Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
16 June 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 25 June 2015 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.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 16 July 2015.
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
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.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 28
May 2015
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 9 or 11 below)
(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.
7.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
(1)
PLANNING PROTOCOLS
Page 1
(Appendix 1 – page 44; Appendix 2 – page 45; Appendix 3 – page 54; Appendix 4 –
page 56; Appendix 5 – page 64; Appendix 6 – page 66)
To consider adopting a suite of Planning protocols which sets out clearly how the
Council deals with Planning matters
(2)
SCOTTOW – ENQ/15/0090 – Hangers 1, 2 and 3, Scottow Enterprise Park,
Lamas Road, Badersfield – Unlawful storage of processed sugar
Page 3
(Appendix 7 – page 68)
To further consider enforcement action following representations by the applicant as
to timescale.
(3)
HIGH KELLING Tree Preservation Order 2015 No.4 Land at Kelling Hospital,
Holt NR25 6QA
Page 5
(Appendix 8 – page 77)
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect several
individual trees, groups of trees and woodland at the above site.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(4)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0452 - Extension to provide a new two-storey retail unit (A1);
Millers Walk for Fakenham Properties Ltd
Page 7
(5)
GRESHAM - PF/15/0488 - Installation of 90kW ground mounted solar PV array;
Chaucer Barn, Holt Road for Mr Mermagen
Page 13
(6)
HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill for
Mr Bradley
Page 16
(7)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
Page 21
(8)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/0320 - Erection of first floor side/front extension
with dormer window to roofslope (part retrospective); Oak Tree Cottage, St Giles
Road for Mr Monday
Page 28
(9)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Page 31
(10)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 32
(11)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Page 40
(12)
NEW APPEALS
Page 41
(13)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 41
(14)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Page 41
(15)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 42
(16)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 42
8.
ATTENDANCE AT SITE INSPECTIONS
Members are requested to confirm whether or not they will be able to attend the site
inspections to be held on 16 July 2015.
9.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
10.
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
11.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
12.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Circulation:
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 25 JUNE 2015
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 PROTOCOLS
Purpose of this report
This report looks at adopting a suite of Planning protocols which sets out clearly how
the Council deals with Planning matters. These documents provide guidance to
Members and the public ensuring consistency in our approach.
The Protocols adopted as part of this process should be read in conjunction with the
Council’s Constitution with particular reference to the Members’ Code of Conduct and
Protocol for Member/Officer Relations.
Background
The Council has a range of existing protocols (listed below), however a number of
these are out of date and therefore this report sets out the framework for reviewing and
updating these protocols to reflect changes in national guidance and recognised good
practice.
Planning Protocols
The diagram attached as Appendix 1 shows the relationship of the proposed
protocols and the Council’s Constitution, and the purpose of each.
Code of good practice for Planning: The proposed Code is attached as Appendix
2 to this report, and replaces the earlier ‘Planning Protocol’ adopted in February 2008
which is out of date following the 2011 Localism Act. This Code covers:












Relationship with the Members’ Code of Conduct
Development proposals and declarations of interest under the Members’ Code
of Conduct
Pre-determination in the Planning Process
Contact with Applicant, Developers and Objectors
Lobbying of Members
Lobbying of Development Committee Members
Site Visits by Members
The Decision Making Process
Members relationship with Officers
Public Speaking at Meetings by Members
Decision making by Members
Training of Members
Code of Practice - Site Visits by Development Committee: This set out the
purpose for undertaking Committee Site Visits and the procedure for the conduct of
these meeting. Officers believe that the protocol adopted in February 2001 remains
Development Committee
1
25 June 2015
‘fit for purpose’ however it would be sensible for Members to review this. A copy of
this Protocol is attached as Appendix 3.
Have your say on Planning Applications and Tree Preservation Orders: This
sets out how public speaking is dealt with at meetings of the Development Committee,
again our current protocol is considered to be fit for purpose, and therefore included for
Members to endorse. A copy is attached an Appendix 4.
Planning protocol for NNDC developments – The existing protocol has been
amended to reflect current practices and is attached as Appendix 5.
New Protocols
Development Committee – Decision Making Protocol: This covers those
circumstances where an Officer recommendation is for approval or refusal is to be
deferred, altered or overturned. (Appendix 6).
Engagement of Members in pre-application discussions – This is an area where it
is felt that a clear protocol would be beneficial. However this requires further work
and will therefore be the subject of a further detailed report in due course.
Use of Planning performance agreements: Planning performance agreements
(PPAs) promote the use of project management techniques to assist in the handling of
major or complex applications. The Council has successfully ‘piloted’ such an
agreement in respect of the discharge of planning condition attached to the consents
for the Dudgeon cable route and there will be major applications in the future where
officers consider that PPAs may be appropriate. Again this requires further work and
will therefore be the subject of a further detailed report in due course
Pre-planning application publicity and consultation for major development –
This existing protocol needs to be reviewed to incorporate an changes introduced by
the proposed new protocols.
Recommendations
That Development Committee adopt the following:
Code of good practice for Planning
Code of Practice - Site Visit by Development Committee
Have your say on Planning Applications and Tree Preservation Orders
Development Committee – Decision Making Protocol
(Nicola Baker, Head of Planning ext 6135)
Development Committee
2
25 June 2015
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
SCOTTOW – ENQ/15/0090 – Hangers 1, 2 and 3, Scottow Enterprise Park,
Lamas Road, Badersfield – Unlawful storage of processed sugar
Background
On 23 April 2015, the Development Committee considered application
PF/14/1396 – a retrospective application which sought permission to change
the use of Hangers 1, 2 and 3 of the former RAF Coltishall site (now Scottow
Enterprise Park) to permit the storage of processed sugar (in bagged and loose
form). The importation of sugar to the site by articulated lorries had begun
ahead of planning permission being secured and the vehicle movements were
causing some concern locally, particularly the timing of lorry movements and
the adverse impact this was having on some local residents in Badersfield. In
considering the application, whilst Officers had, on balance, recommended
temporary approval of the proposed storage use subject to conditions to
ensure, amongst other things, that the timing of lorry movements were
controlled, the Development Committee raised a number of concerns about the
retrospective nature of the proposal, the appropriateness of the use and the
limited number of jobs it would create, concerns about the safety (fire/explosion
risk) associated with the storing of sugar in such large volumes and also
concerns about the impact the use was having on heritage assets, including
painted murals inside the hangers. (A copy of the Officer report and minutes
of the meeting of 23 April 2015 are attached at Appendix 7).
The Development Committee resolved to refuse the application and
subsequently, following receipt of comments from Norfolk Fire & Rescue
Service, the application was refused by way of decision notice dated 08 June
2015.
Having resolved to refuse the planning application, the Development
Committee then considered the matter of planning enforcement and, following
some discussion, it was agreed that the applicants be given six months to
remove the sugar from the site. The period of six months was justified on the
basis that it had taken three months to fill the hangers and therefore six months
would provide ample time to remove the sugar whilst allowing for a more
acceptable level of vehicle movements which would be less likely to have
adverse impacts on residential amenity.
Applicant’s Case
In respect of the six month period for compliance, the applicant’s agent has
contacted the Council explaining the issues affecting compliance (why the
sugar cannot be quickly removed) and has presented an alternative period for
compliance for the Development Committee to consider (See copy attached
at Appendix 6).
In summary the applicant proposes that any enforcement notice provides the
following periods for compliance for removal of sugar:

Hanger 3 – within six months
Development Committee
3
25 June 2015


Hanger 2 – within 12 months; and
Hanger 1 – within 2-3 years.
The applicant has sought to justify this approach rather than the six month
compliance period agreed by the Development Committee by suggesting that it
would ‘have the attraction of not requiring a very intensive focus of large
vehicles movements in the next few months (summer months) limiting the
impact on the amenity of Badersfield residents’.
Officer Advice
Whilst Officers do understand there may be logistical and operational reasons
which could prevent the applicant from immediately removing the stored sugar
from the hangers (i.e. capacity to reprocess the sugar at Cantley), the
alternative timescales suggested by the applicant do not appear to have had
any regard to the concerns of the Development Committee regarding fire
safety, impact on heritage assets and, significantly, the barrier that the
continued storage would pose towards the re-use of the hangers for the
creation of significant employment growth.
Officers consider there is little justification for storage beyond twelve months of
the date of the 23 April 2015 Development Committee (i.e. the date the
applicant became aware that the Development Committee would be refusing
the sugar storage application). Twelve months is considered to be more than a
reasonable time period within which to find alternative premises within which to
store the sugar, seek planning permission for storage and then transfer the
sugar to that site.
Whilst Officers understand there may have been reasons for the large supply of
processed sugar following the sugar beet harvest of 2014, these are business
operational matters for British Sugar to resolve through normal market forces
and the need to store sugar does not provide material justification to have
commenced storage ahead of planning permission being secured and certainly
does not provide sufficient material circumstance to warrant up to three years
compliance with an enforcement notice.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Enforcement Notice be issued with the
following amended timescales requiring all stored sugar to be removed
as follows:


Hanger 3 – within 6 months of the date of the notice
Hangers 1 and 2 – by 23 April 2016
(Source: Geoff Lyon (Major Projects Manager) 01263 516226)
Development Committee
4
25 June 2015
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
HIGH KELLING Tree Preservation Order 2015 No.4 Land at Kelling
Hospital, Holt NR25 6QA
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect
several individual trees, groups of trees and woodland at the above site.
Background
The Council received several calls from members of the public concerning
large mature Beech trees had been felled at Kelling Hospital. The members of
the public were concerned that more trees in the area could be felled. A
Landscape Officer visited the site and considered it expedient that a TPO be
served to conserve the remaining trees and protect the landscape amenity.
The trees at Kelling Hospital are a mixture consistent with the development of
the site over many years and provide an impressive and relaxing landscape for
residents and visitors. The impressive and unusual Lime and Horse Chestnut
avenue can be seen on 19th Century maps when the “cottage” was a private
dwelling.
Until recently the Council has enjoyed a good working relationship with the
grounds maintenance on site and have discussed proposed tree works and
achieved an amicable agreement. However the grounds maintenance has
now been outsourced and communication lost.
Representations
Objections to the Order:Three letters of objection (two from same address) and one letter of support to
the Order have been received. (Appendix 8)
The main objections are:
1. The Trees in the avenue are inappropriate.
2. The Trees in the avenue are causing damage to the road and adjacent
property.
3. The trees in the avenue are deformed due to mismanagement due to Council
Officers refusing work.
4. The trees in the avenue are a risk and urgent remedial action is needed.
5. The Trees in the avenue cause shading of the adjacent properties.
6. The leaves and debris from the trees have to be cleared up by house owners
Development Committee
5
25 June 2015
adjacent to the avenue.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
The trees in the avenue are park land Lime and Horse Chestnut and have been
used extensively for avenues throughout the country due to their suitability.
The TPO does not prevent appropriate management in relation to damage to
property. To date the Council has not received an application for tree works
from the owner of the avenue and would not object to any appropriate works.
The Council has not been in a position to refuse works to the trees prior to the
TPO being served.
The TPO does not prevent appropriate management in relation to risk to
persons or property. To date the Council has not received an application for
tree works from the owner of the avenue and would not object to any
appropriate works.
The houses adjacent to the avenue were built when the trees were in a mature
state. The planning system at the time would have taken shading issues into
consideration and the houses constructed using the appropriate guidelines.
Leaves and debris from trees is considered a management issue and not
grounds to revoke a TPO.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
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, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order
would be proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the
relevant legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving
the Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity
value to warrant a Preservation Order.
Development Committee
6
25 June 2015
Officers consider that the trees make a significant contribution to the quality of
the local environment and its enjoyment by the public and that they therefore
have high amenity value.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed.
(Source: Simon Case (Landscape Officer) Ext. 6142)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
4.
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0452 - Extension to provide a new two-storey retail unit (A1);
Millers Walk for Fakenham Properties Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 June 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Hinchcliffe
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Proposed Retail Opportunity Site
Town Centre
Contaminated Land
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19870088 PF - Shopping precinct with associated car parking and service
areas.
Approved 04/09/1987
PLA/19831109 PF - Temporary car park and use of buildings for covered market.
Approved 28/03/1985
PLA/20051921 PF - Erection of first floor extension to provide storage space and
alterations to shop fronts
Approved 02/02/2006
PLA/20061786 PF - Installation of roof platform and air handling plant
Approved 16/01/2007
THE APPLICATION
The proposals are to construct a new A1 retail unit through a part single and part two
storey extension to the east of an existing retail unit on an area of land currently used as
car parking at the Millers Walk shopping precinct, located directly to the south of the
main Town Centre (Market Place). There is an existing electricity substation operated
by UK Power Networks to the east of the existing retail unit.
The proposals will create a new retail unit in its own right with gross internal floor space
at ground floor level measuring 472 sqm and a further 99 sqm created at first floor level
in the northern most part of the building, providing 374 sqm of retail sales area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Punchard and Cllr Rest on the grounds of loss of reasonable
highway access and egress.
Development Committee
7
25 June 2015
TOWN COUNCIL
Councillors objected to this application on the grounds of vehicular access. Councillors
suggested that Cattle Market Street is reopened onto White Horse Street. Access from
Cattle Market Street onto Bridge Street is difficult and also a concern.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - no objection subject to a condition relating to the provision
of a developer funded scheme enhancing car parking signage. Although the loss of
parking spaces is of concern, considering the site is well located within the town centre
enabling access to other car parking facilities and public transport links, there are
positive benefits in the reduction in use of the access onto White Horse Street by private
cars, entering the car park from that direction. Restricting the use of the northern
access to deliveries, as proposed, would provide a benefit, reducing existing congestion
and delays close to a busy intersection, where vehicles waiting to enter the site access
need to cross queuing northbound traffic waiting to enter the roundabout, which causes
delays to vehicle flows at the roundabout.
Further to receipt of comments from Fakenham Town Council, highways officers
revisited the site to consider the option put forward by the Town Council of opening up of
Cattle Market Street directly on to White Horse Street. However this would create
highway safety issues relating to the creation of a cross roads with Oxborough Lane
opposite and is not something that can be recommended.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader (Conservation & Design) - no
objections to the principle of the proposed addition. Amended plans were provided to
address design changes required to help assimilate the resultant building into the
Fakenham Conservation Area and to ensure that the proposal would not result in harm
being caused to this heritage asset, and to the setting of the adjoining listed buildings.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Team Leader is happy with the scheme as
amended.
UK Power Networks - Objection. The proposed retail unit appears to affect the
operation of a UK Power Networks owned electricity substation. The existing access
that UK Power Networks uses will become blocked off and there may be other issues
that need to be addressed such as fire/blast protection.
Further comment awaited further to receipt of amended plans. Committee will be
updated verbally.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service - Taking into account the location and infrastructure
already in place and type and size of proposal, a hydrant is required to be installed
capable of delivering a minimum of 20 litres per second of water. A planning condition
is required to secure the provision of the hydrant at the applicants’ expense.
Environmental Health – no objection subject to informative note regarding possible
contamination given past uses of the site.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Committee
8
25 June 2015
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted February 2011):
ROS6: Retail: Land at Fakenham Town Centre (Land allocated for retail development Retail Opportunity Site).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Highway safety, access and parking provision
3. Design within a Conservation Area
4. Vitality and viability of the Town Centre
APPRAISAL
1. Location and principle of development
The application site is an area of land currently used as car parking directly to the east of
an existing retail unit at the Millers Walk shopping precinct, located directly to the south
of the main Town Centre (Market Place). A weekly market operates on an area of car
park directly to the south, an area of car park with approximately 76 parking spaces.
The site is located within the Large Town Centres policy designation for Fakenham and
under Policy SS 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, retail use is deemed to be
acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
The site is also located directly adjacent to an identified Primary Shopping Area and
Primary Retail Frontage under policy EC 5 and forms part of a much larger area
designated under allocation ROS6 for retail development as a Retail Opportunity Site in
the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) 2011.
2. Retail and Town Centre Policies at a National and Local Level (Policy EC 5 and
NPPF)
The government is taking an increasingly flexible approach to town centre uses.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities should 'promote competitive
Development Committee
9
25 June 2015
town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer...' allowing this
proposal will add to competition and choice which will be of benefit to consumers.
Paragraph 10 of the NPPF also states that 'Plans and decisions need to take local
circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for
achieving sustainable development in different areas.' Furthermore, paragraph 19 of the
NPPF states that 'Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment
to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to
support economic growth through the planning system.' Taking the issue of
sustainable development into account, the proposal is in a sustainable location in
Fakenham town centre, with good links to public transport and adjacent to an existing
car park.
The proposals involve the creation of a net sales area of 374 sqm. Policy EC 5 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy requires retail proposals of less than 500 sqm net sales
area to be located within the development boundary on the best sequentially available
site. As the application site is located directly adjacent to a Primary Shopping Area and
Primary Retail Frontage this is considered to be the best sequentially available site and
the proposals therefore comply with Policy EC 5.
The Millers Walk shopping precinct provides linkage between the existing retail food
store to the west of the town centre operated by Tesco and the under construction retail
food store to the east to be operated by Aldi. The 374 sqm sales area proposed is
generally in excess of that offered by many of the standard high street retail units,
meeting increasing demand for larger open plan retail floor space. A unit of this size
will offer variety to support the existing retail mix on offer in the town. The need for
variety and choice in town centres is recognised (as referred to in paragraph 2.9.8 of the
Core Strategy in regards to Fakenham), and it is therefore considered that the proposal
would bring a number of benefits to the town and has potential to have a positive impact
upon the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole.
With regards the allocation of the site within the Site Allocations DPD as a Retail
Opportunity Site, the allocation recognises that as the site is within multiple ownership it
is likely to be developed in phases. The application site represents a very small
proportion of the allocated site and is directly adjacent to existing retail uses. In the
absence of a Development Brief for the site it is concluded that the development
proposed on the application site will not compromise the ability of the wider extent of the
allocated site from being developed and also in accordance with that allocation will
ensure that sufficient space remains for the market to continue to operate. Therefore,
it is considered that the proposals will not conflict with the provisions of the allocation of
the site as a Retail Opportunity Site in the Site Allocations DPD.
3. Access and Parking (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The physical position of the extension will result in the existing access to the north east
of the site being separated from the parking provision on the site, with this access being
used for deliveries and servicing only to the north of the Millers Walk complex. As a
result the remaining car parking area to the south of the application site will be served
from one point of access/egress onto Cattle Market Street and then Bridge Street only.
This is a matter which has raised issue locally with the Town Council and Local Ward
Members. They question the suitability of the existing Cattle Market Street access as a
sole point of access/egress to the car park and have raised an objection regarding this
arrangement.
Development Committee
10
25 June 2015
The Highways Officer (Norfolk County Council) provided initial comment that restricting
the use of the northern access to deliveries would provide a benefit, through reducing
existing congestion and delays close to a busy intersection where vehicles waiting to
enter the site access need to cross queuing northbound traffic waiting to enter the
roundabout, which causes delays to vehicle flows at the roundabout and gives rise to
highway safety issues. Further to the receipt of comments from Fakenham Town
Council and Local Ward Members based on local observations and concerns Highways
Officers revisited the site to investigate further the issues raised. They have initially
concluded that the opening up of Cattle Market Street directly on to White Horse Street
as the Town Council have suggested would create highway safety issues relating to the
creation of a cross roads with Oxborough Lane opposite and this is not something that
the Highway Authority can recommend.
In summary, regarding issues of access and egress to the site and the associated car
parking area the development proposed will result in highway safety benefits from the
closure of the northern access although it is recognised that as a result there may be
inconvenience issues related to using a sole point of access to the car parking from
Cattle Market Street. In coming to this conclusion it is recognised that Cattle Market
Street is narrow at points, however the length of highway in question is short with wider
sections at the east and west ends and given its arrangement traffic using this route will
be travelling at low speeds. A developer funded scheme of enhanced car parking
signage will however help in terms of providing clear direction to this car park and other
alternative car parking available in the vicinity for the benefit of customers visiting this
site and other town centre uses and such details can be secured by an appropriately
worded planning condition. Officers therefore consider that the highway safety
benefits outweigh any access inconvenience issues which may arise as a consequence
of the proposals and the scheme is considered to be compliant with Policy CT5.
Access issues aside the additional retail floor space being created would generate a
requirement under the Council’s adopted parking standards for 1 car space for every 20
sqm gross floor space. The proposed development would therefore generate a
requirement for 24 car parking spaces for the gross ground floor area of the premises,
extending to a total of 29 car parking spaces if the first floor area is also included.
Cycle parking requirement for both staff and customers totals 9 spaces.
The application does not include any additional car or cycle parking provision
associated with the new retail floor space being created and will actually led to a loss of
approximately 29 existing car parking spaces. Therefore resulting in an effective net
loss of up to 58 car parking spaces. The car park in question and the larger extent of car
park to the south is not safeguarded through any specific car parking designation.
The approach taken has been justified by the agent for the application who comments
that the applicant intends to mitigate the loss of the car parking spaces by imposing a
tariff system and more effective monitoring of existing 2 hour waiting restrictions on
existing car parks in their ownership to the south and east of the proposals, therefore
increasing turnover of parking spaces.
This approach of not providing additional car parking to serve the new retail floor space
is considered acceptable in this instance given the location of the proposals within the
town centre in a location adjacent to existing car parking where ample parking currently
exists. The building is also within short walking distance of other car parks in the town
and public transport links. Furthermore, the Highway Authority have raised no
objection to the proposals with regards to parking and access provision and as such, the
proposals are considered to be compliant with Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Development Committee
11
25 June 2015
Furthermore, the agent has confirmed that the proposals will not impact on the ability to
provide a weekly market on the southern part of the car park as specifically required by
the ROS6 allocation and also paragraph 23 of the NPPF which promotes the retention
and enhancement of existing markets.
4. Design and appearance (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
The site is located within the Fakenham Conservation Area. In respect of the effect of
the development on Conservation Areas, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a general duty on planning authorities to pay
special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or
appearance of a Conservation Area. This is coupled with the requirements of Core
Strategy Policy EN 8, which requires development to preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of a Conservation Area.
The existing building is not of any particular architectural or historic merit. The
extension would bring built form up to the edge of the footpath and would thus
strengthen the enclosure to White Horse Street. As existing this route is relatively open
and lacks definition for a town centre thoroughfare. It is also heavily dominated by car
parking which would be lost/screened in the process.
A design change was suggested to properly articulate the north elevation of the
extension so that it appears as a separate element visually. This together with the
requirement to redesign the floor space of the extension around the existing electricity
substation has resulted in the submission of amended plans. The amended plans help
to assimilate the resultant building into the Fakenham Conservation Area and ensure
that the proposals will not result in harm being caused to this heritage asset or to the
setting of adjacent listed buildings.
Furthermore, the proposals meet the separation distances set out in the North Norfolk
Design Guide relating to residential amenity and therefore comply with part of the
requirement of Policy EN 4. Due to the separation distances involved and the
relationship of those existing residential properties with the existing servicing, delivery
and parking areas at the Millers Walk complex it is not considered that the proposals will
give rise to significant detrimental impacts upon residential amenity in terms of noise
and disturbance.
5. Other Matters
The proposals extend into an area where an electricity substation owned and operated
by UK Power Networks is located. Due to an initial holding objection to the proposals
from UK Power Networks the design and form of the extension has been amended to
ensure that access continues to be maintained to the substation and the operation of
the substation site is not affected. Further comment is awaited from UK Power
Networks in relation to the amended plans.
The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections subject to an informative
note relating to contamination.
6. Conclusion
In summary, the principle of a new A1 (retail) store is considered acceptable in this
location. Whilst concerns have been raised about the loss of a point of access to the
existing car park and the adequacy of the remaining access, the highway safety benefits
that will result from the closure of the northern access point are considered to outweigh
Development Committee
12
25 June 2015
any potential inconvenience to users accessing the car park from a single point of
access from Cattle Market Street.
The revised design is considered acceptable and will not cause harm to any designated
heritage assets including the Fakenham Conservation Area and any nearby listed
buildings.
Therefore, it is considered that the proposals will accord with relevant Development
Plan policies. Subject to confirmation from UK Power Networks that they are able to lift
their current objection to the scheme and subject to a number of conditions the
development in its revised form is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve,
subject to removal of the holding objection from UK Power Networks and subject
to conditions relating to;



5.
Restriction of the use of the unit to Use Class A1 (Retail)
Securing a scheme of enhanced car parking signage
Provision of a fire hydrant
GRESHAM - PF/15/0488 - Installation of 90kW ground mounted solar PV array;
Chaucer Barn, Holt Road for Mr Mermagen
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 June 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19872220 PF - Demolition of farm buildings & conversion of flint barn to one
residential unit
Approved 29/01/1988
PLA/20030457 PF - Conversion of barn to holiday unit
Approved 30/04/2003
PLA/20030002 PF - Conversion of barn to holiday dwelling
Approved 02/04/2003
PLA/20032060 PF - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to one unit of
holiday accommodation
Approved 09/02/2004
THE APPLICATION
Is for the installation of a 90kW ground mounted solar PV array to generate renewable
electricity for the applicant's wedding venue business and private dwelling, with any
excess power being used by other grid connected properties.
The panels would be arranged in 3 rows, approximately 3.5m apart. The mounting
frames are made from galvanised steel, aluminium and stainless steel. The mounting
system uses steel posts which are pile driven into the ground to a depth of 1.6m.
Development Committee
13
25 June 2015
The modules have a blue/black finish of glass over silicon which is light absorbing and
will have a silver surround. The modules will be mounted on an east-west axis frame
and pitched at an angle of 30°. The panels will be mounted 2 high in portrait orientation.
The bottom of the panels would be 1m off the ground at its lowest and 2.7m at its
highest. The panels would be 3.45m in depth and approximately 60m in length..
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
All applications for solar PV to be determined by Committee resolution.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Landscape - No objection
Highways (Norfolk County Council) - No objection
Environmental Health - Awaiting comments
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on landscape
2. Impact on highway safety
3. Impact on residential amenity
Development Committee
14
25 June 2015
APPRAISAL
The application site is located within the Countryside Policy Area (Policy SS2), where
proposals for renewable energy installations are considered to be acceptable in
principle. This is subject to compliance with Policy EN7 which specifically refers to
Renewable Energy installations and requires that they do not have a significant adverse
effect on the surrounding landscape, residential amenity and highway safety.
The Design and Access Statement advises that the proposal is to help Chaucer Barn
reduce their carbon footprint and energy spending as a wedding and event venue, and
generate clean renewable energy to help create a sustainable future for their business,
the environment and the local community.
The Landscape Officer has been consulted on the application and has confirmed that
they have no objections. The site is well screened to the west by Mill Common
Plantation and to the south mature trees and hedging which form a wooded strip
alongside Mill Road. Due to the existing mature screening surrounding the site, existing
buildings and the rolling topography views would be contained within the site rather than
the wider landscape. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have an
adverse visual landscape impact.
At the time of writing this report the comments of Environmental Health were awaited.
However, the nearest properties are to the south, south east and east between 110m
and 135m from the proposal. To the north west is Gresham Hall which is located some
300m from the application site. There are mature trees and planting to the boundaries of
these properties which provide screening from the site. Whilst part of the northern
boundary has some fairly new planting, this will provide more screening once matured.
Given the distances between the site and Gresham Hall and that the solar array panels
will face south away from the Hall, subject to no objections being raised by
Environmental Health, it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of any neighbouring dwellings.
The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the application. The proposal is
therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety.
Subject to no objections from Environmental Health, and no grounds of objection
following expiry of the site notice, it is considered that the proposal would be
acceptable and in accordance with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections
from Environmental Health, no objections being received following expiry of site
notice, and imposition of appropriate conditions including time limit, in
accordance with approved plans, cessation of use and any other conditions that
may be required by Environmental Health.
Development Committee
15
25 June 2015
6.
HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill for
Mr Bradley
Target Date: 27 May 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
N/A
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the change of use from hairdresser (A1) to a pizza restaurant (A3)
at 4 Fish Hill in Holt.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at the meeting of the 28 May 2015 for a site visit.
Previously at the request of Cllr Baker due to the impact upon residential amenity.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the application. There appear to be inadequate information on relevant
points such as vent system, provision for large trade bins, parking, danger of fire, hot
gas escaping and no vent system. This is not a change of use from a café and the new
use of a restaurant would have far reaching implications with regard to smell and noise,
and other properties in the town would be better suited to this kind of business.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, 13 representations have been received (12 objections/1 comment) raising the
following:













Length of opening hours.
Concern with the impact of litter and request assurances that this will be
addressed by the operator the business.
More competition for existing A3 businesses in Holt.
Concerned with the potential for noise and disturbance with adjoining residential
flats, by virtue of the proposed business, small courtyard, extractor unit and
opening hours.
Concerned about the impacts upon the party wall.
A further food outlet would impact upon the existing character of the Georgian
town.
Holt needs more shop not food outlets.
Concern with respect to location of proposed commercial wheelie bins and their
proposed collection.
Concern with the impact of the proposed flue.
Questions whether the premised will serve alcohol and lack of information in
respect to this issue within the planning application.
Lack of parking proposed.
Potential fire hazard due to the small rear courtyard.
Concerned with the proposed wheelie bin being located within the public alley.
Development Committee
16
25 June 2015








Confirmation of land ownership of land within the rear courtyard.
Concerns as to the impact of water, utilities and shared pipes of these older
buildings.
Concern as to adequate sound proofing.
Lack of information in respect to extractor fans, air conditioning and the impact
upon the listed building.
Concerns with the proposed location on the rear of the building and impact upon
existing window openings.
Questions whether gas bottles are being proposed.
Concern that no fire exit is shown.
Has taken legal advice, no right to install anything overhanging neighbour's land.
A further letter was verbally updated at the meeting of the 28 May 2015 from a Solicitor
which confirmed the legal position for the owners of the courtyard.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways: Given the town centre location of the site in an area covered
by well controlled waiting restrictions, limited waiting parking bays and good access to
public transport links and public car parking, no objections are raised in respect to
highway safety.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to satisfying conditions relating to the
following: noise level insulation, noise level scheme to be submitted, and instillation of
an extractor/ventilation system, opening hours and noise from kitchen operations.
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):
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
17
25 June 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Change of use
 Residential amenity
 Highway safety
 Impact on listed building
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at committee 28 May 2015 for a site visit. The applicant
was also requested to submit further details in respect to the flue and clarification of the
proposed refuse storage prior to the site visit on the 18 June 2015.
Location and principle of development
The vacant unit in question occupies the ground floor of a two-storey building located
within a group of buildings fronting Fish Hill, leading to the Market Place in the centre of
Holt town. The unit was formerly used as hairdressers, an A1 use. As the unit is
situated within the Town Centre policy designation for Holt, under Policy SS 5 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy, the use for retail and other uses compatible with the town
centre are deemed to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
Change of use - North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy EC 5
The site is within the Primary Shopping Area but it is not within a Primary Retail
Frontage where the policy seeks to protect premises for A1 (retail) shopping uses.
Therefore, the principle of change of uses from an A1 ‘Hairdressers’ to an A3
‘Restaurant’ is acceptable.
National Planning Policy Framework - Town Centres
The government is taking an increasingly flexible approach to town centre uses.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities should 'promote competitive
town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer...'. Although a
number of restaurants/cafes already exist in the town, allowing this proposal will add to
competition and choice which will be of benefit to consumers. Competition with other
similar businesses is inevitable and is not a planning reason for refusal.
Paragraph 10 of the NPPF also states that 'Plans and decisions need to take local
circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for
achieving sustainable development in different areas.' Furthermore, paragraph 19 of
the NPPF states that 'Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an
impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on
the need to support economic growth through the planning system.' Taking the issue
of sustainable development into account, the proposal could be argued as sustainable
as it is located in the town centre, with good links to public transport and adjacent to an
existing car park. It also brings a vacant listed building back into use and therefore
represents a good opportunity to revitalise a sustainable brownfield site.
It is also worth noting that the flexible approach to town centres is also made clear
through the Government's recent changes to Permitted Development Rights relating to
retail units. Under these rights, it is possible to the change the use of the unit in question
to an A3 use for a temporary period of up to two years without planning permission.
Whilst this flexibility does not apply to statutory listed buildings, it is clear from the
changes in recent Permitted Development Rights that the exclusion of listed building is
to ensure that special historic or architectural interest of the heritage asset is not
compromised.
Development Committee
18
25 June 2015
Design and appearance (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
The building lies within the Conservation Area of Holt and is a Grade II Listed Building.
Design and impact upon the Listed Building and Conservation Area
The application is simply for the change of use only and whilst indicative details have
been provided illustrating the proposed internal layout and seating plan, the application
has stated that no changes are proposed to the external façade fronting Fish Hill. In
respect to any proposed flue or ventilation system, no formal details have been provided
as part of the planning application.
However, informal discussion with the
Conservation and Design Team have indicated that if the flue is situated to the left hand
side of a modern extension, it is unlikely to harm the overall significant of the Listed
Building or be seen within the Conservation Area. In respect to the impact of sound
proofing, if it principally involves the under drawing of existing ceilings then this would
unlikely cause concern. In these circumstances, it is considered appropriate to attach
a note to any planning permission granted that the permission relates solely to the
change of use of the building and that any internal or external alterations to the building
may require further Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission. This would be to
ensure that the development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of designated assets, in this case the listed building and its setting through high quality,
sensitive design and ensure that no adverse impact would occur on the special historic
or architectural interest of the listed building.
As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 in
terms of the change of use.
Amenity
In respect to noise, emissions, hours of use and waste concerns, it is recommended
that these can effectively be resolved with conditions imposed for the prior approval of
ventilation and extraction systems, as well as the hours of use, close of business and
storage of waste. This would allow the Council to ensure that any conditions imposed
are satisfactory discharged and are compliant with Environmental Health requirements.
The applicant has confirmed that the following can be conditioned to any planning
permission granted as advised by Environmental Health:


The opening hours as stated identified within the application of 08:00-22:30 from
Monday to Saturday and 08:00 – 22:00 Sunday.
The closure of doors and windows from 9pm (except for access or egress) and
bins are not emptied between 11pm and 7am.
Any installation of extractor equipment will be dealt with under conditions requested by
Environmental Health. To address concerns surrounding residential amenity, the
applicant has been advised to provide information surrounding noise, odour and
extraction/ventilation equipment ‘up front’ and members will be updated verbally at
Committee on any submitted proposals. The applicant submitted further details for the
proposed extractor equipment, noise and odour which were verbally updated at the
meeting on the 28 May 2015, however comments have not yet been received from
Environmental Health in respect to this further information.
Turning to the storage of waste, the Environmental Health Officer has advised that
providing that any proposed bins are enclosed and located on land that the applicant
has a right of access to then this would be comparable to other restaurants in the locality
and no objection would likely be raised A condition will be attached to any planning
permission granted requiring details of the refuse storage areas to be submitted to and
Development Committee
19
25 June 2015
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Environmental Health Officer has requested further notes being attached to any
planning permission granted in association with trade waste and demolition.
The Environmental Health Officer raised no objections subject to conditions.
The restriction on anything projecting/overhanging neighbouring property is a civil
matter.
Access and Parking (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The building is located within the town centre and adjacent to existing car parks where
ample parking currently exists. The building is also within short walking distance of
public transport services. Furthermore, the Highway Authority have raised no
objection to the proposal in regards to parking and current flows of traffic and as such,
it is considered to be compliant with Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy SS
5, SS 9, EN 4, EN 8, EC5, CT 5 and CT 6.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve subject to the following conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
3. Before the use is commenced, the building shall be insulated in accordance with
a scheme to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a scheme shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which
specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the
site.
5. Prior to the first use of the restaurant hereby permitted full details of the
installation of any extractor or ventilation equipment shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority for approval. The submitted details shall include
measures to control noise and odour. The equipment shall be installed and
thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of
refuse storage areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
7. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following
times, 08:00-22:30 from Monday to Saturday and 08:00 – 22:00 Sunday.
8. All external doors and windows to the building shall be kept shut from 9pm
(except for access or egress) and bins are not emptied between 11pm and 7am.
Development Committee
20
25 June 2015
7.
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
- Target Date: 14 April 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
C Road
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land Buffer
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030168 PF
Conversion and extension of office to form a dwelling
Approved 18/03/2003
PF/12/0904 PF
Change of use from residential to mixed use of residential and A5 (hot food takeaway)
Approved 10/01/2013 (adjacent property)
THE APPLICATION
This application was deferred at the previous committee meeting for a site visit, to look
at the parking proposals that form part of the application. A further plan was requested
and subsequently received from the applicant showing the proposed additional parking
arrangements referred to at the previous committee meeting. Following receipt of this
plan the application has been readvertised as it introduces an additional piece of land
that did not form part of the original submission.
The application is to change the use of an existing residential property to a tearoom.
The property is attached to an existing building currently used as a Fish and Chip shop,
which was granted planning permission in 2013 (application reference PF/12/0904,
which subdivided the then existing building into the shop and a dwelling.
A modest rear extension to the property is proposed to allow for the provision of toilets
and a kitchen/prep room. The extension will be cedar wood clad with pantiles and will
square off the rear of the building. The land in front of the building will be landscaped
with a mix of gravel, planters and low level lighting, along with a brickweave path serving
the entrance. A pergola will also be added to the front of the building. Designated
parking it to be provided (now shown on revised plans) along The Loke, adjacent to a
property known as 'Genesis'. The access for The Loke is between 19 and 21 Station
Road.
Existing residential dwellings lie to the north, east and south of the site, with a nursery
on the opposite side of Station Road.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr A Green with regard to Highway concerns.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application, raising concerns regarding highway safety, impact upon
residential amenity, sustainability due to existing businesses and incorrect information
supplied by the applicant including site area, opening hours, parking and land
ownership.
Development Committee
21
25 June 2015
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, 133 representations in total have been received.
Of these, 106 are in support of the application, providing (in summary) the following
comments:

















Will enhance the village
Will provide a good community facility
No experience of any traffic/parking issues
Offers a local employment opportunity
The positive aspects of the application outweigh the highway impact
Site has previous been used as a community facility
Lack of tearooms/toilets in small villages
Will not be a nuisance to local residents
Within walking distance for local residents and would provide a good meeting place
Landscaping will add to the village surroundings
A unique, small start-up business
Although on a road bend, is well lit with advisory parking lines.
Provides a facility for the elderly, young mothers and people with dementia and their
carers
Will promote tourism and the local church/attractions.
Building is in a dominant position where it has a better chance of survival
Will support local farmers and boost the rural economy
It falls in line with the NNDC development plan.
In addition to the above, a further statement has been provided by the applicant
outlining the following:




Land registry title deeds have been provided indicating rights of way over land
Highways have made no mention of improvements in place including a no stopping
white line around the bend in question
The existing highway copes very well with current traffic with a traffic survey
showing that the average speed of cars approaching the bend is under the 30mph
limit
The existing soakaway on the site works well
27 of the representations received object to the application, raising (in summary) the
following issues:












A number of serious concerns regarding road safety
Accidents have occurred near the site
Over-trafficked village where lorries pose a constant traffic hazard
Due to parked vehicles, may necessitate driving on the wrong side of the road on a
blind bend
No parking provision and parking situation would become worse due to more
tourists/customers and delivery vehicles
Increase in traffic poses a risk to nursery children
Would be negligent planning to allow the proposal
Threatens the sustainability of existing valued facilities in the village
Anomalies in the submitted application regarding opening times and stating that the
existing building is vacant
Similar objections were raised under a previous application
Many customers will drive to the venue
Will result in the loss of low-cost housing
Development Committee
22
25 June 2015









Concerns regarding late opening hours and potential for noise and disturbance
How does the alcohol license relate to the tearoom? Also, no mention of a license in
the application
Questioning the boundaries of the site, rights of way and land ownership
Signage and lighting would be a distraction to drivers
Due to parking, pedestrians have to walk in the road
Drainage using the soakaway is an issue
No consideration of odour controls
Proposal would resemble a pub
Proposed woodburner would pose a fire hazard
Additional representations may be received following re-advertisement of the plans.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Object to the application. This development
proposes to change the use of a single bedroom residential dwelling currently provided
with two parking spaces situated to the front of the premises, into a tea shop with a
single re-located parking space served by a different inappropriate access to the rear.
The residential dwelling was retained following sub-division of the original dwelling
under application PF/12/0904, which created the adjacent fish and chip shop. As you
may recall, the previous application to subdivide the dwelling received a
recommendation of refusal from the Local Highway Authority (LHA) on highway safety
grounds, but was subsequently granted consent by Development Committee contrary
to our advice.
The proposal site is situated on the C355 Station Road on the outside of a near 90
degree bend, on a section of the C355 which is restricted in width to 5.25m wide.
Fronting the application site, the footpath varies in width ranging from a base width of
1.04m along the frontage of no.21, widening up to 3.6m to the northern boundary of
no.19 (where the yellow grit salt bin is located), then back to approximately 1.0m over a
short radial distance of 17-18 m. The available footway width is below that
recommended for pedestrians with restricted mobility or parents with pushchairs.
Opposite the site the footpath measures approximately 1.4m in width around the
frontage wall and fence to the Children's Nursery.
The frontage of the application site is already served by an existing dropped kerb
arrangement to allow parking for two vehicles to the front of the residential donor
dwelling, however this parking facility is proposed to be removed, with potential staff
parking (at best only 1 space, but difficult to ascertain from the submitted plan) being
relocated to the rear of 21 Station Road. The new parking arrangement will be accessed
by a narrow track with restricted visibility to the south, due to the frontage wall of number
21. Given the restricted levels of visibility, the access is considered to be substandard
and unsuitable for the increase in vehicular activity.
No parking for customers is currently provided for the Fish and Chip shop and none is
proposed for the Tea Rooms.
Forward visibility around the nearby bends is poor, due to the existence of high security
fencing around the Children's Nursery play area and the gable wall of the Public House
with the lack of forward visibility restricting the ability of approaching motorists to see
parked cars. This in turn results in drivers having to brake suddenly or to overtake
parked vehicles without a clear line of sight.
With consideration of the road layout and the type of traffic using the C355 Station
Development Committee
23
25 June 2015
Road, concerns were raised by the LHA in the earlier application PF/12/0904; that the
lack of any parking provision for the fish and chip shop would result in customers
parking on the public highway on, or close to a near 90 degree bend in the road
alignment.
This has been found to be the case with colleagues within Environmental Health having
photographic evidence of parking causing drivers having to overtake parked vehicles
around the bends on the opposing carriageway, with restricted levels of forward
visibility, which is clearly detrimental to highway safety. I Hope to have these
photographs available for perusal shortly.
It is evident that large goods vehicles regularly use this route and require the full width of
the C355 Station Road to negotiate this and another severe bend in close proximity to
the proposal site.
With consideration that the proposed development does not provide any customer
parking, resulting in the potential for another significant increase in on-street customer
and delivery parking, at a point on the highway where forward visibility is restricted and
large vehicles regularly utilise the full road width to negotiate a series of near right
angled bends, I find that the proposed change of use, without any customer or delivery
parking would be detrimental to highway safety and therefore, Norfolk County Council
recommends refusal.
Additional Highway comments received 10 June 2015 - a recent submission now
shows some increased parking for customers being provided to the rear of the Bed and
Breakfast property, gained via the access to the side of the Fish and Chip Shop.
The provision of parking to the rear of the site would engender an increase in traffic
using the access point between the Chip shop and 21 Station Road, previous
assessment of this unmade private track has highlighted inadequate width to cater for
two-way vehicle movement and substandard levels of visibility onto the busy Station
Road.
Visibility guidance given in ‘Manual for streets’ for the 30mph limit in force at this site on
The Street, requires visibility splays of 43m measured at the access side kerbline at a
setback of 2.4m
The access track has negligible visibility to the south of 3m due to the wall of number 21,
from the required 2.4m setback at its junction with Church Road and 41m to the north,
providing 95% of the required visibility to the north but only 7% to the south and is
therefore considered to be wholly unsuitable for any increased use.
The access width has been improved by works to the frontage in association with the
Chip Shop proposals, however visibility remains severely restricted by the frontage wall
to 21 Station Road, which has not been addressed, resulting in the Highway Authority
being unable to support any increased use of the substandard access arrangements, as
proposed, in the interests of highway safety.
With consideration that the proposed development does not provide any suitable
customer parking, resulting in either the potential for another significant increase in
on-street customer and delivery parking, at a point on the highway where forward
visibility is restricted and large vehicles regularly utilise the full road width to negotiate a
series of near right angled bends, or the increased use of a substandard access, if
parking were allowed to the rear of the frontage properties.
Therefore, I find that the proposed change of use, either without any customer or
delivery parking, or with parking situated to the rear of the frontage properties served by
Development Committee
24
25 June 2015
a substandard access with restricted levels of visibility, would be detrimental to highway
safety and therefore, Norfolk County Council recommends refusal.
Environmental Health - No objection. Request conditions relating to the installation of
future extraction/ventilation/air conditioning systems and external lighting.
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, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the re-use
of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for converting
buildings for non-residential purposes).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria for
new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highways impact - access/parking/safety
3. Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The property lies within the Countryside policy area of North Norfolk as defined under
Policy SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this area, proposals to use
existing buildings for economic/community uses are considered to be acceptable in
principle, subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies. Under Policy
EC 2, such buildings would need to be appropriate in scale and nature to the location
and the building would need to be soundly built and suitable for the intended use. The
proposal, given the small-scale nature of the proposal and the fact that it is in an existing
building with previous permission for a dwelling, means that it is compliant with Policy
EC 2.
Development Committee
25
25 June 2015
In addition, Policy CT 3 of the Core Strategy allows for new local facilities/services within
the Countryside Policy area where they meet the identified needs of the local
community. Although the need has not necessarily been proven, it is recognised that a
tearoom could function as a locally important facility, serving as an attraction for visitors
and a meeting place for local residents. The National Planning policy Framework
(NPPF) is similarly supportive of development which supports economic growth in rural
areas in order to create jobs and prosperity and promotes the retention and
development of local services and community facilities in villages.
Design/use (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
In terms of design, the proposed works are considered to be acceptable. The building is
situated in a Conservation Area where proposals should seek to preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of the area. The rear extension, although consisting of
cedar cladding of which there is none on the existing building, will be largely hidden from
view from the public domain and no concerns with regard to its appearance. Similarly,
the landscaping for the front of the building is considered to be acceptable and may
even enhance the appearance of the front of the building.
As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policies EN 4 and EN8 in terms
of design.
Residential amenity (Policies EN 4 and EN 13)
Neither the proposed extension nor use of the building is considered to have a
significantly detrimental impact with regard to privacy, further helped by the fact that
fencing is proposed around the site boundary. Given that the building is single-storey,
the proposed extension again should have no detrimental impact upon neighbouring
amenity in terms of light loss.
It should be noted that the application refers to three sets of opening times, the first in
the submitted Design and Access Statement being 11:00-16:00, the others being
between 08:00-22:00 Monday to Saturday and until 23:00 on Sunday/Bank Holidays
The later of these times reflects an alcohol licence currently held by the applicant for the
building. It is understood that the opening hours of the tearoom would be between
11:00-16:00, however with the flexibility to allow the tearoom to host occasional events
to be held later into the afternoon/evening - the Design and Access Statement refers to
the fact that the stated opening hours 'may vary due to seasonal requirements and
village events'.
Referring to the use of the building and the stated opening hours, there is some concern
raised by objectors that it could cause significant nuisance in terms of noise coming
from the site, especially given the potentially licensed nature of the premises. It should
be noted that limiting the hours to the public to between 11:00 and 16:00 is considered
to be prudent in this case, and any future detrimental noise or disturbance caused by
the use of the premises is a matter that could be investigated by the Council's
Environmental Health team should the need arise. It should further be noted that it is not
unusual for villages to have a such a premises within a built up area and adjacent to
residential properties. Given the small-scale nature of the proposal, it is not considered
that these concerns would warrant a refusal on this basis.
The matter of rights of way/land ownership has been raised by some objectors, with a
number of objections referring to the use of the private road. The question of land
ownership is a civil matter.
Ventilation/extraction/lighting (Policy EN 13)
Environmental Health have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposals,
including the lighting proposed and indicated on the submitted plans. Further details in
regards to future additional lighting or extraction/ventilation/air conditioning systems
Development Committee
26
25 June 2015
would need to be submitted prior to their installation.
As such, subject to conditions, the proposal is compliant with Policy EN 13.
Highways Impact (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The main issues of contention for this particular application has been the highway
impact of the proposal. It should be noted that similar concerns were raised as part of
the application for the adjacent Fish and Chip shop.
Two parking spaces were provided to the front of the existing building to serve the
bungalow, which will be removed as part of this application to allow for the landscaping
as mentioned above. Following comments raised at the previous committee meeting, a
customer and staff parking area is now proposed along The Loke for the proposed
tearoom.
The Highway Authority, as part of this application, have raised a number of concerns
relating to the proposed use of the building. These concerns include:





the footway width in front of the premises being lower than that recommended for
pedestrians with restricted mobility or pushchairs;
although it is noted that customer and staff parking is now proposed, visibility from
The Loke onto Station Road is severely restricted and as such, is considered to be
substandard and unsuitable for an increase in vehicular activity;
Poor visibility on the nearby bends in the road, the site itself sitting on the corner of
such a bend, combined with parked vehicles on the road;
HGVs using the route;
The possibility of further increased on-street parking, including delivery vehicles.
It is noted that loading and waiting restrictions could be introduced, however this does
not overcome issues with regard to the lack of suitable parking provision for the
proposed use nor the increased use of a substandard access road. Under Policy CT 6,
a tearoom of the size proposed (approx. 30sqm) would need to provide a minimum of 6
spaces, in addition to 1 space per 4 staff members (in this case the application form
refers to 3 staff members).
In addition, the Highway Authority have themselves been contacted by Norfolk Police
who have stated that there is a significant problem being caused in this particular area in
regards to the obstruction caused by vehicles parking on the Highway outside and near
to the building in question, which has resulted in HGVs serving the Maltings site not
being able to get through and having to divert. It is also suggested that the situation has
become worse since the opening of the adjacent Fish and Chip shop.
As such, having considered the above matters, it is considered that the proposal would
be contrary to policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Conclusion
Although it is acknowledged that the provision of a tearoom would serve as a desirable
community asset, it is not considered that the benefits it could bring would outweigh the
serious concerns with regard to highway safety raised by the Highway Authority. An
additional facility such as the one proposed, without any suitable parking provision and
the current limitations on the surrounding Highway as mentioned above, would only
exacerbate the existing traffic situation. As such, the application is contrary to
Development Plan policies CT5 and CT6 and is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to REFUSE, subject to
no new material issues being raised following re-advertisement of amended
plans, for the reason specified below:
Development Committee
27
25 June 2015
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
Policy CT 6: Parking provision
The unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the
development proposed, by reason of its poor alignment and restricted forward visibility.
Furthermore, the proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking and
manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local Planning Authority. The
proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to an undesirable increase in on-street
parking and conditions detrimental to highway safety.
Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the Development
Plan.
Furthermore, any additional ground of refusal that may be appropriate following receipt
of any further consultation responses.
8.
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/0320 - Erection of first floor side/front extension with
dormer window to roofslope (part retrospective); Oak Tree Cottage, St Giles
Road for Mr Monday
- Target Date: 04 May 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Enforcement Enquiry
Countryside
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Unclassified Road
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19801567 PO - Erection of dwelling
Approved 19/09/1980
PLA/20010242 PF - Erection of replacement porch
Approved 10/04/2001
PLA/19820590 HR - Extension to kitchen
Approved 14/05/1982
PLA/19961004 PF - Erection of bungalow and garage/store
Approved 24/10/1996
PLA/19740785 PO - One dwelling
Approved 01/11/1974
PLA/19790588 HR - Front porch/sun room extension
Approved 11/05/1979
PF/15/0320 HOU
Erection of first floor side/front extension with dormer window to roofslope (part
retrospective)
THE APPLICATION
The application is retrospective, involving a first floor pitched roof extension with a small
front dormer window and large flat roof rear dormer window on the existing flat roof
single-storey side extension of an existing two-storey residential property.
Development Committee
28
25 June 2015
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning due to the design of the proposal and its
relationship to neighbouring properties.
A Committee site visit took place on 18 June 2015.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application. A number of comments have been made by Parish
Councillors which include:
 questioning the integrity of the structure.
 questioning the information /advice provided by the applicant and the Council.
 concern over time taken to investigate the building works.
 Loss of light to adjacent property 'Springfield'.
 Large window at the rear may be opening would need a balcony/safety feature.
 Top heavy and inappropriate addition, not in-keeping with the area.
 Windows overlook several neighbouring properties.
 From the front of the property, the extension would appear to be an improvement
upon the flat roof.
REPRESENTATIONS
In addition to comments received from the Parish Council, two letters of objection have
been received raising the following concerns:
 Proportions and design of the extension appear uncomfortably in contrast to the rest
of the property.
 Appears anomalous in the context of other properties in the vicinity and
questionable in terms of precedent.
 Could be improved by raising the height of the roof and incorporating a pitch to both
sides of the side elevations.
 Not sympathetic to the area.
 Windows on the west and north elevations are overlooking and cause loss of privacy
 Attempted to circumvent the natural concerns of neighbours.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control - further structural details requested. Works have been completed
though outstanding items to be resolved before any completion can be issued.
29/04/15 - works have now been signed off.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Committee
29
25 June 2015
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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside (specifies
the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Design
Neighbouring amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The property lies within the designated Countryside area of North Norfolk, as defined
under Policy SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this area, proposals to
extend residential dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to
compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies. In particular, Policy HO 8 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy allows for extensions to residential dwellings where they
will not result in a disproportionate increase in height or scale of the original dwelling,
nor increase the impact of the dwelling upon the surrounding countryside.
Design and scale (Polices HO 8 and EN 4)
The purpose of the extension is to provide first floor bedroom accommodation with
ensuite, above an existing kitchen and bathroom at ground floor. The extension to the
front, with a pitched roof arrangement, adds approx. 3.2m (measured to ridge) to the
height of the existing extension (approx. 2.4m in height), with the long flat roof dormer to
the rear adding an extra 2.3m in height.
Externally, the proposed extension consists of pantiles to match the existing dwelling,
along with cream coloured external cladding and green timber windows. It should be
noted that the applicant has offered to repaint the exterior of the extension with a more
recessive colour, rather than the starker cream colour that currently exists.
With regard to Policy HO 8, it is not considered that the extension results in a
disproportionately large increased in height or scale to the original dwelling.
Furthermore, as discussed below, it is not considered that it has a detrimental impact
upon the appearance of the surrounding landscape and as such, is considered to be
compliant with Policy HO 8.
Visual impact and neighbouring amenity (Policy EN 4)
Visually, the front portion of the extension viewed from St Giles Road is an improvement
upon the existing flat roof and ties in well to the existing property. The main concerns
have been in regards to the rear portion of the extension constituting the long dormer
room. Although this is rather awkward in terms of its boxy design, not helped by the fact
that the extension overhangs the eaves of the existing roof, it will be barely visible from
the public domain, either from the road to the south, nor from the north where there are
agricultural fields. There is a public footpath running along the eastern edge of the field
to the north, however, from walking along this path, again the extension will hardly be
visible due to boundary screening.
Turning to neighbouring amenity, there is a neighbouring single-storey property to the
east of the extension and relatively close to the boundary. Although there is the potential
for some very modest loss of light late afternoon, the west facing window of the property
already loses light as a result of an existing hedge along this boundary. No east-facing
Development Committee
30
25 June 2015
windows are proposed on the extension. To west is a two-storey dwelling (Brick Kiln
Farm), from whom an objection was received regarding the potential for loss of privacy.
This property is some 47m away, which is more than acceptable according to the
Council's amenity criteria contained within the North Norfolk Design Guide. The
applicants have offered to enhance the boundary screening along the western
boundary and obscure glaze the west facing window of the extension, though it is not
considered that this is necessary. Finally, the proposed south facing small dormer
window is significantly far enough away from the neighbouring garden and property to
not warrant any significantly overlooking. Indeed, this boundary is also heavily
screened, whilst the two dormer windows on the existing property already cause
arguably more overlooking than the one retrospectively installed. It is, therefore, not
considered that there will be any significantly detrimental loss of light or privacy to
neighbouring properties and as such, the proposal is compliant with Policy EN4 in these
respects.
Conclusion
Although it is acknowledged that the design of the dormer extension is unusual and
rather awkward in appearance, it is barely seen from the public domain from either St
Giles Road or the public footpath to the north east. Furthermore, the distance of the
windows on the rear dormer to the neighbouring property to the west is more than
acceptable, whilst it should not have a significantly detrimental impact in terms of loss of
light to the neighbouring property to the east. Again, the dormer window on the front of
the extension is far enough away from the neighbouring property to the south, whilst the
boundary is heavily screened with vegetation.
As such, on balance, it is considered that the proposal is compliant with the relevant
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate by
the Head of Planning.
9.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following applications.
The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
CROMER – PO/15/0572 - Erection of 68 sheltered housing retirement apartments
and one bungalow, including communal facilities, car parking and management
proposals for adjoining woodland; land to rear of Barclay Mews, Overstrand
Road for Sutherland Homes
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning as this is a significant major
development proposal.
Development Committee
31
25 June 2015
POTTER HEIGHAM – PF/15/0311 - Erection of three car garage with games
room/gym above and link extension to existing dwelling; Glebe Farm, Marsh
Road for Mr and Mrs R Hall
POTTER HEIGHAM – PF/15/0312 - Erection of agricultural storage barn; Glebe
Farm, Marsh Road for Mr R Hall
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to allow the Committee to see the site in
context.
SHERINGHAM – PF/15/0114 - Erection of 52 dwellings, access, roads, open
space, parking areas and associated works; Land off Holway Road/Butts Lane
for Norfolk Homes Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning as this is a significant major
development proposal.
THORPE MARKET – PF/15/0326 - Demolition of single-storey extension and
erection of two-storey front extension and single-storey rear extension; 2 Sand
Pit Cottages, Sandpit Lane for Mr & Mrs Chamberlin
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Mrs Arnold with regard to impact on neighbours.
RECOMMENDATION:-
The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
10.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/0322 - Installation of replacement doors, windows
and rooflight; 3 Walpole Barns, Thwaite Common, Erpingham for Mrs Rix
(Full Planning Permission)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/15/0204 - Removal of two front and one rear flat roofed
dormer windows and re-instate three pitch roofed dormer windows and
replacement of front elevation windows; The Old Red Lion, The Green,
Aldborough, Norwich, NR11 7AA for Mr Webster
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - LA/15/0309 - Internal alterations; Thurgarton House, Thurgarton
Hall Road, Thurgarton, Norwich, NR11 8RS for Mr C Sladden
(Listed Building Alterations)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/15/0437 - Change of use from shop (A1) and store to
residential accommodation; Village Antiques, The Green for Mr & Mrs Holdgate
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
32
25 June 2015
AYLMERTON - PF/15/0396 - Erection of single-storey rear and side link
extensions and conversion of barn to ancillary accommodation; Park Farm
Cottage, Park Road, Aylmerton, Norwich, NR11 8PT for Mr & Mrs Laming
(Householder application)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/15/0235 - Erection of two-storey rear, single-storey front
extensions and installation of cladding to existing dwelling; Ten Acres, The
Street, Baconsthorpe, Holt, NR25 6LH for Ms P Anema
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/15/0036 - Removal of conditions 9, 10 and 11 of planning
permission ref: 11/0874 to permit residential occupancy; Point Farm Barn, Berry
Hall Road, Barton Turf, NORWICH, NR12 8BD for Mr Camb
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/15/0407 - Internal alterations; Hill House, New Road, Blakeney,
Holt, NR25 7NY for Mr Beck
(Listed Building Alterations)
BODHAM - PF/15/0186 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey and two-storey
side extensions; Franklins Farm, Hart Lane, Bodham, Holt, NR25 6PX for Mr and
Mrs W Beeson
(Full Planning Permission)
BRINTON - PF/15/0472 - Erection of detached single-storey outbuilding (part
retrospective); Flint Cottage, The Street, Sharrington, Melton Constable, NR24
2PJ for Mr M Hyslop
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PO/15/0466 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjoining
Carefree, Providence Place, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2HZ for The Estate
of Mr C Watts
(Outline Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/0124 - Demolition of existing dwelling and
erection of replacement two-storey dwelling; Lime Kiln Bungalow and Adjacent
Land, Holt Road, Heydon, Norwich, NR11 6RD for Mr Orrow
(Full Planning Permission)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - NMA1/14/1197 - Non material amendment
request to permit alteration to ground floor window size and insertion of hayloft
door to access store in roofspace; Manor House, Norwich Road, Corpusty,
Norwich, NR11 6QD for Mr Sinclair
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/15/0339 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 10/0961 to allow installation of two air source heat pumps for
units B & C; Manor Farm Barns, Norwich Road, Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QD for
Mr L Walsh
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/0359 - Conversion of basement to residential apartment; Anglia
Court, 5 Runton Road, Cromer for Abbey Mill Estates LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
33
25 June 2015
CROMER - PF/15/0243 - Relaxation of condition 8 of planning permission ref:
14/1115 to delete Code Level 3 requirement; Adjacent 8 Station Road, Cromer,
NR27 0DX for J S Building Services
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - NMA1/06/1650 - Non material amendment request to permit
additional condition to planning application ref: 06/1650 to read: "The works to
which this permission relates shall be undertaken in accordance with the
submitted plans AM906, AM906/1, AM906/2 and AM906/3 received 31 October
2006; Slaneys Barns, Chequers Street, East Ruston, NORWICH, NR12 9JT for
Mimi Estates Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0395 - Erection of detached open-fronted garage and store;
53 Barbers Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8LP for Mr Howes
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0402 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
double garage; 51 Barbers Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8LP for Mr & Mrs Bird
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - AI/15/0373 - Display of externally illuminated Barbers pole; 27
Bridge Street, Fakenham, NR21 9AG for Cristal Hair and Beauty Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0375 - Change of use of first floor flat (C3) to barbers shop
(A1); 27A Bridge Street, Fakenham, NR21 9AG for Cristal Hair and Beauty Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0389 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 89/2604 to permit change of Plot 148 bungalow type to 3 bedroomed
bungalow and Plots 153, 154, 167 and 168 house types to 3 bedroomed houses;
The Rowans, (Off Salmons Way) Fakenham, NR21 8NG for Necton Management
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0485 - Demolition of single-storey outbuilding and erection
of 5 retail units and 4 first floor flats above; Crown Hotel, 6 Market Place,
Fakenham, NR21 9BP for Mr Page
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/15/0486 - Demolition of single-storey outbuilding to facilitate
the erection of 5 retails units and 4 first floor flats above; Crown Hotel, 6 Market
Place, Fakenham, NR21 9BP for Mr Page
(Listed Building Alterations)
FELBRIGG - NP/15/0619 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Grove Farm, Roughton Road, Felbrigg, Norwich, NR11 8PQ for
E W Filby and Son
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
FELMINGHAM - PF/15/0460 - Demolition of front porch and erection of front
conservatory; Bella Vista, Aylsham Road for Mrs Boothby
(Householder application)
Development Committee
34
25 June 2015
FIELD DALLING - PF/15/0470 - Installation of buried electrical cable route
(revision to part of previously approved route); Agricultural land on Bayfield
Estate, Field Dalling for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/15/0168 - Change of use of agricultural building to residential
dwelling; Bunk Barn, Heath Lane for Mr A Cargill
(Full Planning Permission)
GRESHAM - NMA3/13/0113 - Non material amendment request to permit the
installation of render to the proposed car-port/outbuilding; Loke End Cottage,
The Loke, Gresham, Norwich, NR11 8RJ for Mrs M Kirk
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GRESHAM - PF/15/0465 - Erection of detached double garage; Lewellen House,
Chequers Road, Gresham, Norwich, NR11 8RQ for Mr and Mrs Wilson
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - PF/15/0321 - Erection of sun room/garden store/log store;
Swallow Barn, Sharrington Road, Bale, Fakenham, NR21 0QY for Mr Thomas
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/15/0432 - Insertion of 2 roof lights to north and south
roofslopes; 1 Wood Farm Barns, Broomsthorpe Road for Dr Harris
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/15/0303 - Installation of first floor window to east gable; 18
Raynham Road, Hempton, Fakenham, NR21 7LN for Mr S Futter
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/15/0417 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Lavender
Cottage, 4 Heath Road, Hickling, NORWICH, NR12 0YE for Mr Ashcroft
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/0487 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 02/0434 to permit permanent residential occupancy; 8 Hindringham
High Barns, Blakeney Road, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0BU for Mr P Harlow
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/15/0180 - Installation of tennis court and erection of 2.75 metre chain
link fence and gate; Jenis Barn, Thornage Road, Holt, NR25 6ST for Mr R Woods
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/15/0473 - Erection of front extension; Little Pipers, Upper Street,
Horning, Norwich, NR12 8NG for Mrs Brown
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LA/15/0420 - Proposed omission of
external steel bars to west and east elevation windows; The Maltings, Holt Road,
Letheringsett for D & M Hickling Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
LITTLE SNORING - DP/15/0600 - Demolition of disused garages; Garages at The
Croft, Little Snoring, NR21 0JS for Victory Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
Development Committee
35
25 June 2015
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0343 - Change of use from retail (A1)/residential flat
(C3) to chiropody/podiatry/health (D1); 27 and 27A Market Place for Mr A Hoyes
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0404 - Erection of front extension to garage and
porch; 28 Spencer Avenue, North Walsham, NR28 9HZ for Mr Covell
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0295 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 10/0682 to permit revised design to facilitate creation of external bin/cycle
store; 13-21 Bacton Road, North Walsham, NR28 9DR for Artemis Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0449 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 21 Morris
Road, North Walsham, NR28 0EJ for Mr and Mrs West
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0219 - Erection of side extension for use as annexe;
Windrush, 116A Norwich Road, North Walsham, NR28 0DX for Miss Bird
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0448 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 82C
Mundesley Road, North Walsham, NR28 0DB for Mr and Mrs Morton
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0528 - Retention of 1.5m front and side boundary
fence; 1a Witton View, North Walsham, NR28 9EB for Mrs Starman
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/14/1484 - Non material amendment request to permit
the omission of bay window to west elevation and addition of patio door to
southern elevation to extension; Mill House, Bradfield Road, North Walsham,
NR28 0ND for Mr B Rossi
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0471 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 14/1343 to permit increase in width of studio extension; 10 Plumbly Close,
North Walsham, NR28 9YB for Mrs B Holmes
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - DP/15/0609 - Demolition of disused garages; Garages on
Car Parking Court on Melbourne Road, adjacent to Bluebell Road, North
Walsham, NR28 9EP for Victory Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0392 - Erection of single-storey warehouse and
installation of canopy to existing warehouse; Unit 19, Coda Plastics, Folgate
Road, North Walsham, NR28 0AJ for Campbell and Tate Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0511 - Erection of single storey front/side/rear
extension to form ancillary accommodation.; 20 Park Avenue, North Walsham,
NR28 9HJ for Mr Trotter
(Householder application)
Development Committee
36
25 June 2015
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0526 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 19
Norwich Road, North Walsham, NR28 0DS for Mr Newstead
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0527 - Erection of extension to front of attached
garage; 56 Bradfield Road, North Walsham, NR28 0HG for Mr Hicks
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0221 - Change of use of agricultural workshop to artist
studio/workshop and insertion of velux windows to rear roofslope; Coach House
Barn, Winspur Barns, North Walsham Road for Dr Dowlatshahi
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0426 - Variation of condition 7 of planning permission ref:
96/1393 to permit the increase of 6 carts to a maximum of 10 carts in use (ie with
their engines running) at any one time; Karttrak, Hall Road for Karttrak Cromer
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/0371 - Erection of single-storey side extension; The
Breakers, 40 High Street, Overstrand, CROMER, NR27 0AB for Mrs B Tunnicliffe
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/15/0445 - Erection of two-storey rear extension to dwelling and
erection of single-storey side/rear extension and installation of pitched roof to
existing detached home office/workshop; Poppy House, Mundesley Road,
Paston, North Walsham, NR28 9AD for Mr Emberson
(Householder application)
PUDDING NORTON - DP/15/0601 - Demolition of disused garages; Green Lane
Estate, Pudding Norton, NR21 7LT for Victory Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
RAYNHAM - PF/15/0324 - Variation of condition 2 of planning application ref :
13/1166, to alter site boundaries and for new access route; West Raynham
Airfield, NR21 7AJ for Good Energy West Raynham Solar Park (030) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/0427 - Demolition of section of front wall and erection of
replacement 1.2m replacement front boundary wall; 28 The Street, West
Raynham, Fakenham, NR21 7AD for Mr A Forsyth
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - LA/15/0428 - Demolition of section of front wall and erection of 1.2m
replacement front boundary wall; 28 The Street, West Raynham for Mr A Forsyth
(Listed Building Alterations)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0412 - Installation of UPVC replacement windows; The Byre,
4 Flaxmans Farm, Felbrigg Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8PA for Mrs Rump
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/0294 - Erection of first floor extension, and two-storey
extension, and installation of balcony to west elevation; North Walsham Rugby
Football Club, North Walsham Road for North Walsham Rugby Football Club
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
37
25 June 2015
SCULTHORPE - PF/15/0548 - Erection of single storey front extension; The
Rowans, 44A Creake Road, Sculthorpe, Fakenham, NR21 9NQ for Mr & Mrs
Watkin
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/14/0405 - Non-material amendment request to permit
addition of gable end detailing and chimney stacks; Sheringham Station, Station
Approach, Sheringham, NR26 8RA for North Norfolk Railway
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0233 - Erection of one and a half-storey side extension,
erection of extension to garage, change garage roof from flat to pitched and first
floor window in east gable to French doors with Juliet balcony; High Winds, 51
Nelson Road, Sheringham, NR26 8DA for Mr Schofield
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0383 - Erection of 1.4m front boundary wall; 16 Hadley
Road, Sheringham, NR26 8PZ for Mr C Bevan
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0517 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 3 Uplands
Park, Sheringham, NR26 8NE for Mr and Mrs Candlish
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - DP/15/0610 - Demolition of disused garages; Garages at
Huntley Crescent, Sheringham, NR26 8QQ for Victory Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0516 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
10/0917 to permit insertion of ground floor window to rear elevation (part
retrospective); The Studio, 18 St Peters Road, Sheringham, NR26 8QY for Stead
Mutton Griggs Architects Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SKEYTON - PF/15/0481 - Erection of signle-storey and two-storey side
extensions and single-storey rear extension; Brooklands, School Lane, Skeyton,
Norwich, NR10 5BA for Mr & Mrs Wigglesworth
(Householder application)
SMALLBURGH - PF/15/0457 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
Hawthorns, Union Road, Smallburgh, Norwich, NR12 9NH for Mr Grand
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/0458 - Erection of front single storey extension, insertion of
velux window to front roof slope and window to north gable end; Wesley House,
St Johns Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9BG for Mr & Mrs Sheehan
(Householder application)
SUFFIELD - PF/15/0205 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and demolition
of outbuildings and erection of replacement studio/workshop with ancillary
accommodation in roofspace; Keepers Cottage, Rectory Road, Suffield,
Norwich, NR11 7ER for Mrs Brett
(Householder application)
Development Committee
38
25 June 2015
SUFFIELD - LA/15/0206 - Internal alterations, erection of single-storey rear
extension and demolition of detached outbuildings and erection of replacement
studio/workshop with ancillary accommodation in roof space; Keepers Cottage,
Rectory Road, Suffield, Norwich, NR11 7ER for Mrs Brett
(Listed Building Alterations)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/15/0514 - Erection of two-storey side/front extension
and pitched roof to existing single storey rear extension; Grove Farm, Aylsham
Road, Swanton Abbott, Norwich, NR10 5DL for Mr Morton
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/15/0290 - Change of use of agricultural land to garden,
erection of single-storey side and first floor rear extensions, detached 3 bay cart
shed garage/store and creation of new vehicle access; Bell Cottage, Gunthorpe
Road, Thursford, Fakenham, NR21 0BZ for Mr R Chambers
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/15/0073 - Installation of 50 static holiday lodge bases, with
associated landscaping, access roads and infrastructure; Land at Woodland
Holiday Park, Cromer Road, Trimingham, Norwich, NR11 8QJ for Woodland
Holiday Park
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0397 - Removal of condition 5 of planning
permission ref: 11/1377 in respect of submitting details for demolition; Former
Depot, Blowlands Lane, Upper Sheringham, Sheringham, NR26 8TQ for Smith of
Honingham
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0150 - Erection of detached cart shed/garage; The
Dales, Lodge Hill, Upper Sheringham for Mckenzie Hotel Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/15/0499 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
installation and replacement of doors and windows to mill building and insertion
of toilet facilities in garage; The Old Mill, Cokers Hill, Walsingham, NR22 6BN for
John Gurney Charitable Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
WARHAM - PF/15/0357 - Conversion of barns to seven dwellings; Chalk Hill
Farm, Binham Road, Warham, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1NS for Coke Estate Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0358 - Replace garage doors with window; 9
Mainsail Yard Freeman Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1FD for Mr D Price
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0005 - Installation of replacement balcony to first
floor north elevation; 1 The Salthouse, Croft Yard for Mr Robertson
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0270 - Erection of detached double cart
shed/garage to front, installation of 1.8m sliding gate and raising of height of
front boundary wall to 1.8m; 9 Marsh Lane for Mr and Mrs T Doyle
(Householder application)
Development Committee
39
25 June 2015
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - DP/15/0602 - Demolition of disused garages; Garages
at Neilsen Close, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1LG for Victory Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/0414 - Internal and external alterations to
facilitate replacement of cement render to lime render, reduce height and
disengage garden wall from existing cottage and installation of replacement
gate; Staithe Cottage, East End, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1LB for Mr and Mrs
Tyler
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/0635 - Removal of front porch, retention of two
conservation rooflights, reduction of pipework to front elevation and retention of
reinstated of first floor window to rear; Crugmeer, Croft Yard, Wells-next-the-Sea,
NR23 1JS for Mrs L Watson
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/15/0489 - Installation of ground mounted 7.3m H.F antenna
and retention of 1.8m chimney mounted antenna; 11 All Saints Close,
Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7HH for Mr J Hardingham
(Householder application)
WIGHTON - PF/15/0038 - Retention of detached garage; 19 Copys Green,
Wighton, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1NY for Mr D Eaglen
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/15/0508 - Erection of 1.9m boundary wall and installation of
1.8m gates; The Poplars, Holt Road, Wood Norton, Dereham, NR20 5AY for Mr
and Mrs Wright
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0043 - Conversion of agricultural barn (Barn 2) to residential
dwelling; Briggate Farmhouse, White Horse Lane, Briggate for Mr Paterson
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0478 - Erection of detached single-storey classroom;
Worstead VC Primary School, Honing Road, Lyngate for Mrs Johnson
(Full Planning Permission)
11.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BARTON TURF - PU/15/0541 - Prior notification of intention of change of use of
agricultural building to dwellinghouse (C3); Building at Point Farm, The Street,
Barton Turf, Norfolk, NR12 8BB for Mr R Lamb
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
DILHAM - PF/15/0348 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; New Barn, Honing
Road, Dilham, North Walsham, NR28 9PR for Fyebridge Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PM/15/0450 - Erection of two detached single-storey
dwellings; 1 and 3 Oak Road for M and R Whiting Development Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
Development Committee
40
25 June 2015
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0421 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; The Crib,
Sadlers Lane, Sheringham, NR26 8HS for Mr & Mrs May
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0443 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 14/0471 to permit the installation of cladding to western gable; 10
Freeman Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1BA for Mr Carter
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0403 - Erection of two-storey rear and side extensions;
Laburnum Cottage, Back Street, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9RN for Mr
Brackpool
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
12.
NEW APPEALS
BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room; Primrose
Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington, MELTON CONSTABLE, NR24 2PN for Mr L
Kidd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
HOLT - PF/14/1139 - Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached and 1 detached
two-storey dwellings; Land Adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead, Holt, NR25 6JE for
Primrose Developments (Anglia) Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
13.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS – PROGRESS
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0120 - Formation of caravan park to provide pitches for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area with office/warden
accommodation and amenity building; Land South of North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh for Happisburgh Estates
INFORMAL HEARING 12 May 2015
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
14.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road, Aylmerton
for Mr D Oliver
SITE VISIT:- 09 June 2015
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1015 - Change of use of domestic shed to commercial
gymnasium with new access track and retention of two caravans for holiday
use.; The Whins, The Downs, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PN for Mrs L Massingham
Development Committee
41
25 June 2015
BRISTON - PU/14/1390 - Prior notification of intention of change of use of
agricultural building to three dwelling houses (C3); Barn at Boundary Farm,
Reepham Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JN for Mr & Mrs Berwick
SITE VISIT:- 18 May 2015
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park and
ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9JJ
for Crematoria Management Ltd
SITE VISIT:- 09 June 2015
HOLT - PF/14/1139 - Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached and 1 detached
two-storey dwellings; Land Adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead, Holt, NR25 6JE for
Primrose Developments (Anglia) Ltd
SHERINGHAM - PO/14/1126 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling;
Threeways, 47 St Austins Grove, Sheringham, NR26 8DF for Ms J Rayner and Ms
S Thirtle
HAPPISBURGH - ENF/14/0009 - Siting of residential caravan; Beach Road,
Happisburgh
15.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
ROUGHTON - PF/14/0677 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Woodlands, Cromer Road, Roughton for Mr D Sayer
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
16.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
GREAT RYBURGH – Crisp Maltings
Supreme Court
(UKSC 2014/0044)
Appellant
MATTHEW CHAMPION
and
(1)
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
(First Respondent)
(2)
CRISP MALTINGS GROUP LIMITED
(Second Respondent)
The Council’s decision to grant planning permission (Council’s reference
PF/09/0966) for two grain silos, a lorry park and associated development at the
Crisp Maltings site in Great Ryburgh was the subject of a Judicial Review. The
Review was dealt with in the High Court by Mr James Dingemans QC sitting as
a deputy High Court judge and judgment was given on 7 May 2013. The
review was allowed and the planning permission quashed.
Development Committee
42
25 June 2015
The District Council and Crisp Maltings Ltd. applied for leave to appeal against
the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal was
granted and by way of a judgment issued on 18 December 2013 the appeal
was allowed. The consequence of the Court of Appeal decision was that the
order of the High Court (to quash the Planning permission) was set aside and
the permission therefore “stands”.
An application was made on behalf of Mr Champion for permission to appeal to
the Supreme Court and granted on 30 July 2014.
The case is listed for hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday 23 June. It is
unlikely that the judgment will be issued on the day of the hearing; judgments
are normally “handed down” some weeks following the hearing.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager, Ext. 6016)
Development Committee
43
25 June 2015
APPENDIX 1
Appendix 1 - Protocols – Hierarchy of Documents
Key in relation to Planning Matters:
Terms of reference for Development Committee (Chapter 5: Committees page 72)
Scheme of Delegation to the Head of Planning (Chapter 6: Officers page 86)
Members’ Code of Conduct (Chapter 7: Ethical Governance, page 94)
Protocol on Member/Officer Relations (Chapter 7:Ethical Governance, page 107)
The Constitution
– latest version
dated May 2015
Code of Good Practice for Planning
Conduct of
Practice - Site
Visits by
Development
Committee
Have your say on
planning
applications
And Tree
Preservation
Orders
Development
Committee
Decision making
protocol
Planning
Protocol for
NNDC
developments
Pre-planning
publicity and
consultation
for major
developments
Member
engagement
in preapplication
discussions
Use of
Planning
performance
agreements
Will be subject to a further report to follow
Outlines the
purpose and
conduct of
these meetings
Outlines the
procedures to
allow public
speaking at
Development
Committee
Development Committee
Covers those
circumstances
where an officer
recommendation
s for approval or
refusal is
deferred, altered
or overturned
Covers those
circumstances
where the
District Council is
the applicant or
in partnership
with the
applicant
44
25 June 2015
APPENDIX 2
[Planning Code of Practice]
North Norfolk District Council
CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR PLANNING
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This Code has been prepared and adopted for the guidance of Councillors in their
dealings with Planning matters.
1.2
The aim of this code is to ensure that, in the Planning process, there will be no grounds
for suggesting that a Planning decision has been biased, partial or not well founded on
planning considerations and to inform potential developers and members of the general
public of the standards adopted by the District Council in the performance of its
planning function.
1.3
When this Code applies – to all members of the Development Committee and
substitutes. This would include, for example, making decisions at Development and other
Committees, or on less formal occasions such as meetings between Members and
Officers and/or members of the public on planning matters. The Code applies equally to
planning enforcement matters or site-specific policy issues and to planning applications.
1.4
Planning decisions made by Councillors can have a considerable effect on the value of
land, the nature of its development and on the lives and amenities of people living in the
vicinity. The process of arriving at decisions on a planning matter must be open and
transparent and the involvement of both Officers and Members must be clearly
understood. The main principles which Members should have clear regard for are: 
The key purpose of planning is to deliver sustainable development which effectively
balances economic, social and environmental interests and takes relevant local
circumstances into account.

Your overriding duty as a Councillor is to all residents and in relation to planning issues to
help ensure that the council’s planning policies are taken into account as required by the
Planning Acts.

Your role as a member of the Planning Authority is to make planning decisions openly,
impartially, with sound judgement, and for justifiable reasons.

Whilst you may be strongly influenced by the views of others and of your party in
particular it is your responsibility alone to decide what view to take on any question
which Members of Development Committee have to decide.

Section 38(1) and 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section
70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act requires you to take planning decisions in
accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. You should ensure that all decisions that you make have regard to
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
45
25 June 2015
[Planning Code of Practice]
proper planning considerations and are made impartially and in a way, which does not
give rise to public suspicion or mistrust.

The Code applies to all decisions of the Council on planning related matters. This includes
Members involvement in any planning application, whether or not it is reported to a
committee, all applications determined by any committee or by Full Council acting as a
Local Planning Authority.

When acting in your capacity as a Councillor you must observe the Council’s adopted
Code of Conduct.
1.6 If you have any doubts regarding whether this Code of Conduct for Members applies to your
particular circumstances then you should take advice at the earliest possible opportunity
from the Monitoring Officer. Any such advice should be sought well before any meeting of
Development Committee takes place.
2.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT
2.1
The Members’ Code of Conduct sets out the standards of behaviour expected of
Councillors and the requirements in relation to the declaration of interests in the
Members Register of Interests and at meetings. Not only should impropriety be avoided
but also any appearance or ground for suspicion of improper conduct. When considering
any planning matter you should have primary regard for the Code, and particularly the
requirement to properly declare all interests: -
•
Do comply with the requirements of the adopted Code of Conduct first then apply the
rules in this Code of Good Practice for Planning.
2.2
If you do not follow and apply the Code then you may put the Council at risk of
proceedings challenging the legality of the decision made or of a complaint to the
Ombudsman in respect of alleged maladministration and yourself at risk of sanction if
there has been a failure to comply with the adopted Members’ Code of Conduct.
3.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE MEMBERS’
CODE OF CONDUCT
When considering planning matters Members may find that they need to;
• declare interests in accordance with the requirements of the adopted Code of Conduct
or
• indicate whether or not they may have come to a fixed view on a planning application
prior to the meeting (i.e. pre-determination)
The existence and nature of any interest should be disclosed in accordance with this Code at any
Development Committee, any informal meetings or discussions with officers and any other
Members.
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
46
25 June 2015
[Planning Code of Practice]
Members should preferably disclose their interest at the commencement of the meeting or at
the beginning of the discussion on that particular matter.
Where you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI’s):
Do Not participate or give the appearance of trying to participate in the making of any decision
by the Local Planning Authority.
Do not get involved with the processing of the application. Direct any queries or technical
matters to the relevant officer.
Do not seek or accept preferential treatment or place yourself in such a position so as members
of the public would think you are receiving preferential treatment because of your position as a
Councillor. You may need to identify another local member who is prepared to represent local
interests
Do note that there is no requirement to leave the room whilst the item is being discussed.
4.
PRE-DETERMINATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS
The allowance made for Councillors to be predisposed to a particular view is a practical
recognition of;
(a) The role played by party politics in local government and
(b) The need for Councillors to inform constituents of at least an initial view on a matter as part
of their public role
(c) The structure of local government which ultimately requires the same Councillors to make
decisions.
It is therefore particularly important for elected Councillors to have a clear understanding about
the implications of expressing strong opinions or views on planning matters. Section 25 of the
Localism Act 2011 introduces provisions for dealing with allegations of bias or pre-determination
or matters that otherwise raise an issue about the validity of a decision, where the decision
maker(s) had or appeared to have a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision.
Councillors are expected to be able to publicise their views on issues, indicate their voting
intentions and to engage fully with their local communities without this affecting their
participation in the council’s formal decision making. In addition, councillors should be able to
engage with planning applicants to better understand their proposals.
Therefore, if a Councillor has campaigned on an issue or made public statements about their
approach to an item of Council business, he or she will be able to participate in discussion of
that issue in the Development Committee and to vote on it provided that the Councillor has not
pre-determined their decision.
However, councillors will still need to be open minded at the point of decision in the sense of
listening to all of the arguments, and weighing them against their preferred outcome, before
actually voting.
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
47
25 June 2015
[Planning Code of Practice]
The difference is that the fact that councillors may have campaigned against a proposal will not
be taken as proof that they are not openminded.
In practice:
A Councillor may campaign for or against a planning application, and still vote at planning
committee, so long as they go into the meeting with an open mind to hear all the facts and
evidence. This can be demonstrated by the Committee Chairman asking the Councillor at the
beginning of the meeting to confirm whether or not they still have an open mind on a proposal.
5.
CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS, DEVELOPERS AND OBJECTORS
5.1
Local Authorities are encouraged to enter into pre-application discussions with potential
applicants.
5.2
The District Council encourages Member involvement provided Members’ roles in such
discussions are clearly understood by Members, Officers, developers and the public. In
particular Members of Development Committee need to be aware of the distinction
between the giving and receiving information and engaging in negotiations. Members
should also be aware that presentations by developers are, in effect, a form of lobbying
and that the principles set out in paragraph 6 are relevant.
Do take advice from the Monitoring Officer if you are invited to attend meetings with
applicants, developers or groups of objectors if you are a member of the Development
Committee and therefore likely to be part of the decision-making process. You will then
be in a position to make a decision about your attendance having taken proper account
of the issues relating to pre-determination.
Do refer those who approach you for planning, procedural or technical advice to Officers.
Do not agree to any formal meeting with applicants, developers or groups of objectors.
Where you feel that a formal meeting would be useful in clarifying the issues, such
presentation or discussion with an applicant, developer or objector should be part of a
structured arrangement organised by Officers. The Officer(s) will then ensure that those
present at the meeting are advised from the start that the discussions will not bind the
authority to any particular course of action, that the meeting is properly recorded on the
application file and the record of the meeting is disclosed when the application is
considered by the Development Committee.
Do remember that the presentation is not part of the formal process of debate and
determination of any subsequent application, this will be carried out by the Development
Committee.
Do be aware that a presentation is a form of lobbying and if you express a view, you will
need to carefully consider if you have pre-determined the matter prior to the vote;
o Follow the rules on lobbying;
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
48
25 June 2015
[Planning Code of Practice]
o Report to the Head of Planning or Monitoring Officer, any significant contact with
the applicant and other parties, explaining the nature and purpose of the
contacts and your involvement in them and ensure that this is recorded on the
planning file.
6.
LOBBYING OF MEMBERS
6.1
It is acknowledged that lobbying is an integral part of the planning process. However,
care has to be taken to avoid Members’ integrity and impartiality being called in question
and accordingly there is a need to declare publicly that an approach of this nature has
taken place. Lobbying can take place by professional agents as well as unrepresented
applicants/landowners and community action groups.
6.2
Members must record any hospitality received in accordance with the rules on gifts and
hospitality.
Do remember that your overriding duty is to the whole community and not just the people in
your own particular ward
Do explain to those lobbying or attempting to lobby you that whilst you can listen to what is
being said it prejudices your impartiality and may affect your ability to participate in the
Committee’s decision making to express an intention to vote one way or another.
Do not accept any gifts or hospitality from any person or group involved in or affected by a
planning proposal. Whilst a degree of hospitality may be unavoidable, Members must ensure
that such hospitality is of a minimum and its acceptance is declared as soon as is possible.
Do copy or pass on any lobbying correspondence you receive to the Head of Planning at the
earliest opportunity as this will enable proper officer advice to be given in the report and avoid
the situation where officers are asked to respond to new information at the meeting itself,
leading to deferral or decisions made on partial advice.
Do immediately refer to the Head of Planning any offers made to you of planning gain or a
constraint of development through a proposed s106 obligation or otherwise.
Do inform the Monitoring Officer where you feel that you have been exposed to undue or
excessive lobbying or approaches (including inappropriate offers of gifts or hospitality) that may
require an investigation.
Do note that you will not have pre-determined a matter or breached this Code if:



You have listened or have received views from residents or other interested parties;
You have made comments to residents, interested parties, other Members or
appropriate Officers, provided the comments have not amounted to a pre-determination
of the issue and you have made it clear that you are keeping an open mind;
You have sought information through appropriate channels;
or
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
49
25 June 2015
[Planning Code of Practice]
 You are being a vehicle for the expression of opinion or speaking at the meeting as a
Ward/Local Member, provided that you explain your actions at the beginning of the
meeting or item and make it clear that, having expressed the opinion or ward/local view,
that you have not committed yourself to vote in accordance with those views and will
make up your own mind having heard all the facts and listened to the debate.
7.
LOBBYING BY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTTEE MEMBERS
It is recognised that a Development Committee Member who represents a ward affected
by a particular application is in a difficult position particularly if it is a controversial
application around which a lot of lobbying takes place. There is a balance to be struck
between the duties to be an active ward representative and the overriding duty as a
Councillor to the whole community. In these circumstances;
Do join general interest, resident or amenity groups which reflect your areas of interest and
which concentrate on issues beyond particular planning proposals. Examples of such groups
are local civic societies, the Ramblers’ Association, the Victorian Society and CPRE. Members
must, however, disclose any interest in accordance with the adopted code of conduct when that
group has made representations on a particular matter and such Members should make it clear
to that group and to the Development Committee that you have reserved judgment and the
independence to make up your own mind on each and every proposal.
Do not excessively lobby fellow members regarding your concerns or views and nor attempt to
persuade other members how they should vote in advance of a meeting at which a planning
decision is to be taken.
Do not decide or discuss at any political group meeting how to vote on a planning matter or
lobby any other member to do so. Political group meetings should never dictate how Members
vote on a planning issue.
8.
SITE VISITS BY MEMBERS
8.1 Sites inspection by the Committee can be helpful in reaching a decision on issues
where site circumstances are clearly fundamental to that decision as outlined below. Any
Member of the Development Committee may request a site visit and the reasons for the
request.
Do try to attend site visits organised by the Council where the Development Committee has
resolved that a visit is required. If you do not attend a formally arranged site visit, it does not
prevent you voting but advice should be sought from the Monitoring Officer.
In deciding whether to visit a site, the Committee will seek to act in a consistent manner in all
cases, being guided by the following principles:
 The site or its immediate surroundings have particular physical characteristics or the
development involves technical issues where inadequate or only recently issued
guidance is available where are likely to have a critical bearing on the decision which
has been made.
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
50
25 June 2015
[Planning Code of Practice]
 The proposal have proved to be a source of such local or Highway Authority concern
that it is considered that a better informed decision is likely to be make, as a result of
both seeing the physical characteristics of the site and hearing local views expressed
through the Town and Parish Council’s representative.
Do ensure that any information which you gained from the site visit is reported back to the
Committee, so that all Members have the same information
Do ensure that you treat the site visit only as an opportunity of seeking information and to
observe the site.
Do ask the Officers questions and seek clarification from them on matters, which are relevant to
the site inspection.
Do not hear representations from any other party at the site visit. If you are approached by the
applicant or a third party, advise them that they should make representations in writing to the
Council and direct them to or inform the officer that is present.
Do not express opinions or views to anyone at a site visit.
Do not enter a site that is subject to an application or proposal other than on an official site visit,
even if it is in response to an invitation, as this may give the impression of bias.
Do try to stay with the rest of the Members and Officers during a site visit – it helps to keep
Members safe on potentially dangerous sites and it ensures that all Members receive all the
relevant information.
Further information as to the conduct of Committee Site Meetings is contained in Code of
Practice –Site Visits by Development Committees.
9.
THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS
All applications considered by the Development Committee or by way of a delegated decision
shall be the subject of written reports and clear recommendations. If the recommendations are
contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan the material considerations, which justify
this, shall be clearly stated. If in the view of the Officer the matter is finely balanced the report
will say so. The recommendations put forward by officers and the decision by Members are
separate parts of the same process, which should be justified by the report and debate
respectively.
9.1 MEMBERS RELATIONSHIP WITH OFFICERS
Do not put pressure on Officers to put forward a particular recommendation. This does not
prevent you from asking questions or submitting views to the relevant Planning Officer, and
such views may be incorporated into any Committee report.
Do recognise and respect that Officers in the processing and determining of planning matters
must act in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct for Officers and their professional
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
51
25 June 2015
[Planning Code of Practice]
Codes of Conduct. You should therefore appreciate that Officers’ views, opinions and
recommendations will be based on their overriding obligation of professional independence,
which may on occasion be at odds with the views, opinions and decisions of a committee or its
Members.
Do consider the Council’s protocol for Member/Officer relationships, which governs the working
relationship you have with Officers. This is a relationship based on mutual trust and courtesy,
and all meetings should be guided by this principle.
9.2
PUBLIC SPEAKING AT MEETINGS BY MEMBERS
Do not allow members of the public to communicate with you during the Committee
proceedings (orally or in writing) other than through the scheme for public speaking.
Do ensure that you comply with the Council’s procedures in respect of public speaking.
Further information with regards to allowing public speaking at Development Committee is
contained in ‘Have your Say on Planning Applications and Tree Preservation Orders.
9.3
DECISION MAKING BY MEMBERS
Do come to a meeting with an open mind on a matter and do demonstrate that you are openminded.
Do make decisions in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
Do come to your decision only after due and proper consideration of all of the information
reasonably required upon which to base a decision. If you feel that there is insufficient time to
consider new information or there is insufficient information before you then you should
request that further information and, if necessary, defer the application.
Do not vote or take part in a discussion at a meeting unless you have been present for the entire
meeting or for the whole of the matter in question and this includes the public speaking and the
officers’ introduction to the matter. If a Member needs to leave a meeting for a short period,
such as for a comfort break, that Member should seek an adjournment.
Do give reasons for Committee’s decision to defer consideration of any planning application.
Do make sure that if you are proposing, seconding or supporting a decision contrary to officer
recommendation or the Development Plan that you clearly identify and understand the material
planning considerations leading to this conclusion/decision. These reasons, like all reasons in
such matters, must be given prior to the vote and be recorded. Members should also be aware
that you might have to justify their decision by giving evidence in the event of any appeal or
challenge.
Do ensure that the reasons you give for a decision must be your reasons. You cannot ask an
Officer to give the reasons for you, however the Officers may assist in the drafting of your
reasons.
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
52
25 June 2015
[Planning Code of Practice]
Further information is contained the Decision Making Protocol.
10.
TRAINING OF MEMBERS
All Members serving on the Development Committee including substitute members in
accordance with the Council’s Constitution shall be trained in planning procedures prior to
serving on the Committee.
Do not take part in the decision making process at committee meetings unless you have
attended planning training.
Do attend any other specialised training sessions provided, since these will be designed to
extend your knowledge of planning law, procedures, Regulations, Codes of Practice and the
Development Plan. The training will be devised to assist you in carrying out your role properly
and effectively.
Reviewed: 11 June 2015
Development Committee
53
25 June 2015
APPENDIX 3
CODE OF PRACTICE – SITE VISITS BY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES
1) Decision to visit site
In deciding whether to visit a site, the Committee will seek to act in a consistent manner
in all cases, being guided by the following principles:a) The site or its immediate surroundings have particular physical characteristics or the
development involves technical issues where inadequate or only recently issued
guidance is available which are likely to have a critical bearing on the decision which
has to be made.
b) The proposal has proved to be a source of such local or Highway Authority concern
that it is considered that a better-informed decision is likely to be made, as a result of
both seeing the physical characteristics of the site and hearing local views
expressed thorough the Town or Parish Council’s representative.
2) Conduct of site visits
The Member chairing the meeting will generally follow the procedure set out below:a) Chairman to open meeting, explaining if necessary to members of the public the
fact-finding nature of the meeting, that they are welcome to listen to the discussion
but that they are not entitled to speak and explaining to the applicant and/or agent
that they may be asked to clarify points of detail at the Chairman’s invitation only, but
that they will not be permitted to make representations in favour of the application.
b) Planning Officer to give brief introduction to case, setting out background to the
application and the principal issues involved, including any significant characteristics
of the site or its surroundings. If appropriate, Highway Authority representative or
other specialist officer be invited to speak.
c) Chairman or other representative of Town or Parish Council invited to make
representations on proposal.
d) If present, Local Member(s) be invited to give observations.
e) Members of Committee be invited to make observations or ask questions concerning
the proposal.
f)
Only if appropriate, and strictly at the Chairman’s discretion, applicant or agent be
invited to answer specific questions or clarify points raised by previous speakers,
such answers to be directed to the Chairman only.
g) Planning Officer be invited, if necessary, to clarify any outstanding issues.
h) Chairman to close meeting, explaining, if necessary, procedure for further
representations to be made by the applicant, agent or the public and when the
matter is likely to be considered.
Guidance Notes:
(i)
If a member is aware that he or she will be unable to attend the next meeting of the
Committee, he or she may arrange for a substitute member to attend both any Site
Meeting and the next meeting of the Committee.
Reviewed 11 June 2015
Development Committee
54
25 June 2015
(ii)
A Member of the Committee or any declared substitute Member who has not
attended a Site Meeting is entitled to attend and participate fully in any committee
meeting when the site is further considered. In such circumstances, the Members
should try to acquaint him or herself with the site. This could be done either by a
visit (subject to access being possible from the highway or public land or with the
agreement of the landowner) or by discussing the matter with a Planning Officer or
other Member who did attend.
Reviewed 11 June 2015
Development Committee
55
25 June 2015
PA-TPOs-v7_Layout 1 02/09/2014 15:48 Page 1
APPENDIX 4
Planning advice
Have your say on...
Planning Applications and
Tree Preservation Orders
VERSION 7 – SEPTEMBER 2014
Development Committee
56
25 June 2015
PA-TPOs-v7_Layout 1 02/09/2014 15:48 Page 2
Introduction
As part of its commitment to the community, North Norfolk District
Council (NNDC) aims to inform, consult with and listen to local
people. The Council is therefore inviting members of the public to
speak at meetings of its Development Committee.
Anyone who wishes to object to or support a planning application
has the right to ask to speak at the meeting at which the application
is being considered, But first, please read this leaflet which describes
exactly how you can have your say.
These rights also apply to decisions by the Committee as to whether
or not to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
(Please note that this scheme does not apply to sites within the
Broads Authority area.)
How are planning applications decided?
When the Council receives a planning application, a notice is posted
on or close to the site to which the application relates. Local Town
and Parish Councils are consulted on all applications. Written
comments are welcomed on all applications. From being told about a
planning application, you will normally have 21 days to make your
views known in writing.
The Head of Planning can determine straightforward applications but
applications which are more complicated are considered by the
Development Committee. If the application has to go to Committee
any views given in writing will be summarised as part of the officer’s
report to Committee.
When and where are the Committee Meetings held?
Meetings are normally held every four weeks in the Council Chamber
of the NNDC offices in Cromer, on a Thursday morning, commencing
at 9.30am.
2
Development Committee
57
25 June 2015
PA-TPOs-v7_Layout 1 02/09/2014 15:48 Page 3
How can I find out when an application will be considered?
Telephone the Development Management Technical Support Team on
01263 516150 or 516151 for the likely date of the meeting when the
application is to be considered.
NOTE: Always ring a few days before the meeting to check that the
application is still on the agenda.
You can see agendas for at least five days before each meeting at the
Council Offices, Cromer, or by visiting our website
www.northnorfolk.org
You are welcome to come to any of these meetings to hear the
debates, and, if you wish, to make a comment about any planning
application that is being considered at the meeting.
How can I have my say?
In order to ensure that your views are heard, you must arrive at
least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. This is to allow
time for the Chairman to rearrange the order of items on the agenda to
prevent people having to wait for a long time. If you arrive later than
15 minutes before the start you will not be allowed to speak.
If you wish to speak, a member of staff will ask you for your name,
the item on which you wish to speak and whether you are for or
against the application. In order to keep the meetings to a
manageable length we allow one objector and one supporter to
speak on each application. (Different rules apply for ‘major’
applications – see below).
If several people have attended to speak on a single application, you
must agree among yourselves before the meeting that one person
will speak against or in support of the application on your behalf. If
this does not happen (or you cannot agree) then we may not be able
to let you speak. You will be allowed to speak for up to three
minutes only, so aim to make your view very concise.
3
Development Committee
58
25 June 2015
PA-TPOs-v7_Layout 1 02/09/2014 15:48 Page 4
What happens when my item is considered?
n the officer makes his or her report, adding to, updating and
illustrating the written report already circulated to Committee
members
n the Chairman will invite the Town or Parish Council representative
to speak for up to three minutes
n the Chairman will invite one objector to sit at a place at the front of
the chamber. They will be asked for their name and whom they
represent and then to speak for up to three minutes
n the applicant (or a representative or supporter, if present) will then
be invited to speak – also for up to three minutes
n in the case of ‘major’ applications, or those in which the Council
has legal interest or is landowner, up to four objectors will be
allowed to speak for up to three minutes each; in these cases up
to four supporters will be allowed to speak for an equivalent time
in total to that allowed for the objectors
n the local District Councillor(s), if present, will be invited to speak
n the Councillors who make up the Committee will then debate the
matter (and may ask for further information from the officer or from
the public speakers) before coming to a decision
NOTES
n speakers will not be allowed to ask questions, but Committee
members may ask questions of the speaker with the express
permission of the Committee Chairman
n consideration of an application will not be delayed simply because
someone who wishes to speak is unable to attend the meeting, or
is not called on to address the meeting
4
Development Committee
59
25 June 2015
PA-TPOs-v7_Layout 1 02/09/2014 15:48 Page 5
What can I say at the meeting?
Please make your comments on the application itself and the relevant
planning issues which may be taken into consideration in reaching a
decision. These include:
policy including the Local Development Framework,
P planning
Government guidance, case law, previous decisions of the
P Design, appearance and layout
on visual or residential amenity including potential loss of
P impact
light or overshadowing, loss of privacy, noise disturbance, smell
Council
on trees, listed buildings or a conservation area, public
P impact
right(s) of way, highway safety and traffic.
or nuisance
The following are not ‘relevant planning issues’ and we cannot
take them into account in reaching a decision
property rights, boundary or access disputes, restrictive
O private
covenants, private rights of way, ancient rights to light
on property values
O effect
of a private view
O loss
or a developer’s motives
O personality,
anything covered by other types of legislation
O
The Chairman will disallow any comment if it is inappropriate,
abusive, indecent, discriminatory, frivolous, irrelevant or otherwise
unacceptable. You will not be allowed to distribute photographs or
illustrations at the meeting, nor play audio or video recordings.
Regulations which came into force on 31 July 2014 allow any
person attending a public local government meeting to take
photographs, film and audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Please be aware that you may be filmed
or photographed whilst speaking.
5
Development Committee
60
25 June 2015
PA-TPOs-v7_Layout 1 02/09/2014 15:48 Page 6
Will a decision be made at the meeting?
Most planning applications considered by Councillors are decided at
their first hearing at the Development Committee. However, some
decisions may be:
n Deferred for a site inspection by Councillors
n Deferred for more information to be obtained, or for negotiations
to take place
You can attend and ask to speak again when the issue is
reconsidered at the next Committee meeting but please note that
public speaking is not allowed at site inspections.
Confirmation of Tree Preservation Orders
A Tree Preservation Order is an Order made by a Local Planning
Authority which makes it an offence to cut down, top, lop, uproot,
wilfully damage or destroy a tree without the Authority’s permission.
The purpose of a TPO is to protect trees which make a significant
impact on their local surroundings. This is particularly important
where trees are in immediate danger. In general all types of tree can
be covered by a TPO, including hedgerow trees, but not hedges,
bushes or shrubs. A TPO can cover anything from a single tree to
woodland.
When a TPO is made the Council may make an Order which comes
into effect immediately but it must then be confirmed within six
months. The Council has delegated the making of TPOs to its officers
but if an objection is made the decision on whether or not a TPO
should be confirmed has to be made by the Development
Committee.
6
Development Committee
61
25 June 2015
PA-TPOs-v7_Layout 1 02/09/2014 15:48 Page 7
If you wish to object to or express support for a TPO, please write to
the Council within 28 days of the Order being made, saying why and
giving details of the relevant tree(s). All written comments will be
summarised in the report to the Committee and taken into account
when the Committee decides whether or not the Order should be
confirmed.
The Council has decided to allow public speaking at the
Development Committee when making decisions on TPOs. The
following rules apply:
n an officer will present the report, adding to, updating and
illustrating the written report already circulated to Committee
members
n the Chairman will invite the Town or Parish Council representative
(if any) to speak for up to three minutes
n the Chairman will invite one person who supports the confirmation
of the TPO to speak for up to three minutes
n an objector will then be invited to speak – also for up to three
minutes
n the local District Councillor(s), if present will be invited to speak
and the Committee will then debate the matter (and may ask for
further information from the public speakers)
n the decision of the Committee may be to confirm the TPO without
modifications, to confirm subject to any necessary modifications
or not to confirm the TPO.
Further information about TPOs can be found in the Department for
Communities and Local Government leaflet, Protected Trees – A
Guide to Tree Preservation.
7
Development Committee
62
25 June 2015
PA-TPOs-v7_Layout 1 02/09/2014 15:48 Page 8
Planning advice
Head of Planning
North Norfolk District Council
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk NR27 9EN
Telephone: 01263 516150 / 516151
Fax: 01263 515042
Email planning@north-norfolk.gov.uk
www.northnorfolk.org
If you would like this document in large print, audio,
Braille, alternative format or in a different language please
telephone 01263 516150 and we will do our best to help
VERSION 7 – SEPTEMBER 2014
Development Committee
63
25 June 2015
APPENDIX 5
PLANNING PROTOCOL FOR NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENTS
Handling Planning Proposals for Development by or in Partnership with the District
Council
1.0
Introduction
1.1
The purpose of this protocol is to clarify arrangements for preparing and
submitting schemes for planning permission involving the development of land
by or on behalf of the Council, or where the Council is working in partnership
with another organisation, e.g. an affordable housing provider.
1.2
The Council is a corporate body and those who are involved in each stage of
the process should adopt a constructive and co-operative approach, mindful of
the aim to achieve the successful delivery of projects. At the same time, since
schemes have to follow the statutory planning process, the protocol seeks to
ensure that the Council’s proposals are dealt with on an equal footing with
other developments handled by the planning system.
1.3
Planning decisions are required by law to be made “in accordance with the
Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. This
means that any development must have proper regard for the Council’s
adopted planning policies which have themselves been through a rigorous
public consultation and examination process.
1.4
The legislation also includes special provisions for the Secretary of State to be
notified if the Council proposes to approve an application for development of
its own land if it is a “departure” from the Development Plan. This means that
it could be “called in” for determination by the Secretary of State.
1.5
The Secretary of State also determines applications for listed building consent
where the Council is the owner of the building.
1.6
The protocol considers processes both at pre-application and formal
application stage. Successful carrying out of the pre-application stage is
particularly important in order to ensure that applications are presented in the
best possible light when the formal public stage is reached.
2.0
Pre-Application Stage
2.1
It is important that those drawing up schemes which will be subject to the
planning process are aware of the Council’s requirements. Promoters of
schemes are strongly advised to contact Planning Officers to establish
requirements before proceeding to formal application stage.
2.2
Major Schemes
For major schemes developers are expected to carry out a number of steps as
set out in the planning pages of the Council’s website and in particular under
Revised 12 June 2015
Development Committee
64
25 June 2015
the section ‘Pre-planning application publicity and consultation for major
developments’. The planning advice note covering this topic explains the
requirements for major developments, which the note defines. It also makes it clear
that developers of a scheme should contact planning officers who will provide preapplication advice on development proposals and undertake technical consultation
with relevant internal and external consultees as well as advising on the preapplicationpublic consultation which will be required. At least six weeks should be
allowed for these processes to be undertaken.
2.3
Other Schemes
For other schemes pre-application consultation with planning officers
should also take place, with at least four working weeks to be allowed for this
process and at least six weeks if consultation is necessary with technical
consultees. Planning officers will give advice on the technical requirements
which need to be met in submitting an application.
2.4
Other sources of advice are available on the Planning Applications part of the
website, including downloadable application forms, application guidance
notes, guides to filling in the application form and fees and Design and Access
Statements guidance notes.
3.0
Formal Applications
3.1
Every effort will be made to deal with applications within the statutory time
scales (13 weeks for major applications and 8 weeks for other types). As at
the pre-application stage, in the event of the scheme raising significant
objections for internal consultees, they will seek the views of their manager
before responding to the consultation on the planning application.
3.2
Sometimes consultation responses give rise to significant difficulties which
might mean that the Planning Officer would have to recommend refusal of the
application or the imposition of onerous conditions on a permission. In these
cases the Planning Officer will alert the Development Control Manager or
Head of Planning, who will discuss this with the relevant officers and will offer the
applicant or agent the opportunity to negotiate amendments or withdraw the
application.
4.0
Committee Consideration
4.1
All applications to which this protocol applies will be reported to Development
Committee for determinations. Members of the Committee are aware that all such
applications must be determined in the same way as any other application.
Revised 12 June 2015
Development Committee
65
25 June 2015
APPENDIX 6
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
DECISION MAKING PROTOCOL
The Development Committee usually sits once a month. The meeting is open to
the general public and there are opportunities for members of the public to
speak to the Committee prior to the debate.
Decision Making Protocol
This protocol sets out our normal practice for decision making on planning
applications at Development Committee. It covers those circumstances where
the officer recommendation for approval or refusal is to be deferred, altered or
overturned. The protocol is based on the desirability of clarity and consistency in
decision making and of minimising financial and reputational risk, and requires
decisions to be based on material planning considerations. Any conditions
imposed on a planning permission must meet the six tests set out in paragraph
206 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This protocol recognises and
accepts that, on occasions, it may be advisable or necessary to defer
determination of an application or for a recommendation to be amended and
consequently for conditions or refusal reasons to be added, deleted or altered in
any one of the circumstances below.

Where an application is to be deferred, to facilitate further information or
negotiation or at an applicant's request.

Where a recommendation is to be altered as the result of consultation or
negotiation:
o The presenting Officer will clearly state the condition and its reason
or the refusal reason to be added/deleted/altered, together with the
material planning basis for that change.
o In making any proposal to accept the Officer recommendation, a
Member will clearly state whether the amended recommendation is
proposed as stated, or whether the original recommendation in the
agenda papers is proposed.

Where a Member wishes to alter a recommendation:
o In making a proposal, the Member will clearly state the condition and
its reason or the refusal reason to be added/deleted/altered, together
with the material planning considerations/reasons for that change.
o In the interest of clarity and accuracy and for the minutes, the lead
officer will restate the amendment before the final vote is taken.
o Members can instruct the Head of Planning to draw up the detailed
wording of the decision and reasons so as to reflect Members’ decision.

Where the Development Committee wishes to overturn a recommendation
and the decision is considered to be significant in terms of overall impact,
Reviewed 11 June 2015
Development Committee
66
25 June 2015
harm to the planning policy framework, having sought advice from the
Head of Planning and the Head of Legal/Planning Legal Manager (or
Officers attending Committee on their behalf)
o A final decision on the application will be deferred to allow associated
risks to be clarified and conditions/refusal reasons to be properly drafted.
o An additional officer report will be prepared and presented to the next
meeting of the Development Committee detailing the likely policy,
financial and reputational etc risks resultant from overturning a
recommendation, and also setting out the likely conditions (with reasons)
or refusal reasons. This report should follow the Council’s standard risk
assessment practice and content.
o In making a decision to overturn a recommendation, Members will bbe
asked to clearly state the material planning reason(s) why an alternative
decision is being made, and which will be minuted for clarity.

In all other cases, where the Development Committee wishes to overturn
a recommendation:
o Members will clearly state the material planning reason(s) why an
alternative decision is being made, and which will be minuted for clarity.
o In making a proposal, the Member will clearly state the condition and
its reason or the refusal reason to be added/deleted/altered, together with
the material planning basis for that change.
o Members can instruct the Head of Planning to draw up the detailed
wording of the decision and reasons so as to reflect Members’ decision
Member Training
In order to ensure robust decision-making all Members of Development Control
Committee are required to attend annual Development Control training.
Reviewed 11 June 2015
Development Committee
67
25 June 2015
APPENDIX 7
REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 23 APRIL 2015
6.
SCOTTOW - PF/14/1396 - Temporary change of use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 from
military storage to storage of processed sugar; Hangars 1, 2 and 3, Former RAF
Coltishall for Norfolk County Council
- Target Date: 19 December 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
BX/14/0061 BX - Recycling and restoration of runway areas (County reference:
C/1/2013/1020)
Withdrawn by Applicant 24/11/2014
BX/14/0422
BX - Use of land for fire training purposes including the siting of
containers, modular buildings and portable toilets (County ref: Y/1/2014/1003)
Approved 19/06/2014
PF/14/0642 PF - Change of use of former munitions stores to B8 storage
Approved 18/07/2014
PF/14/0811 PF - Change of use of Hanger 3 and Building 382 for police training and
storage purposes
Approved 28/08/2014
PF/14/1038 PF - Change of use of hanger to B2 and B1 use (general and light
industrial use) and associated outside storage
Approved 13/11/2014
PF/14/1365 PF - Change of use from storage associated with former airbase to B8
storage (storage of empty plastic bottles/caps and cardboard packaging only)
Approved 12/02/2015
THE APPLICATION
The proposal involves the temporary use of three existing hangers (circa 5,500sqm
each) at Scottow Enterprise Park to be used for the storage of sugar. The use of the
hangers for sugar storage had already commenced shortly after the application was
submitted and officers understand this was because there was an immediate need for
British Sugar (Cantley) to store processed sugar. In the event of approval of the
application, planning conditions will need to reflect that the fact that the use has
already commenced.
The applicant has indicated that the temporary use of these hangers for sugar storage
would only occur for up to three years and other longer-term options are being
explored for the use of these buildings.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Ivory in view of traffic impacts, potential adverse impact on
heritage assets and the appropriateness of storage uses at this site
PARISH COUNCIL
Scottow Parish Council - No response
Development Committee
68
25 June 2015
Buxton with Lammas Parish Council - No objection subject to conditions that the
application remained temporary whilst a more permanent and appropriate access to
the site is secured which takes traffic away from the residential margins of Badersfield.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received commenting generally on the wider site in
regard to heritage impacts but also commenting specifically that the storage of sugar
is likely to lead to damage to the hangers, murals and artefacts.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions requesting details of any
extractor/ventilation/dehumidifying equipment installed so as to prevent any adverse
noise/odour impacts and also agreement on hours of deliveries.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions - Having regard to the
volume of traffic that previously accessed the operational RAF airbase and the fact
that traffic to this site has significantly reduced since the base closed, it would not be
realistic to recommend refusal of this application on highway grounds.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that traffic follows the route indicated within the
applicants supporting documents and accordingly I recommend a condition to secure
this by way of a Traffic Management Plan.
Conservation and Design Officer - No objection by virtue of no harm to significance of
heritage assets.
Health and Safety Executive - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
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).
Development Committee
69
25 June 2015
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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle
Highway Impact
Impact on Residential Amenity
Other Safety Considerations
Heritage Impacts
APPRAISAL
Principle
The re-use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 for storage purposes is considered acceptable in
principle under Core Strategy Policy EC 4 subject to the proposals protecting the
surrounding environment and resulting in no degradation of the site itself.
Highway Impact
In respect of traffic movements the applicant had indicated within their supporting
statement that up to fifteen 40ft (30 tonne) lorries will arrive and depart daily from the
site and each hanger will be filled in turn and that lorries will also arrive with one tonne
bags packed on pallets and unloaded using forklift trucks. The hangars are now full
and the applicant has subsequently confirmed that during filling between November
2014 and Feb 2015 there were 64 lorry movements per day. The applicant has
indicated that there will be no lorry movements until the sugar is required to be
removed in circa 12 months’ time at which point this will be approximately 10 vehicle
movements per day (the applicant previously suggested 4-8 vehicle movements per
day).
In respect of the originally stated traffic movements the Highway Authority had raised
no objection subject to a condition to secure a Traffic Management Plan.
Buxton with Lamas Parish Council have requested that traffic be diverted away from
Badersfield through the construction of a new access. Whilst the proposal is to use the
existing access, it is understood by Officers that an alternative access route into the
site from the north east is being investigated/negotiated and this will form the focus for
further development on the site. The temporary permission for the proposal will enable
the access matters to be reviewed in the future.
In light of the material increase in traffic movements the Highway Authority have been
reconsulted and have confirmed once again no objection to the proposal. Therefore,
whilst Officers and the Highway Authority acknowledge the local concerns about traffic
movements during the fill period, without objection from the Highway Authority,
Officers consider there would be no substantive basis for refusal in relation to highway
impacts.
Impact on Residential Amenity
Development Committee
70
25 June 2015
Given the distances, the physical storage of sugar in the hangers is unlikely to result
per se in harm to residential amenity. The Environmental Protection Team have
requested details of the extractor/ventilation/dehumidifier equipment to be installed
and these details can be requested by condition requiring their submission within two
months of the date of the decision (if the Committee are minded to approve).
However, it is the vehicle movements associated with the transporting of the
processed sugar that has the potential to affect nearby residents in Badersfield based
on the current access arrangements. The applicant had indicated that delivery times
would be restricted between 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday (March to September) and
had requested that during the initial fill period there be no delivery restrictions. During
the fill period (which commenced without the benefit of planning permission) the
Council did receive a number of calls from local residents about vehicle movements
taking place at all hours of the day disturbing sleep. Officer opinion at that time was
that an unlimited delivery window would not be acceptable and, with the support of
Environmental Protection Officer, insisted that the County Council and applicant
restrict initial delivery movements to between 7am to 10pm on any one day. Officers
understand the County Council did enforce this restriction and, as a result, complaints
stopped.
Officers remain of the opinion that, if the Committee are minded to support approval of
the proposal, delivery vehicle movements would need to be the subject of a planning
condition. Officers understand that the County Council are seeking a site wide delivery
receipt/dispatch restriction and have informally requested this be 7am to 10pm Mon to
Fri, 7am to 4pm on Saturdays and no deliveries on Sundays or Bank or Public
Holidays. Officers consider this would be a reasonable restriction which would protect
the amenity of nearby residents whilst still allowing business to operate successfully.
Given the temporary nature of the proposal, if the Committee are minded to support
approval Officers would recommend the suggested restrictions be imposed by way of
condition.
Other Safety Considerations
In respect of issue of safety, sugar is known to pose a risk of explosion, particularly if
the size of sugar particles are below 500 micrometres (sugar dust) which has a larger
surface area to react with oxygen in air. The applicant has confirmed that sugar
particles will be larger than 500 micrometres and not in a dust format and that spark
retarders will be used when loading and unloading so that any risks are reduced even
further. Officers consider that this approach would seem reasonable by the applicant
and, if the particle size of the sugar is as stated by the applicant, then the risk of
explosion will be significantly reduced.
However, confirmation of the views of the Health and Safety Executive have been
sought on the applications and at the time of writing this report their comments are
awaited.
Heritage Impacts
In respect of impacts on heritage assets, the site lies within a Conservation Area and
the hangers have 'local listing' status (ref: LL/84/02, LL/84/03, and LL/84/04). Whilst
not specifically mentioned in the local list descriptions, some of the hangers include
murals. The murals themselves are, in the main, located internally within the hangers
and so play a limited role in the appreciation of the wider character of the area but
nonetheless contribute to the historical context of the site. English Heritage (now
Heritage England) undertook a ‘Photographic Characterisation’ of the RAF Coltishall
site prior to its closure and this included photographic records within the hangers
capturing the murals.
Development Committee
71
25 June 2015
In considering the application, the Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to
pay “special attention” to the “desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings,
and the character and appearance of conservation areas. This means that the
desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings and the character and
appearance of conservation areas are not mere material considerations to which any
weight can be attached. When a local authority finds that a proposed development
would harm the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a
conservation area, it must give that harm considerable importance and weight. There
is effectively a statutory presumption against planning permission being granted. That
presumption can, however, be outweighed by material considerations powerful
enough to do so, including the public benefits of a proposal.
In considering what weight to afford to any impacts to heritage assets, the Committee
needs to be mindful of the fact that Locally Listed Buildings are not afforded the same
level of statutory protection as listed buildings and therefore the powers available to
the Local Planning Authority in the event that harm was being caused to the internal
fabric (including the murals) would be limited.
The Council's Conservation Officer is of the opinion that the proposal will not harm the
significance of these designated and non-designated heritage assets. When the doors
of the hangers are closed, there is no discernible visual impact on the character and
appearance of the wider Conservation Area. In respect of the impact on the hangers
themselves, Committee will note the representation received raising concerns about
impact heritage impacts and concerns that the storage of sugar is likely to lead to
damage to the hangers, murals and artefacts. The applicant has indicated that the
murals within the hangers have been covered/protected and the stored sugar is not in
direct contact with the hanger building such that, once the sugar has been removed,
there would be no significant adverse impacts.
On balance, having regard to the likely impacts it is considered that the proposal
would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
and there are no substantive heritage impact grounds upon which to oppose the
application.
Summary
Whilst the application is retrospective in nature and the unrestricted transporting of
processed sugar to the site has had some adverse impacts on residential amenity, the
Committee needs to satisfy itself that the proposed development is acceptable or can
be made acceptable in planning terms. The application is proposed on a temporary
basis and, subject to the imposition of conditions limiting delivery/despatch times is
likely to be considered generally acceptable and would not adversely affect heritage
assets. In respect of the number of vehicle movements, the Highway Authority have
been asked for further comment on the basis of updated traffic figures received and
the Committee will be updated orally. Subject to no objections being received from the
Highway Authority and subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal would
generally accord with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to no objections being received from the
Health & Safety Executive and subject to the imposition of conditions to include
restrictions on delivery/dispatch times to 7am to 10pm Mon to Fri, 7am to 4pm
on Saturdays and no deliveries on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays and any
other conditions considered to be necessary by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
72
25 June 2015
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 23 APRIL 2015
(251) SCOTTOW - PF/14/1396 - Temporary change of use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 from
military storage to storage of processed sugar; Hangars 1, 2 and 3, Former
RAF Coltishall for Norfolk County Council
Councillor M J M Baker declared an interest as he was a Member of Norfolk County
Council.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr T Clayton (supporting)
The Major Projects Manager reported that hangars 1 and 3 contained loose sugar
and hangar 2 contained bagged sugar. If the application were refused the sugar
would need to be removed and there would be a highway impact in doing so. He
advised that temporary approval would allow the delivery/dispatch times to be
restricted. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had been consulted and had no
objection on the assumption that all sugar was bagged. The HSE had been
reconsulted and the Fire Service would also need to be consulted on the advice of
the HSE.
The Major Projects Manager recommended that the application be approved for a
temporary period of three years subject to conditions to restrict times of vehicle
movements and any conditions required by the Health and Safety Executive and the
Fire Service.
Councillor T Ivory, the local Member, considered that the applicant had shown
contempt for the Authority and the residents of Scottow. He stated that the murals in
the hangars were an important part of the history of the base and had heritage and
cultural significance, to which weight could be attached. Whilst storage of sugar in
itself was not damaging, no investigation had been carried out as to the impact of air
conditioning and ventilation systems associated with the use. He considered that this
storage use was inappropriate in this location and expressed concern that this
proposal would set a precedent for other storage uses. He considered that there was
an unacceptable traffic impact which was not justified by job creation, and that
storage use would prevent the hangars being used for other employment generating
uses.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that it was inappropriate to store flammable
substances in a building where there were murals and items of historical interest.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes proposed approval in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that a letter should be sent to Norfolk County
Council expressing this Council’s concerns at its conduct in respect of this
application. The Committee expressed its support for this suggestion.
Councillor R Reynolds expressed concern with regard to traffic and employment
issues. He stated that sugar caught fire easily and it was difficult to stop such a fire.
He considered that the sugar should be removed within a year or 18 months. He
proposed refusal of this application.
Development Committee
73
25 June 2015
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern at the retrospective nature of this
application. She seconded refusal.
The Major Projects Manager stated that if refused, the Committee would need to
consider enforcement action. The Officers advised the Committee with regard to
temporary approval or refusal with enforcement action.
Councillor T Ivory stated that he was concerned that short term planning permission
was acceptance of the principle of storage use. He expressed a preference for
refusal with enforcement action and stated that disruption would be short term.
The Development Manager advised the Committee with regard to grounds for refusal
and enforcement issues. He requested that a refusal reason on fire risk grounds be
delegated subject to the views of the HSE and Fire Service.
The Chairman asked Mr Clayton how long it would take to clear the site. Mr Clayton
stated that he would need to liaise with his client on this issue.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions
1.
That this application be refused on grounds that storage use on the
scale proposed is inappropriate on this site and is likely to give rise to
significant traffic generation which would have a detrimental impact on
residents of the area and, subject to the views of the Health and Safety
Executive and Fire Service, fire risk grounds. Furthermore the proposal
would result in harm to locally designated heritage assets.
2.
That the Head of Planning be authorised to serve an Enforcement Notice
to require the removal of the sugar within 6 months of the effective date
of the notice, for the reasons stated above, to include conditions with
regard to compliance.
Development Committee
74
25 June 2015
Geoff Lyon
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Scales, Andy <Andy.Scales@nps.co.uk>
10 June 2015 09:08
Geoff Lyon
Edmunds, Tim
Scottow Enterprise Park - Change of use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 - Sugar Storage (ref
no PF/14/1396)
Hi Geoff
I refer to the above proposal and our discussion on Friday afternoon.
Please find attached an extract from recent e-mail correspondence (from 26 May 2015) with Tom
Clayton (from Greenheath Ltd). In respect to sugar removal he highlights
I have had much dialogue with BS on their plans, to be honest they can’t plan at the moment as the
industry is so effected by external influences its impossible to arrange but we can hatch the following.
We can alter their exit strategy throughout the group and exit hanger 2 within 12 months.
Re the bulks product. This has to go back into the factories at the end of the running times, they will be
able to exit some this spring (tonnage tbc but would aim at total of hanger 3) then the following year
hanger 1.
Ideally they need a 3 year option that was the attraction of the site.
Obviously hanger 3 is only 25% full, it was the companies intention to fill it to get obvious utilisation, they
will however work with us and now change that plan and not bring any more product to site.
Therefore based on the above operational considerations, it is considered that the following ‘exit
strategy’ would be reasonable to imposed on any enforcement notice



Hangar 3 within 6 months;
Hangar 2 within 12 months; and
Hangar 1 within 2-3 years.
This approach would also have the attraction of not requiring a very intensive focus of large
vehicles movements in the next few months (summer months) limiting the impact on the amenity
of Badersfield residents.
I would request that this information is presented to Planning Committee to seek this revised
timetable for compliance with an Enforcement Notice.
Kind regards
Andy
Andy Scales Head of Planning Consultancy
Development Committee
75
25 June 2015
NPS Group
T 01603 706150 M
E andy.scales@nps.co.uk W nps.co.uk
Lancaster House 16 Central Avenue Norwich NR7 0HR
Consider the environment before printing this email
NPS Property Consultants Limited is a limited company controlled by Norfolk County Council and registered in England and Wales. Registered number:
02888194. Registered office: Lancaster House, 16 Central Avenue, St Andrews Business Park, Norwich, Norfolk NR7 0HR. Our e-mail disclaimer can be
found here
Development Committee
76
25 June 2015
APPENDIX 8
Development Committee
77
25 June 2015
Development Committee
78
25 June 2015
Development Committee
79
25 June 2015
Development Committee
80
25 June 2015
Development Committee
81
25 June 2015