of the site is open to
the agricultural field adjacent. The site’s southern boundary consists of a native
hedgerow and fronts Eagle Road, the route into and out of the village from the south and
to the A140 and beyond. Beyond the northern and western boundaries are areas of
land containing a number of trees that will remain outside of the application site and
ownership of this land with remain with North Norfolk District Council.
The Committee visited the site on 18 February 2016.
Principle of the development
The site lies within the ‘countryside’ policy area where under Policy SS2 of the adopted
Core Strategy, the principle of erecting affordable housing in designated Countryside is
acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies including the Council's rural
exception site policy (HO3).
Policy HO3 includes a number of criteria which control the location, scale and tenure
mix of affordable housing schemes. In summary, these require:
 The demonstration of a local housing need;
 Proposals for ten or more dwellings to be situated within 100m of a development
boundary;
 Proposals for ten dwellings or less to adjoin an existing group of ten or more
dwellings and not to lie within a 1km radius of any other scheme permitted under
the policy;
 Occupation limited to people with a local connection to the Parish and adjacent
Parishes.
Within the Design & Access Statement that accompanies the application the applicant
states that ‘the site is part of the District-wide development strategy to deliver affordable
housing and is one of five rural exception sites. The housing will in part, provide
affordable homes for people with a recognised local need. The remainder will
comprise market accommodation, which in accordance with national planning policy is
required to cross subside the development of affordable housing.’
You will note that this application is of a scale in excess of the provisions of Policy HO3
given its location adjacent to a group of ten or more dwellings but some distance from a
settlement with a development boundary and includes the provision of market
Development Committee
58
25 February 2016
dwellings.
However, the more recently published NPPF sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and this document is a
material consideration that is afforded significant weight in determining planning
applications. Paragraph 54 of the NPPF states that in rural areas local planning
authorities are required to be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing
development to reflect local needs, including affordable housing through rural exception
sites and does not set a quantum of development that is permissible and also allows the
inclusion of some market housing to facilitate the provision of significant additional
affordable housing to meet local needs.
The current complexities surrounding the financing and delivery of affordable housing
are explained within the initial summary report accompanying this application and this is
a consideration that spans each of the five development sites proposed as part of the
applicant’s District-wide strategy and is discussed in more detail in a later section of this
report.
Therefore, given recognised changes in the availability of public funding and the
publication of the NPPF, the Council has taken an approach to affordable housing
provision that reflects the requirements of the NPPF through flexibility in respect of the
scale of development and the inclusion of some market housing, where its provision
would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local
needs.
Questions have been raised by a number of local residents as to the local need for the
affordable housing in Erpingham. The Committee will note that the Housing Strategy
team have confirmed that there is a local affordable housing need in the Parish/adjacent
Parishes for the number of affordable dwellings proposed and that this proposal has
been designed to specifically address that local need.
A further consideration when assessing the proposals at this site is the existence of
another full planning application that has been submitted to the Council as local
planning authority, for a development of ten dwellings on the south side of Eagle Road
under the same rural exception site policy. This application (reference PF/15/1534) is
currently undetermined, however officers can confirm that the Councils Housing
Strategy team have already indicated that there is also a local need for the affordable
housing that forms part of that site (at the time of writing this amounts to six affordable
dwellings), subject to negotiations taking place with regards the exact mix proposed.
Therefore to clarify, there is currently an identified local need for the number of
affordable housing units proposed on both application sites within the village.
To conclude, it is considered that there are sufficient material considerations in this
instance to permit a departure from development plan Policy HO3 in respect of the scale
and location of the dwellings, due to the identified local need and justification provided
by paragraph 54 of the NPPF which allows the provision of market housing to subsidise
additional affordable housing to meet local needs.
Further, whilst the site is not in a selected village and the sustainability of the location
therefore may need to be questioned, the location of the site is clearly not in such an
unsustainable location to be considered contrary to the general provisions of the NPPF
regarding sustainable development. Also the village of Erpingham is not without
certain facilities, including a public house and village hall and recreation ground and
development of this site would help to support these existing facilities and enhance the
vitality of the village as paragraph 55 of the NPPF promotes.
Development Committee
59
25 February 2016
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare,
it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for exception sites
in the Countryside and indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests that local planning
authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local
circumstances.
In this instance, the proposed scheme would represent a housing density across the
site of 17 dwellings per hectare. With consideration given to the context of the site and
surrounding densities, it is considered that the density proposed would be acceptable
and makes the best and most efficient use of land.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings (10 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace
not more than 70 sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 50% (12 units) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and 25% (6 units) have
floorspace of 70sqm or less, while the figure rises to 50% (12 units) if dwellings with a
floor space of 76sqm or less are included. Also 50% (12 units) of the units are suitable
or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled in compliance with
Policy HO1 of the Core Strategy and the North Norfolk Design Guide.
The Committee will note that comments from the Council's Housing Strategy team,
conclude that the size and type of affordable dwellings proposed under this scheme
(including the four units proposed for shared ownership) reflects the local housing need.
Layout and design
In layout terms, the scheme offers a relatively simple cul-de-sac form of development,
which follows the form of similar developments in the immediate vicinity. These
proposals offer variations in siting and orientation and changes of road alignment and
surfacing which will mitigate against any undue regimentation and add interest to the
scheme. In terms of the built form, a mix of dwelling size and type has been proposed
to enable a varied form, with properties sited randomly to avoid a uniform roof scape,
and to ensure that the scale and massing relates sympathetically to the surrounding
context. With the proposed units standing two-storey and under, the buildings are not
considered to be out of scale with their surroundings. Single-storey development is
proposed adjacent to the existing bungalow (Mole End) to the south-west of the site to
aid the transition from existing development.
Elevationally, the buildings seek to mix vernacular forms and materials with subtly
contemporary fenestration and detailing. To blend the development into the locality,
the materials will be crucial, details of which are recommend to be secured by planning
condition.
For much of its length, Eagle Road is essentially a rural lane, which has been
punctuated with driveways and accesses. The new junction with Eagle Road has been
amended to a simple footpath-priority crossover to help provide a more rural
appearance than the radiused junction previously suggested. Unfortunately the
provision of a new footpath all of the way down into the heart of the village will alter the
rural appearance along Eagle Road which is regrettable in visual terms.
Development Committee
60
25 February 2016
A substantial buffer strip of land that will remain between the western boundary of the
site and existing residential development to the west will ensure that the impact of the
proposed new development on the residential amenity of existing residents is kept to an
absolute minimum.
The Committee will note that the Conservation and Design Team Leader has no
overriding objection to the scheme, subject to recommended conditions to secure
appropriate materials for construction.
Impact on designated heritage assets
Although not the subject of any heritage designation, the site is sandwiched between
two projections of the large Mannington and Wolterton Conservation Area which wraps
around the outside of Erpingham. Therefore an assessment of any impacts the
proposed development would have on the setting of this designation is required.
The Landscape Visual and Heritage Assessment concludes that the proposal will cause
a negligible deterioration to the overall quality of the Conservation Area and the
development is considered to be complimentary to the progressive expansion of the
village. The Assessment considers that the proposals have been developed to respond
positively to the vernacular of Erpingham, mitigating against any adverse effects on the
setting of the Conservation Area.
The Conservation and Design Officer suggests that the site has an undeveloped quality
which enables it to contribute to the overall rurality of the area and provides a valuable
soft buffer for the relatively recent developments on Eagle Road. Factoring in the
views between the application site and the conservation area designation, it becomes
clear that the site does make a positive if not modest contribution to the overall
significance of the heritage asset. However, the affected parts of the conservation
area are rather peripheral elements of a much larger designation, there is clear
separation between the conservation area and the application site, and the existing
views between the two are for the most part intermittent, filtered and not truly public.
The proposed development will inevitably have a suburbanising impact upon the
existing locality, stemming from its buildings, its highway infrastructure and its hard
landscaping. In terms of heritage impact, however, the development would not block
any noteworthy views into the conservation area, or materially impact upon any
important views out from it. As a result, the findings of the Landscape, Visual and
Heritage Statement where it concludes that the proposed development would “cause a
negligible deterioration to the overall quality and character of the extensive conservation
area” are concurred with. This essentially means that the scheme would result in ‘less
than substantial harm’ being caused to the overall significance of the heritage asset, but
to a very limited degree and must for the purposes of the NPPF be considered against
any public benefits of the scheme.
In this instance, there is a degree of public benefit from new affordable housing to meet
a local need. In weighing this public benefit against the identified harm as stated in
paragraph 134, it is considered that the provision of a significant amount of affordable
housing represents the 'clear and convincing justification' for less than substantial harm
to a designated heritage asset as required by paragraph 132.
Landscaping, biodiversity and open space
Firstly to clarify, the application site itself does not directly abut existing residential
development on Eagle Road and John Franklin Way to the west. A buffer strip of trees
and vegetation between 7 and 20 metres wide does not form part of the application site
Development Committee
61
25 February 2016
and will be retained and managed by North Norfolk District Council. Likewise an area
of land to the north consisting of trees, shrubs and rough grassland, between the
application site and the village hall and recreation ground and playing field further north
will also remain in the ownership of the District Council. Reference is made in the
applicant’s submission to this land to the north having potential as a Local Wildlife Site,
however this does not form part of the proposals and this development does not
propose to make a financial contribution towards the maintenance of any of these areas
that will remain in public ownership. Due to viability issues surrounding the delivery of
affordable housing across the sites the applicant does not consider it possible to provide
the substantial contribution requested towards improvements and management of this
land and considering the submitted viability information this situation is accepted.
However, a contribution of £2,000 for improvements to the village recreation ground will
be secured by a Section 106 obligation.
The landscape aspects of the scheme are considered to be of significant importance.
Throughout the course of the application the planting buffer to the east has been
increased in depth to provide denser planting and fencing to the eastern boundary has
been repositioned to the western side of the buffer zone to protect the planting.
The existing hedge and trees to the southern site boundary with Eagle Road will be
removed and a hedge replanted along the rear of the visibility splay, which is
unfortunate, however this will be a short term impact and the replacement hedge will
consist of a more diverse mix of native species. The area of open space provided on
site behind the new road frontage hedge acts as a further landscape buffer and area for
the on-site underground drainage infrastructure. The areas of open space within the
site boundary, i.e. along the road frontage, including the new roadside hedge and the
planting to the eastern boundary will be maintained by Broadland Housing Group.
The Landscape Officer has provided input into the proposed landscaping for the site
and as a result earlier concerns raised regarding the proposed development have been
considered, the proposals have been amended and a number of the issues raised have
now been addressed. The amendments will result in a softening of the eastern
boundary of the site and, as a result, a more sympathetic boundary is now proposed for
the development with the additional planting shown on the revised plans.
The integration of the development with the countryside has always been the main
concern with the proposals, and considering the amended proposals the Landscape
Section suggests that the proposed development is likely to have a minor negative,
short to medium term impact on the local landscape character and visual amenity,
which is likely to reduce to a negligible impact in the long term. Based on the long term
impacts, the Landscape Section no longer raises an objection to the development and
the development is considered acceptable on landscape grounds.
With regards ecology the Ecological Survey does not highlight any specific ecological
constraints to the development and makes a number of recommendations to enhance
the site for biodiversity to compensate for the loss of existing ecological features, which
can be secured by planning condition.
Highways issues
The application proposes a new point of vehicular access from Eagle Road, this
necessitates the removal of the existing roadside hedge to provide an adequate visibility
splay from the new access and to widen the carriageway on Eagle Road across the
frontage of the site.
A long section of new footpath is also proposed from the site heading south and
connecting to the existing footpath some way further south outside No.11 Eagle Road.
Development Committee
62
25 February 2016
This is a requirement stipulated by the Highway Authority, which also necessitates a
one-way priority feature (wide enough to permit agricultural vehicles) on Eagle Road to
the south of the site where the road and new footway would not be of sufficient width.
The new footway is proposed to improve pedestrian safety and will improve connectivity
to the rest of the village for both new and existing residents.
An extension of the 30mph speed limit further east along Eagle Road is also proposed
to just beyond the site to reduce the speed of vehicles entering the village, addressing
local concerns relating to vehicle speeds and improving highway safety.
The layout of the scheme accommodates parking for the 24 dwellings through on-plot
parking. The amount of parking provided is in accordance with the Councils parking
standards.
Comments made by local residents in relation to highways matters have questioned the
reliability of any recorded traffic/speed count data due to apparent problems with its
installation. The applicant queried this with their consultant who confirmed that
sufficient information had been recorded prior to the equipment becoming loose, for the
purposes of providing information in relation to vehicle speeds to inform the application.
This information was used to inform the decision to relocate the 30mph speed limit site
further east past the site frontage. Other comments related to the width of the road
once the new footway and one-way priority facility have been installed being too narrow,
however comments from the highway authority do not suggest that this will be the case.
In more general terms using industry standard data the applicant suggests that the
impact of additional traffic generated as a result of the development is likely to be very
small and an increase of this scale is not likely to have a material impact on roads further
afield such as the A140. Analysis of this information together with accident data within
the village and at the A140 junctions, indicates that there are no inherent safety
concerns or reasons why the small number of additional trips generated by the approval
of this development should impact upon highway safety in the local area.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority have not raised any objection to the
scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Drainage
The applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) advises that there are mixed soil
conditions across the site with free draining sand in the middle of the site and poorly
draining sandy clay at the north and south ends. In the centre of the site surface water
run-off will be directed to soakaways designed to accommodate a 1 in 100 year event
plus 30% climate change allowance. For the remainder of the site surface water will be
directed to the public surface water sewer at a rate of 5.4 l/sec as agreed with Anglian
Water. During times of peak flow a surface water attenuation tank located within the
public open space adjacent to Eagle Road with storage capacity for a 1 in 100 year
event plus 30% climate change allowance, will contain excess flows, with discharge
limited from the tank by a control device. Anglian Water have commented that the
surface water strategy within the Flood Risk Assessment is acceptable and request the
use of a planning condition to secure its implementation. All elements of the system
are understood to be designed to enable Anglian Water to adopt the infrastructure, with
the exception of soakaways and permeable paving that will be managed by individual
householders and Broadland Housing Group.
Foul drainage will connect in to the existing foul drainage sewer in Eagle Road and
Anglian Water have confirmed that the foul sewage network and waste water treatment
works at Aldborough Thwaite Hill Water Recycling Centre have available capacity for
these flows.
Development Committee
63
25 February 2016
The FRA and Drainage Strategy concludes that the proposals in relation to surface
water disposal are not expected to contribute to or exacerbate foul sewage flooding
experienced elsewhere in Erpingham and no surface water will be permitted to enter the
foul water sewer system.
Given the number of local representations that have been made which make reference
to flooding issues further south in the School Road area which appear to relate to sewer
flooding, contact has been made with Anglian Water to confirm what they understand to
be the situation with regards sewer capacity for both surface water and foul sewage.
Further comment is awaited from Anglian Water and Committee will be updated verbally
once any further comment is received.
On this basis, the proposed development is considered to comply with the requirements
of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy SS4 and EN10.
Other issues
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Policy EN6 is no longer applicable as
government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing the Code for
Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer require
compliance with these standards.
Policy EN6 also requires 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the development to
be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. The applicant has by way of a
basic generic ‘Energy Strategy’ concluded that the capital building costs to install the
necessary renewable technologies in tandem with enhanced thermal insulation to meet
directly with policy EN6 is economically unviable. High levels of insulation, solar
thermal or PV, air source heat pumps and high efficiency mechanical heat recovery
ventilation will be adopted to reduce energy demand. Given the known and well
documented viability issues associated with delivering sites that contain a high
proportion of affordable housing and the specific viability information that has been
provided in support of this planning application it is considered that sufficient information
has been provided to justify non-compliance with the energy generation requirements of
Policy EN6 on viability grounds. Precise details including the location of any air source
heat pumps to be installed will be secured by planning condition, to ensure a full
assessment of noise impacts are taken into account before agreeing to their installation.
Mention has been made by local residents that the primary school in the village is at
capacity. Clarification has been sought from Norfolk County Council in their role as
education authority and they have confirmed that the capacity at the school can be
increased from 52 to 67 places without the need for school expansion and therefore
there will be space for the children generated from this development if permitted.
You will note that comments have been received from the Internal Drainage Board (IDB)
requesting a one off Surface Water Development Charge be paid by the developer.
This is ultimately a matter to be resolved between the applicant and the IDB.
In respect of land contamination, Environmental Health has advised that further
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants affecting the
site is required. This will form part of a condition.
A fire hydrant would be required as part of the development.
The role of the Council as land owner and decision maker has been questioned by a
small number of local residents. The procedures for dealing with Council owned land
Development Committee
64
25 February 2016
are based on the principle that such planning applications should be made in the same
way as any other application and must follow the same procedures. District Councils
may grant planning permission on land in which they have an interest and must
determine the application as in all other cases in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
As a competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 (as amended) the council must have regard to the requirements of the
Regulations when determining planning applications. The Council must decide if a
proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, either alone or
in-combination with other plans or projects, on the conservation objectives of a
European designated nature conservation site (Natura 2000 site).
The increasing residential development within the District has been identified as having
the potential to result in in-direct effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000
sites, arising from in-combination recreational disturbance effects. For some of the
residential allocations within the District (those that form part of the Site Allocations
DPD) a mitigation and monitoring package is required to mitigate for the potential
significant effects that may arise as a result of the development. This package is
secured through a financial contribution to the council from the developer of £50 per
dwelling.
The in-combination effects arising from residential recreational disturbance from these
additional dwellings together with other additional dwellings permitted in the District
cannot be ruled out. A solution for the impact of the additional residential development
would be to secure mitigation to offset any potential effects that may occur as a result of
the development. The mitigation could take the form of the previously agreed
mitigation package for other residential development within the District, that of securing
£50 per dwelling to contribute to the council's monitoring and mitigation package. A
conclusion of no likely significant effect on Natura 2000 sites could then be established
and the council will have discharged its duties under the Regulations.
The applicant is aware that the charge relating to this site amounts to £1200.
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards improvements to the
village hall recreation ground
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies for mitigation and monitoring of
potential impacts on European designated sites.
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and submitted for consideration.
Development Viability
The subject of development viability is set out within the initial summary report that
accompanies this application and provides details of how the applicant considers the
five rural exception sites as contributing towards a District-wide strategy for the
provision of affordable housing (Further details can be found in Appendix 1.)
Details suggest that the development at Erpingham includes a level of market housing
to directly finance the amount of affordable housing proposed on the site itself and
would result in a surplus of £339,724, equating to a developer return of 7.53%. This
Development Committee
65
25 February 2016
identified surplus will be reinvested in the provision of affordable housing on other sites.
It is recognised that the means of delivering affordable housing continues to change due
to reduced availability of grant funding and with further impending changes to
Government policy. More innovative ways of delivering affordable housing will
therefore be required. In this instance the overarching viability appraisal highlights that
the delivery of this site will generate a surplus, including subsidy from Broadland
Housing Association, what will be recycled back in to the provision of affordable housing
on the other development schemes that form part of the District-wide strategy. The
delivery of development on this site is therefore linked to delivery of the District-wide
affordable housing strategy. Without the surplus generated from this site the resulting
reduction in the overall scheme surplus could potentially have a significant impact on
the viability of the District-wide strategy.
Summary
As a proposed rural exception housing scheme, whilst not in strict compliance with Core
Strategy Policy HO3, in terms of the scale of development and tenure mix; the
development is considered to nonetheless accord with paragraph 54 of the NPPF which
does not set a quantum of development acceptable on rural exception sites where the
numbers proposed reflect local needs and allows the inclusion of market housing. The
guidance within the NPPF is a material consideration that should be afforded significant
weight.
Any harm in landscape and visual amenity terms is considered to be negligible in the
long term. It is acknowledged that less than substantial harm has been identified to a
designated heritage asset, that being the Mannington and Wolterton Conservation
Area. Considering paragraph 132 and 134 of the NPPF, the public benefit of providing
much needed local needs affordable housing is considered a clear and convincing
justification sufficient to outweigh the very limited harm to the designated heritage asset
in this case.
Although it is acknowledged that a not insignificant amount of local objection and
concern has been raised concerning the development of this site, including objection
from the Parish Council, the development accords with relevant development plan
policies other than in the instances already identified above where justification is
provided by provisions of the NPPF. Also there are no objections from statutory
consultees, subject to the imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the
terms set out in the report.
(ii)
Appropriate conditions relating to; highways construction and
construction worker parking, provision of a visibility splay, off-site
highway works and Traffic Regulation Order, securing appropriate
materials, hard and soft landscaping, arboricultural and ecological
mitigation, surface water drainage, provision of a fire hydrant,
contamination site investigation, details of use of renewable
technologies and any other conditions considered to be appropriate
by the Head of Planning
Development Committee
66
25 February 2016
5.
RYBURGH - PF/15/1228 - Erection of five residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway and landscape works.; Land off Highfield Close, Great
Ryburgh for Broadland St Benedicts
Minor Development
- Target Date: 30 November 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Wensum Valley Project Area
Countryside
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19921601 VO
Residential development (completion of adjoining housing scheme)
Refused 17/02/1993
PLA/19800045 HR
Proposed residential development 9 building plots deemed permission
14/04/1980
PLA/19830476 QO
Residential development - 9 building plots (renewal)
Approved 05/07/1983
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for 5 affordable dwellings on 0.29 hectares of land on the
western edge of the village of Great Ryburgh. The land is located at the end of a
cul-de-sac of development and extends between Highfield Close to the south and
Highfield Lane to the north. A new single point of vehicular access to the site will be
created from Highfield Close; no access is available to the site from Highfield Lane. An
area of on-site open space is proposed to the north of the site, adjacent to an informal
‘wilderness area’.
All of the dwellings will be provided on an affordable rent basis and consist of;
 2 x one-bed houses;
 1 x one-bed bungalow;
 2 x two-bed houses.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Overarching Planning Statement (Amended)
 Overarching Viability Assessment (Commercially Confidential)
 Design and Access Statement (Amended)
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Drainage Strategy
 Contaminated Land Desk Study Summary Investigation
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement
 Ecological Survey
 Screening Under Habitat Regulations for Broadland Housing Sites
 Geophysical Survey
Development Committee
67
25 February 2016


Transport Note and Trip Rates, (to be read alongside the Transport Note)
Generic Energy Strategy
The application is also accompanied by a draft S.106 Agreement which makes
provision for all five of the dwellings on this application site to be used for the provision
of affordable housing.
Amended plans/documents have been submitted in response to initial comments
received from consultees to address comments made in relation to landscaping issues.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the wide range of planning
considerations connected with this package of proposals.
PARISH COUNCIL
Unanimous support. Requests that HGVs working on the site approach from the west
of the village.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations received.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection, subject to conditions relating to setting out
of the access and parking and turning area.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) – No objection as there are no
implications for the historic environment.
Countryside and Parks Manager - No comments as this site is below our consultation
threshold of 10 dwellings.
Housing Strategy – Supports the Application - Great Ryburgh is the predominate
settlement within the Parish of Ryburgh designated as Countryside Area and as such
the new dwellings are required to be provided in line with Policy HO3 as Exception
Scheme Housing. The Section 106 agreement will need to stipulate the dwellings are let
in accordance with the Local Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are
met.
There are 36 households on the Housing List who have a local connection to Great
Ryburgh and the adjoining parishes. The requirement for 1 (47.22%) 2 (33.33%) and 3
or larger (19.45%) bed properties indicates there is an overriding requirement for 1 bed
properties.
There are currently 17 local lettings properties in Great Ryburgh. However there is a
further local housing need for affordable housing in Great Ryburgh. The proposed
development would therefore assist in meeting some of the proven local housing need.
The proposed housing mix supports the identified local housing need. The Housing
Strategy and Community Support team supports the application for the provision of the
affordable dwellings as local lettings to be set out in the S106 agreement in accordance
with the Local Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are met.
Conservation and Design Team Leader - No objections.
Landscape Officer – No objection.
Development Committee
68
25 February 2016
Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions, including a request for
further drainage details (attenuation and storage measures) and further investigation
into potential contamination on site as part of a phase two investigation.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 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 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).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
Development Committee
69
25 February 2016
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and Design
 Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
 Highways issues
 Drainage
 Other issues
 Habitats Regulations Assessment
 S.106 requirements
 Development Viability
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda which
relates to this application and the other four applications submitted on behalf of
Broadland St Benedicts (refs: PF/15/1221, PF/15/1223, PF/15/1227 & PF/15/1461).
The application site measures approximately 0.29 hectares and is situated at the
western edge of the village. The site consists of a roughly square parcel of land which
is overgrown with scrub and, although flat to the south, levels fall away quite steeply to
the north towards Highfield Lane resulting in a difference of levels across the site of
around 4 metres. Existing dwellings are located adjacent to the south and east of the
site consisting of single and two storey dwellings. To the north and west is agricultural
land. The site’s northern and western boundaries consist of mature hedgerows and
trees.
The Committee visited the site on 18 February 2016.
Principle of the development
The site lies within the ‘countryside’ policy area where under Policy SS2 of the adopted
Core Strategy, the principle of erecting affordable housing in designated Countryside is
acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies including the Council's rural
exception site policy (HO3).
Development Committee
70
25 February 2016
Policy HO3 includes a number of criteria which control the location, scale and tenure
mix of affordable housing schemes. In summary, these require:




The demonstration of a local housing need;
Proposals for ten or more dwellings to be situated within 100m of a development
boundary;
Proposals for less than ten dwellings to adjoin an existing group of ten or more
dwellings and not to lie within a 1km radius of any other scheme permitted under
the policy;
Occupation limited to people with a local connection to the Parish and adjacent
Parishes.
The site is located directly adjacent to an affordable housing scheme approved in 2005
under a previous development plan. The application proposes five affordable
dwellings of a mix which supports identified local need, as confirmed by the Council’s
Housing Strategy team and is on a site adjacent to an existing group of ten or more
dwellings and does not lie within 1km of another scheme permitted under this policy;
therefore subject to a legal agreement securing the tenure as affordable dwellings the
application is in full compliance with Core Strategy Policy HO 3.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare,
it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for exception sites
in the Countryside and indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests that local planning
authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local
circumstances.
In this instance, the proposed scheme would represent a housing density across the
site of 17 dwellings per hectare. With consideration given to the context of the site and
its constraints, surrounding densities and its edge of countryside location, it is
considered that the density proposed would be acceptable and makes the best and
most efficient use of land.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings (2 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace
not more than 70sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that all of the proposed units are
comprised of 2 bedrooms or less and 60% (3 units) have floorspace of 70sqm or less.
Also 20% (1 unit) has a ground floor bedroom which is suitable or easily adaptable for
occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled, in compliance with Policy HO1 of the Core
Strategy and the North Norfolk Design Guide.
The Committee will note the comments from the Council's Housing Strategy team,
conclude that the size and type of affordable dwellings proposed under this scheme
reflects the local housing need.
Layout and Design
The proposals seek to complete the street scene developing a frontage based
development around a new focal amenity space, or green, with buildings formally
Development Committee
71
25 February 2016
edging it to complete the setting. By clustering the houses along the western edge of
the green, the northern part of the site can be used for both formal and informal play
space.
The layout responds satisfactorily to its site and in terms of scale and bulk, it is
considered that the development would be broadly compatible with its surroundings. A
planning condition is recommended to secure appropriate materials for construction.
Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
Although on the edge of the countryside, views into the site from the wider landscape
are limited due to existing mature boundary treatments, however, views of the
roofscape will be possible from the road leading into the village from the west.
The western hedge is important in terms of the contribution it makes to the landscape
character and ecologically and the landscaping proposals, as amended, provide
replacement planting for dead elms within the hedge.
The Landscape Officer does not object to the proposals subject to the use of conditions
to secure tree protection measures, landscape proposals (including maintenance) and
ecological mitigation measures identified in the various documents and plans. The
proposal therefore complies with Policy EN 2.
Highways Issues
A new single point of access is proposed from Highfield Close. The layout of the
scheme accommodates parking for the five dwellings through a combination of on-plot
spaces and a small communal parking area. The amount of parking provided is in
accordance with the Councils parking standards.
The Highway Authority has not raised any objections to the scheme, subject to the
imposition of conditions.
Due to concerns which were raised at a consultation event regarding construction
vehicles travelling through the village, the applicant has agreed to provide a
construction traffic travel plan prior to works commencing to manage construction traffic
associated with the site. This can be secured by way of planning condition.
Drainage
In relation to drainage, the Drainage Strategy provided in support of the application
concludes that the ground conditions of the site are not suitable for infiltration drainage,
therefore discharge to a public sewer is required. Attenuation storage will be required
on site and discharge to the public sewer controlled and restricted to greenfield run-off
rate. There would appear to be sufficient area available on site to accommodate such
drainage measures. Further details of the surface water drainage system will be
required as requested by Environmental Health Officer, which can be secured by an
appropriately worded planning condition.
In relation to foul drainage, it is proposed that the new dwellings connect to an existing
foul drainage sewer in Highfield Close and Anglian Water have confirmed that there is
existing capacity to allow the development to take place.
Other issues
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Policy EN6 is no longer applicable as
government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing the Code for
Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer require
Development Committee
72
25 February 2016
compliance with these standards.
The layout of the scheme shows an informal pathway along the southern boundary of
the site in order to maintain a link to an existing informal path that runs along the eastern
edge of adjacent agricultural land. Whilst there is evidence of such a desire line in
use on the site, these paths are not recognised as public rights of way and it are
therefore not protected at this moment in time. Whilst Officers welcome the positive
approach taken to enable existing residents to access the adjoining fields for
recreational purpose, maintenance of public access across this land is ultimately a
matter for the landowners to agree and allow.
Although the site falls below the threshold for provision of open space a small area of
open space will be provided on site and also the remaining area of sloping land to the
north will be managed as a wilderness area, with the whole area being maintained and
remaining in the ownership of Broadland Housing Group. The provision of these open
areas on site helps to soften the appearance of the development on the site and could
provide biodiversity benefits helping to integrate the site into the surrounding
countryside.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
As a competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 (as amended) the council must have regard to the requirements of the
Regulations when determining planning applications. The Council must decide if a
proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, either alone or
in-combination with other plans or projects, on the conservation objectives of a
European designated nature conservation site (Natura 2000 site).
The increasing residential development within the District has been identified as having
the potential to result in in-direct effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000
sites, arising from in-combination recreational disturbance effects. For some of the
residential allocations within the District (those that form part of the Site Allocations
DPD) a mitigation and monitoring package is required to mitigate for the potential
significant effects that may arise as a result of the development. This package is
secured through a financial contribution to the council from the developer of £50 per
dwelling.
The in-combination effects arising from residential recreational disturbance from these
additional dwellings together with other additional dwellings permitted in the District
cannot be ruled out. A solution for the impact of the additional residential development
would be to secure mitigation to offset any potential effects that may occur as a result of
the development. The mitigation could take the form of the previously agreed
mitigation package for other residential development within the District, that of securing
£50 per dwelling to contribute to the council's monitoring and mitigation package. A
conclusion of no likely significant effect on Natura 2000 sites could then be established
and the council will have discharged its duties under the Regulations.
The applicant is aware that the charge relating to this site amounts to £250.
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies for mitigation and monitoring of
potential impacts on European designated sites.
Development Committee
73
25 February 2016
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and submitted for consideration.
Development Viability
The subject of development viability is set out within the initial summary report that
accompanies this application and provides details of how the applicant considers the
five rural exception sites as contributing towards a District-wide strategy for the
provision of affordable housing (Further details can also be found in Appendix 1 & 2.)
It is recognised that the means of delivering affordable housing has changed due to
reduced availability of grant funding and with further impending changes to Government
policy. Looking for more innovative ways of delivering affordable housing will therefore
be required. In this instance the overarching viability appraisal highlights that the
provision of this site will be funded by subsidy from Broadland Housing Association and
by other development schemes that form part of the District-wide strategy.
Summary
As a proposed rural exception housing scheme, the proposed development complies
with Core Strategy Policies. There is support locally from the Parish Council and there
are no objections from statutory consultees, subject to the imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the
terms set out in the report.
(ii) Appropriate conditions relating to; highways access and parking,
construction traffic management plan, materials of construction, hard
and soft landscaping, arboricultural and ecological mitigation, surface
water drainage, contamination site investigation and any other
conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning
6.
TRUNCH - PF/15/1227 - Erection of twelve residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway and landscape works; Land off Cornish Avenue, Trunch for
Broadland St Benedicts
Major Development
- Target Date: 04 January 2016
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Contaminated Land
Unclassified Road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19770545 PO
Grouped homes scheme for elderly 20 bungalows & warden accommodation
Approved 01/08/1977
PLA/19821570
PO
Development Committee
74
25 February 2016
Bungalow and garage
Refused 24/12/1982
PLA/19921608 VO
Residential development
Refused 25/01/1993
THE APPLICATION
This is a full application for 12 affordable dwellings on 0.53 hectares of land on the
southern edge of the village of Trunch. The land is located on the south side of Cornish
Avenue and currently consists of overgrown grassland. A new single point of vehicular
access to the site will be created from Cornish Avenue. A small area of on-site open
space is proposed to the south of the site.
The affordable dwellings will consist of 8 dwellings on an affordable rent basis
consisting of;
 2 x one-bed bungalows,
 3 x one-bed houses,
 2 x two-bed houses,
 1 x three-bed house.
While 4 dwellings are proposed on a shared ownership basis consisting of;
 2 x two-bed houses,
 2 x three-bed houses.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
 Overarching Planning Statement (Amended)
 Overarching Viability Assessment (Commercially Confidential)
 Design and Access Statement (Amended)
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Drainage Strategy
 Contaminated Land Desk Study Summary Investigation
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement
 Ecological Survey
 Screening Under Habitat Regulations for Broadland Housing Sites
 Geophysical Survey
 Transport Note and Trip Rates, (to be read alongside the Transport Note)
 Generic Energy Strategy
The application is also accompanied by a draft S.106 Agreement which makes
provision for all twelve of the dwellings on this application site to be used for the
provision of affordable housing and confirms contributions relevant to this application
site for off-site public open space improvements of £3,200, as requested by the relevant
consultees.
Amended plans/documents have been submitted in response to initial comments
received from consultees to address comments made in relation to highways, design
and landscaping issues.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning in view of the wide range of planning
considerations connected with this package of proposals.
PARISH COUNCIL - Support.
Development Committee
75
25 February 2016
Comments provided in relation to providing a contribution towards drainage along North
Walsham Road to resolve existing flooding issues; providing a continuous footpath
along North Walsham Road to allow access to the playing field at Blooms Turn by
pedestrians; and provision of funding towards new play equipment or towards the
pavilion.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations received.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – No objection subject to conditions relating to roads,
footways, foul and surface water drainage construction.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) – No objection as there are no
implications for the historic environment.
County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority) – No comments as the application falls
below the current threshold for detailed comment.
Countryside and Parks Manager - The development includes 274sqm of public open
space to be provided on site, which is significantly less than the standard which is
712sqm and there is no on-site play provision. A contribution in lieu of open space and
play provision of £3200 for improvements to the village recreation ground is suggested.
North Norfolk District Council would not be minded to adopt the on-site open space and
this should be managed by others.
Housing Strategy – Supports the Application - Trunch is designated as Countryside
Area and as such the new dwellings are required to be provided in line with Policy HO3
as Exception Scheme Housing. There is a local housing need for affordable housing in
Trunch.
There are 182 households on the Housing List who have a local connection to Trunch
and the adjoining parishes. The requirement for 1 (42.86%) 2 (32.42%) and 3 or larger
(24.72%) bedroom properties indicates there is an overriding requirement for 1
bedroom properties.
The proposed development maximises the amount of households who can be housed
and would assist in meeting some of the proven local housing need.
The Housing Strategy and Community Support team supports the application with
provision for the dwellings as local lettings to be set out in S106 agreement in
accordance with the Local Allocations Agreement to ensure local housing needs are
met.
Conservation and Design Team Leader - No objections.
Landscape Officer – No objection.
Environmental Health – No objection, subject to conditions to secure a further
investigation into potential contamination on site as part of a phase two investigation.
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
76
25 February 2016
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing
developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and
energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 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 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).
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) 2012
Paragraph 6 & 7 – the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social.
Paragraph 14 – at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both
plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 17 – sets out the core planning principles, which includes; securing high
quality design, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and
Development Committee
77
25 February 2016
supporting thriving rural communities within it, conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Paragraph 47 – to boost significantly the supply of housing local planning authorities
should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Paragraph 49 - housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Paragraph 55 – To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Paragraph 215 - due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans
according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Principle of the development
 Housing density
 Housing mix
 Layout and Design
 Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
 Highways issues
 Drainage
 Other issues
 Habitats Regulations Assessment
 S.106 requirements
 Development Viability
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda which
relates to this application and the other four applications submitted on behalf of
Broadland St Benedicts (refs: PF/15/1221, PF/15/1223, PF/15/1228 & PF/15/1461).
The application site measures approximately 0.53 hectares and is situated at the
south-eastern edge of the village and adjacent to existing low density dwellings of a mix
of single-storey and two-storey properties to the north and west. The site is accessed
off Cornish Avenue. A former Anglian Water sewage site is located adjacent to the
application site. Beyond the site to the south and east is open countryside and
agricultural fields.
The Committee visited the site on 18 February 2016.
Principle of the development
The site lies within the ‘countryside’ policy area where under Policy SS2 of the adopted
Core Strategy, the principle of erecting affordable housing in designated Countryside is
acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies including the Council's rural
exception site policy (HO3).
Policy HO3 includes a number of criteria which control the location, scale and tenure
mix of affordable housing schemes. In summary, these require:


The demonstration of a local housing need;
Proposals for ten or more dwellings to be situated within 100m of a development
boundary;
Development Committee
78
25 February 2016


Proposals for ten dwellings or less to adjoin an existing group of ten or more
dwellings and not to lie within a 1km radius of any other scheme permitted under
the policy;
Occupation limited to people with a local connection to the Parish and adjacent
Parishes.
The application proposes twelve affordable dwellings of a mix which supports identified
local need, as confirmed by the Council’s Housing Strategy team. The site is adjacent to
an existing group of ten or more dwellings and does not lie within 1km of another
scheme permitted under this policy. However, at twelve units the proposed
development exceeds the policy limit of ten dwellings or less that would apply to this
particular location.
However, the more recently published NPPF sets out the Government’s planning
policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and this document is a
material consideration that is afforded significant weight in determining planning
applications. Paragraph 54 of the NPPF states that in rural areas local planning
authorities are required to be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing
development to reflect local needs, including affordable housing through rural exception
sites and does not set a quantum of development that is permissible, but specifies that
the development must reflect local needs. Therefore, although the development is not
strictly in accordance with Core Strategy Policy HO3 in location and scale terms it is
considered that the proposals meet with the requirements of paragraph 54 of the NPPF
and are considered acceptable on this basis.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst this policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare,
it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for exception sites
in the Countryside and indeed the NPPF in paragraph 47 suggests that local planning
authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local
circumstances.
In this instance, the proposed scheme would represent a housing density across the
site of 23 dwellings per hectare. With consideration given to the context of the site and
surrounding densities and its edge of countryside location, it is considered that the
density proposed would be acceptable and makes the best and most efficient use of
land.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings (5 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace
not more than 70sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that 75% (9 units) of the
development will comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and 42% (5 units) have
floorspace of 70sqm or less. Also 17% (2 units) have a ground floor bedroom which is
suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly, infirm or disabled. Therefore,
although the scheme falls slightly short when considering the requirements of Core
Strategy Policy HO1 and the North Norfolk Design Guide, which requires 20% of units to
be suitable for the elderly, infirm or disabled, Officers consider that this very minor
non-compliance with Policy HO1 does not, in itself, warrant a refusal of the scheme.
Development Committee
79
25 February 2016
The Committee will note the comments from the Council's Housing Strategy team who
conclude that the size and type of affordable dwellings proposed under this scheme
(including the four units proposed for shared ownership) reflects the local housing need.
Layout and Design
The proposed development would be sufficiently far removed from the village’s
conservation area and collection of listed buildings to not impact upon these heritage
assets.
In terms of scale and bulk, the new build units would be broadly compatible with their
surroundings. Whilst it is recognised that the proximity of the development to the
northern boundary is not significant, this has been compensated by proposing single
storey development to Plot 10 and also through considerate placement of first floor
windows to dwellings close to the northern and western site boundaries.
The layout responds satisfactorily to the site and has successfully responded to the
earlier concerns about the alignment of the access road through the scheme. Existing
overhead power lines to the east of the site are to be relocated under ground and the
layout of the scheme reflects this requirement. The designs of the various dwellings
are relatively neutral compositions that form a visual transition from the settlement edge
to the adjacent open countryside. The scheme has raised no objection from the
Councils Conservation and Design Officer subject to a planning condition being used to
secure appropriate materials for construction.
Impact on Landscape and Biodiversity
The site lies within the Tributary Farmland Landscape Character Type as defined by the
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment SPD, which indicates that there is
considerable scope for landscape enhancement in the area. This development
presents an opportunity to enhance the area immediately around the site, by
re-instating the hedged boundaries around the site with a mix of native species,
ensuring that the new dwellings are of a scale which reflects the individual form of the
settlement and ensuring that the layout of the development does not require extensive
screening to integrate the dwellings within the landscape.
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Method Statement has
been submitted in support of the application, the content and proposals within the
document are satisfactory and there would be no arboricultural grounds for objection
subject to the imposition of a condition to adhere to tree protection measures identified
in the updated report and Method Statement.
An Ecological Survey concludes that there are no significant ecological constraints to
the development subject to mitigation measures to protect breeding birds and
precautionary measures regarding reptiles.
Generally the hard and soft landscape proposals are acceptable. The soft proposals
include the strengthening of the boundary hedges with new native planting and a variety
of small trees (mainly native cultivars) are proposed within the planting scheme. The
landscape proposals seek to provide a soft edge to the development in the form of
retaining some of the existing vegetation with a strengthening of hedges, which would
accord with the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment.
The Landscape Officer does not object to the proposals subject to the use of conditions
to secure tree protection measures, landscape proposals (including maintenance) and
ecological mitigation measures identified in the various documents and plans.
Highways Issues
Development Committee
80
25 February 2016
A new single point of access is proposed from Cornish Avenue, which has been
designed in conjunction with the Highway Authority. The layout of the scheme
accommodates parking for the twelve dwellings through on-plot parking. The amount
of parking provided is in accordance with the Councils parking standards.
The Highway Authority has not raised any objections to the scheme, subject to the
imposition of conditions.
The Committee will note that Trunch Parish Council in their comments have asked
whether the development could provide a contribution towards drainage and a
continuous footpath along North Walsham Road to allow access to the playing field at
Blooms Turn by pedestrians. The footway and drainage provision along North
Walsham Road is not something that the Highway Authority has suggested would be
necessary to make the development acceptable. Committee are reminded of the legal
tests for contributions in that they should be:
 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
 Directly related to the development; and,
 Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development,
With these tests in mind it is considered that the application cannot be used to secure
the footway infrastructure suggested by the Parish Council.
Drainage
In relation to drainage, the Drainage Strategy provided in support of the application
concludes that the ground conditions of the site are mixed and soakaways should be
located according to the findings of current and further testing. Surface water
management, is proposed through the incorporation of soakaways and permeable
paving of private drives for the dwellings and highway soakaways for the estate roads.
Further details of the surface water drainage system will be required and can be
secured by way of an appropriately worded planning condition.
With regards foul drainage, a section of sewer will need to be diverted where it crosses
the site. It is proposed that the new dwellings will connect to this existing public foul
sewer and Anglian Water have confirmed that there is existing capacity to allow the
development to take place.
Other issues
The requirement for dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Policy EN6 is no longer applicable as
government, on 25 March 2015 issued a written statement withdrawing the Code for
Sustainable Homes meaning that planning permissions can no longer require
compliance with these standards.
Policy EN6 also requires 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the development to
be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. The applicant has, by way of a
basic generic ‘Energy Strategy’, concluded that the capital building costs to install the
necessary renewable technologies in tandem with enhanced thermal insulation to meet
directly with policy EN6 is economically unviable. In this instance mains gas is
available in the vicinity of the site and this together with high levels of insulation, solar
thermal or PV and high efficiency mechanical heat recovery ventilation will be adopted
to reduce energy demand. Given the known and well documented viability issues
associated with delivering sites that contain a high proportion of affordable housing and
the specific viability information that has been provided in support of this planning
application it is considered that sufficient information has been provided to justify
non-compliance with the energy generation requirements of Policy EN6 on viability
grounds. Precise details including the location of any air source heat pumps to be
Development Committee
81
25 February 2016
installed will be secured by planning condition, to ensure a full assessment of noise
impacts are taken into account before agreeing to their installation.
In respect of land contamination, Environmental Health has advised that further
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants affecting the
site is required. This will form part of a condition.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
As a competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 (as amended) the council must have regard to the requirements of the
Regulations when determining planning applications. The Council must decide if a
proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, either alone or
in-combination with other plans or projects, on the conservation objectives of a
European designated nature conservation site (Natura 2000 site).
The increasing residential development within the District has been identified as having
the potential to result in in-direct effects on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000
sites, arising from in-combination recreational disturbance effects. For some of the
residential allocations within the District (those that form part of the Site Allocations
DPD) a mitigation and monitoring package is required to mitigate for the potential
significant effects that may arise as a result of the development. This package is
secured through a financial contribution to the council from the developer of £50 per
dwelling.
The in-combination effects arising from residential recreational disturbance from these
additional dwellings together with other additional dwellings permitted in the District
cannot be ruled out. A solution for the impact of the additional residential development
would be to secure mitigation to offset any potential effects that may occur as a result of
the development. The mitigation could take the form of the previously agreed
mitigation package for other residential development within the District, that of securing
£50 per dwelling to contribute to the council's monitoring and mitigation package. A
conclusion of no likely significant effect on Natura 2000 sites could then be established
and the council will have discharged its duties under the Regulations.
The applicant is aware that the charge relating to this site amounts to £600.
S.106 requirements
If the Committee were minded to resolve to grant planning permission for this
development, a S.106 Obligation will need to be completed to secure the following:
 The provision of affordable housing’
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies towards improvements to the
village recreation ground.
 The provision of a commuted sum of monies for mitigation and monitoring of
potential impacts on European designated sites.
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and submitted for consideration.
Development Viability
The subject of development viability is set out within the initial summary report that
accompanies this application and provides details of how the applicant considers the
five rural exception sites as contributing towards a District-wide strategy for the
provision of affordable housing (Further details can be also found in Appendix 1 & 2.)
It is recognised that the means of delivering affordable housing has changed due to
reduced availability of grant funding and with further impending changes to Government
Development Committee
82
25 February 2016
policy. Looking for more innovative ways of delivering affordable housing will therefore
be required. In this instance the overarching viability appraisal highlights that the
delivery of this site will be funded by subsidy from Broadland Housing Association and
by other development schemes that form part of the District-wide strategy.
Summary
As a proposed rural exception housing scheme, whilst not in strict compliance with Core
Strategy Policy HO3 in terms of the scale of development being in excess of the 10 or
fewer dwellings permitted in this location, the proposals are considered to nonetheless
accord with paragraph 54 of the NPPF which does not set a quantum of development
acceptable on rural exception sites where the numbers proposed reflect local needs.
The guidance within the NPPF is a material consideration that should be afforded
significant weight.
The development accords with all other relevant development plan policies. There is
support locally from the Parish Council and there are no objections from statutory
consultees, subject to the imposition of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to APPROVE
subject to:
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the
terms set out in the report.
(ii) Appropriate conditions relating to; highways access and parking,
materials of construction, hard and soft landscaping, arboricultural and
ecological mitigation, surface water drainage, contamination site
investigation and any other conditions considered to be appropriate by
the Head of Planning
Development Committee
83
25 February 2016
Appendix 1 – Extract from Overarching Planning Statement, February 2016, Pg 19 & 20.
Development Committee
84
25 February 2016
Development Committee
85
25 February 2016
Sales
Mar-20
Feb-20
27
01/10/2015
Appendix 2
Jan-20
Dec-19
Construction
Nov-19
Oct-19
Sep-19
Sales
Aug-19
Jul-19
Jun-19
#####
Apr-19
Mar-19
Jan-19
Dec-18
Nov-18
Oct-18
Construction
Construction
Sep-18
Aug-18
Jul-18
Jun-18
Sales
Construction
Sales
Feb-19
#####
Apr-18
Sales
Nov-17
Oct-17
Sep-17
Page 1
Dec-17
Sales
Construction
Jan-18
Construction
Feb-18
Aug-17
Jul-17
Jun-17
Apr-17
Mar-17
Feb-17
Jan-17
Dec-16
Construction
#####
Sales
Construction
North Norfolk Development Programme
Mar-18
Nov-16
Oct-16
Aug-16
Jul-16
Jun-16
#####
Construction
Sep-16
Apr-16
Mar-16
Feb-16
4
Jo Harrison
2
Phase 3
Edgefield
6
4
Phase 2
Edgefield
1
5
Phase 1
12
5
12
Edgefield
4
0
0
12
Binham
5
Trunch
Gt. Ryburgh
Erpingham
Phase 3
Binham
14
Phase 2
Binham
0
Open Affordable
Market
Phase 1
4
0
Jan-16
INGLETON WOOD FEBRUARY 2016
Development Committee
86
25 February 2016