OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 26 AUGUST 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CONSERVATION AREA AT THE FORMER RAF
COLTISHALL
Approval is sought for the designation of a Conservation Area at the site of the
Former RAF Coltishall Airbase and associated residential areas under provisions
of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
1.0 BACKGROUND
RAF Coltishall was commissioned in 1938, only shortly before the Second World
War. Operations ceased in 2006. Up until then the airfield had been the only major
‘Battle of Britain’ air base in continuous use since its founding. RAF Coltishall played
a significant role in Britain’s defence for nearly seven decades. It was a very popular
base with airmen. It also played a major role in the lives of local people. The site
today retains a substantial number of structures and unique features such as the
Control Tower, Aircraft Hangers and Cold War Blast Walls. Some of these features
such as the ‘Spitfire Pens’ are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. However
the site as a whole and in particular the large open spaces which define the former
airfield’s character are unprotected.
The District Council was approached by local residents and other interested parties
early in 2009 and asked to consider the designation of a Conservation Area. Earlier
this year officers were authorised to undertake a public consultation process in
conjunction with Broadland District Council and bring a further report on designation
back to the relevant Committees of the Council.
2.0 PLANNING CONTEXT
In August 2004 the Government announced that military use of the RAF Coltishall
Site would end during 2006 and instructed Defence Estates to plan for the future
disposal of the asset. In November 2006 it was announced that the Home Office (and
successor Ministry of Justice) was to acquire the operational area of the base for a
detention centre/prison facility. In December 2007 it was confirmed that a new 500
place Category C prison would be established; this would involve the conversion of
the former single airmen’s’ accommodation blocks and a limited amount of new build
floor space. The residential area was to be disposed of via the private sector.
Since spring 2008 the Ministry of Justice’s primary objective has been the
development of the prison facility. However planning consultants have been advising
the Ministry on potential future uses for the site and discussions have been held with
local planning authorities and representatives of local communities immediately
adjoining the former base regarding future uses/development options. A Master Plan
for the site was prepared by the consultants for the Ministry of Justice and
discussions held with them in the context of the Core Strategy as contained in the
adopted North Norfolk Local Development Framework (LDF).
Development Control Committee
1
26 August 2010
The key policy relating to the former airbase in the District’s adopted Core Strategy is
Policy EC4 (Redundant Defence Establishments). This identifies a technical area at
the former RAF Coltishall site where re-use of redundant buildings for future
employment generating or business uses is considered acceptable in principle,
subject to proposals not having any adverse environmental impact or placing an
unacceptable volume of traffic on the local highway network. Any new build, if
deemed necessary to replace existing buildings is also strictly restricted to accord
with current gross floor space parameters.
The Ministry of Justice is keen to see the conservation status of the former RAF
Coltishall clarified. This would assist the Ministry in its marketing of the site over the
next few months. Consequently this report is being brought before Committee as a
matter of immediate importance, partly for this reason.
3.0 CONSERVATION AREA
At its Full Council meeting held on 19th February 2009 the Council resolved to
support a motion proposing “that the former RAF Coltishall site be considered for
Conservation Area Status” (Council Minute No.174a refers).
Subsequently the Council’s Conservation Design and Landscape Team undertook
research and assessment of the site and prepared a draft designation report. The
latter was produced in partnership with Broadland District Council as part of the site
being considered for designation is located within that local planning authority’s
administrative area. The Development Committee and Cabinet of the Council
approved the report and approved it for public consultation in June.
NB: A copy of the latest version of the ‘Former RAF Coltishall Conservation Area
Designation’ Document (August 2010) is available for inspection in the Members’
Room or on the District Council Website; copies can also be provided on request.
The report produced recognises the special and distinctive character of the base as
well as its historical importance in charting the development of the Royal Air Force
from World War II through until the end of the twentieth century, as expressed in the
design and layout of buildings, airfield structures and landscaping.
It is clear that the former RAF base has a heritage value and is of historic
importance, of national as well as local significance, which merits formal designation.
This view is supported by local residents and other interests and is apparent in the
replies received to the Councils’ consultation.
4.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
A four week consultation period was undertaken from July 19th to August 16th. This
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
A public exhibition on display in the St Edwards Community Church
An ‘open meeting’ held at St Edwards on 4th August.
Leaflets delivered to every property within the proposed Conservation Area
boundary.
The report being made available to the public on both Councils’ websites.
Press releases.
Radio Interviews.
During the consultation period and exhibition, during which staff were available to
answer the public’s queries, over 50 representations were received.
Development Control Committee
2
26 August 2010
At the ‘open/public’ meeting held to discuss the draft Appraisal 25 members of the
public and others were present.
It should be noted that the Ministry of Justice has expressed some concern regarding
the impact of Conservation Area status in respect of future development potential but
it is understood that following discussions it does not have an overriding objection.
5.0 OVERALL ASSESSMENT
The appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with the District Council resolution
to investigate Conservation Area designation passed in February 2009 and the
Council’s agreed criteria for assessment which is based on English Heritage
guidance. It has also been prepared in the context of wider community interest and
the need to recognise the history and legacy the RAF has left at the former base.
The appraisal of the site includes historical development, location, topography,
geology, site layout, spatial analysis, key views, building condition and management
proposals. The document therefore considers the future management of the
proposed Conservation Area as well as identifying the boundary.
5.1 KEY CHARACTERISTICS
• The only major ‘Battle of Britain’ airfield to have remained in continuous military
use up until its closure in 2006.
• Many buildings and structures of architectural and/or historic interest.
• Scheduled Ancient Monument Blast Walls and 'Spitfire Pens'.
• Large scale buildings of clearly defined groups and development ages.
• High quality landscape design and balanced mix of hard and soft grain
landscaping, including a high quality tree planting scheme.
• Imposing and striking views throughout and across the base
• Unique ‘military graffiti’ in Hangars and Squadron Signage attached to external
elevations.
• Exemplifies the relationship between buildings and the RAF’s hierarchy and
social structure.
• The historical importance of RAF Coltishall and its impact on events and conflicts
throughout its operational use.
5.2 KEY ISSUES
• Deciding on an appropriate boundary.
• Retention and management of green spaces.
• Need for the siting and design of new or replacement development to reflect the
historic context and prevailing character of the site and for careful consideration
to be given to the demolition of any buildings.
• The possible removal of airfield buildings and hard surfaces for material
reclamation.
• Condition of vacant buildings.
• Possible sub-division of site ownership and need to ensure cohesive site
management and maintenance of landscaped areas.
• Inappropriate alterations to existing buildings and structures.
• Possible diminution of hard and soft landscaping maintenance regimes.
• Need to adopt a list of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Local Interest.
• Need to carefully consider the role of woodland and trees in the landscape and
the setting of the site.
• Need to protect the setting of the key features such as the water tower and the
control tower.
• Need to work in conjunction with the owners of the site and adjoining housing to
ensure that the key characteristics and features are retained.
Development Control Committee
3
26 August 2010
6.0 BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
At this point there are no specific budgetary implications.
7.0 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, judging by the weight of public and local support and on the basis of
the evidence available, it is considered that Conservation Area designation would be
appropriate. It will ensure that the very special heritage of the former base and
surrounding area will be recognised when any future development proposals are
considered.
Of the hundreds of military aviation sites that were in use in the period up to 1945,
comparatively few survive in a recognisable form. For this reason RAF Coltishall is a
rare example. Throughout the country many sites have now passed into commercial
use and those that remain in military use have been adapted to new purposes. In the
case of RAF Coltishall, the adaptation of existing buildings and the construction of
new buildings may be necessary to ensure the future viability of the site. Finding the
right balance between change and conservation requires a positive approach and a
clear definition of the site's special interest, as well as a good partnership between
the owners and the various statutory agencies or private interests concerned. (This
said there are no proposals to introduce further planning controls such as Article 4
Directions which would affect permitted development rights in residential areas).
In terms of boundary it is recommended that the whole of the identified area be
designated. The residential areas in both North Norfolk and Broadland Districts are
integral to the historic development of the airbase. Furthermore there are many
valuable trees within these areas together with distinctive housing units deserving of
recognition. The Designation Report also contains a list of Local Buildings of Special
Architectural Interest such as the Hangers and Control Tower and Sergeants’ and
Officers’ Mess, although it should be noted that the latter lies in Broadland District.
Designation as a Conservation Area does not mean that the area will be preserved
as it stands at the time of its designation. The respective policies contained in the
constituent Local Planning Authorities’ Local Development Framework Documents
will remain paramount in deciding future uses. However, where new development is
proposed, the local planning authorities will need to pay special attention to the
design of new buildings and extensions to existing buildings. A high standard of
design will always be expected, with a particular regard to scale, proportions, roofs,
materials, colours, doors, windows and location to ensure that any new development
maintains the existing character of the site and its surrounds.
2010 marks the 70th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain. RAF Coltishall was a key
station during this time of extreme national emergency. Then and afterwards it played
a key role in the ‘defence of the realm’. Much of the built fabric remains intact. It is
the physical embodiment of the nation’s heritage at a pivotal moment in our history.
Those still alive who served at the base have fond recollections of RAF Coltishall and
there is also a very strong local resonance. Indeed many local people and families
have a close attachment to the former base with many family histories linked
intimately to the site. 70 summers on from 1940, and almost to the day, it seems all
the more fitting to pay tribute to the contribution the former RAF Coltishall has made
to the history of both the nation and the locality, by safeguarding the site’s remaining
built heritage and general setting.
Development Control Committee
4
26 August 2010
8.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1
That the areas of the Former RAF Coltishall Air Base and associated residential
areas within North Norfolk District be designated as a Conservation Area.
8.2
That the proposed boundary be adopted and publicised in accordance with
Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
8.3
That those buildings in North Norfolk District which have been identified in the
Conservation Area Designation Document as local buildings of special
architectural or historic interest be designated as such.
8.4
That Broadland District Council be requested to make a complementary
designation for the areas of the Former RAF Coltishall located within its
jurisdiction.
8.5
That the Conservation Area be known as the ‘Former RAF Coltishall
Conservation Area’.
(Source: Philip Godwin, Conservation Design & Landscape Manger Ext 6131 & Paul
Rhymes, Conservation & Design Officer, Ext 6367)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
FIELD DALLING - PF/09/1155 - Erection of Eight Dwellings: Land off Holt Road
for Victory Housing Trust
To give the application further consideration following the receipt of amended plans in
relation to design negotiations and a porosity test being carried out.
Background
The Committee considered this application at a previous meeting on 10 June 2010
when it was resolved to defer determination of the application in order for design
negotiations to take place and for a porosity test to be carried out.
A copy of the report to that meeting is attached as Appendix 1.
Amended plans were received on 28 June 2010 in relation to the design and
appearance of the proposed dwellings. The fenestration has been amended on all of
the dwellings to a more traditional ‘cottage’ style. Chimneys have been added and
the external materials on units 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have been changed to solely
brickwork. The designs of units 2, 3 and 4 have been amended so that they would no
longer have three individual gables but would now form one continuous terrace with
the roofs following a traditional form.
The amended plans were re-advertised on site and the Parish Council re-consulted.
The Parish Council advised that it had to reserve its position until the drainage issues
are resolved, and requested to be informed of the results of the percolation test when
known and any other relevant information. Before the comments of the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager were received Officers were advised by the
Housing Enabling Officer that the internal layout of units 6 and 7 were not acceptable
as there was a third bedroom shown on the ground floor.
Development Control Committee
5
26 August 2010
Further amended plans have been received. The single storey rear projections have
been removed and the width and length of the two units would be increased by
approximately 700mm. However, the overall floor area of the dwellings would remain
at 85m².
At the time of writing this report a response was awaited from the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager. The Committee will be updated orally at the
meeting regarding this matter.
A porosity test has also been carried out at the site and the results of that test have
now been received (copy of report in Appendix 1). The Building Control Manager
has been consulted and has confirmed that the tests have been undertaken to
establish the capability of the drainage strata to accept both surface water discharge
from the rainwater soakaways and effluent from drainage from the sewage treatment
plant. The results obtained indicate that the ground is capable of accepting the
discharge and that, providing a package sewage treatment plant is used, there
should be no likelihood of contamination of groundwater.
The Parish Council has been re-consulted on both the further amended plans and
the results of the porosity test. At the time of writing this report comments were
awaited. The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting regarding this matter.
Two further letters were received, one objecting and one supporting the application.
These were reported orally to the Committee at the last meeting.
Key Policy Issue
The key issue is compliance with adopted Core Strategy Policies HO3, EN1, EN2,
EN4, EN8, EN10, EN13 and CT5 regarding the acceptability of the development, the
design of the proposed dwellings, that the ground conditions are suitable for the
proposed drainage, highway issues and effects on the amenities of the area.
Appraisal
The proposal is considered to comply with Policy HO3 of the adopted Core Strategy,
and it has been demonstrated that there is a clear proven local housing need in this
location.
The highway objections were discussed at Committee previously.
However, Members did not agree with the concerns of the County Highways (see
minutes from that meeting attached as Appendix 1.
The principle of the
development of this site for the number of units proposed remains acceptable.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has no objections to the
amended design of the dwellings and it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.
Officers consider that the development would preserve the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area.
The Committee will note the comments of the Building Control Manager regarding
the porosity test results. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant
detrimental impact in terms of flooding in this location.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no further grounds of objection
being received from the Parish Council or following expiry of the readvertisement of the amended plans on site and in the press and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
6
26 August 2010
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
LANGHAM - 20060770 - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel
and village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages; Former Glass
Factory, North Street for Avada Country Homes
Request for variation of terms of a Section 106 Obligation
The Committee is asked to agree to a request to vary the terms of the obligation
(agreement) made on 5 December 2008 and relating to planning application 01
20060770PF
Background
This application was last considered by the Development Control Committee (West)
on 4 December 2008 when it was resolved that “the application be approved subject
to the finalisation of the Section 106 agreement and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.” The agreement was duly completed on 5 December 2008 in
accordance with that resolution and the relevant planning permission issued on 9
December 2008.
A critical issue when the application was previously under consideration by the
Committee was the “enabling development” comprising the proposed twenty-three
holiday cottages, the income from which will support the proposed Hotel
development. This matter was the subject of a number of reports prepared by Strutt
and Parker on instructions from the District Council and addressing concerns raised
by objectors to the proposed development that the cottages could be built but not the
Hotel. The section 106 agreement therefore tied ownership of the cottages to the
Hotel, restricted use of the cottages to holiday accommodation only and provided for
a minimum number of letting days per annum for the cottages.
In response to the expressed concerns relating to the possible construction of the
cottages only, the agreement also incorporated phasing provisions, in the form of
covenants given by the applicant, Avada Ltd. These are in clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3
of the Schedule to the agreement and are in these terms:
“4.1
Until the Hotel is open and operational as a hotel, no more than 11 of the
Cottages shall be occupied.
4.2
Until the development of the Hotel is completed in all respects in accordance
with the Application and is fully operational, no more than 19 of the Cottages
shall be occupied.
4.3
Until the development of the Village Shop is completed in all respects in
accordance with the Application and is either open for trading or available for
opening for trading, no more than 11 of the Cottages shall be occupied.”
Request to vary the agreement
A written request seeking the Council’s agreement to variation of the terms of the
agreement has been received from the applicant. A copy of that letter from Avada is
attached (Appendix 2), together with the proposed replacement clauses which will, if
agreed by the Committee, be substituted for clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the
Schedule. The proposed replacement clauses are as follows:
Development Control Committee
7
26 August 2010
“4.1
The service infrastructure for the hotel, specifically, the drainage network,
supply of water, gas, and electricity, along with the formation of the road
network will be constructed simultaneously with the cottages.
4.2
Until the masonry structure and roofs of the hotel buildings are complete, no
more than thirteen of the cottages shall be occupied.
4.3
Until the second fix stage of the hotel buildings is at an advanced stage
(plastered, windows installed, heating and electrics installed), no more than
twenty of the cottages shall be occupied.
4.4
Until the hotel is complete and operational as a hotel, the remaining three
cottages may not be occupied.
4.5
Until the development of the Village Shop is completed in all respects in
accordance with the Application and is either open for trading or available for
opening for trading, no more than 11 of the cottages shall be occupied
(unchanged).”
The applicant’s reasons for requesting this variation are set out in that letter but, in
summary, relate to the availability of funding for the project.
Key Issue
The key issue in this case is considered to be whether the future provision of the new
Hotel (the financial and tourism-related benefits of which were reflected by the
decision of the Development Control Committee (West) to approve the application in
December 2008) is likely to be compromised by the proposed variation of the terms
of the agreement.
Appraisal
Delegated authority to approve application 20060770 was originally given on 27
March 2008. At that time the relevant development plan was the former North
Norfolk Local Plan which was superseded by the North Norfolk Core Strategy
adopted on 24 September 2008. The Core Strategy was therefore the development
plan in force at the time this application was last considered by the Development
Control Committee (West) on 4 December 2008. Differences in policy between the
superseded Local Plan and the Core Strategy were identified and explained in the
report to the Committee (see Appendix 2) and it was concluded that the applicant
was entitled to expect the application to be determined in accordance with the
development plan policies (former Local Plan) in force when the application had
originally been considered by the Committee. This remains the situation and it is
considered that there has been no significant change to the other considerations
material to the determination of the application as considered by the Development
Control Committee (West) on 4 December 2008.
The reasons advanced by the applicant for seeking a variation to the phasing
provisions of the section 106 agreement are understandable given the current
economic climate. The potential economic and tourism-related benefits of the
proposal remain in force, as well as the opportunity for a beneficial re-use of a
prominent former village employment site. It is acknowledged that the proposed
development also safeguards the listed barns and will provide a new village shop,
for the benefit of the local community and visitors.
In conclusion, it is considered that the future provision of the new Hotel will not be
compromised by the proposed variation of the terms of the existing agreement.
Development Control Committee
8
26 August 2010
Legal implications
It will be necessary for the changes to the existing section 106 agreement to be given
legal effect by way of a formal Deed of Variation completed by the parties to the
original agreement. This will leave that agreement intact but with new clauses
substituted as set out in the applicant’s letter (Appendix 2).
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommended to agree to the requested variation to the
agreement dated 5 December 2008.
(Source: R M Howe, Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager, ext 6016: Ref
20060770)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
4.
HUNWORTH - 20090415 EF - Application for Certificate of Lawfulness of
Existing Use as separate unit of holiday accommodation; 1 Green Farm Barn,
The Green
Date of Application: 29 April 2009
Case Officer: Roger Howe
THE APPLICATION
This application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness of the asserted existing use of the
property as a separate unit of holiday accommodation as a result of use for more
than ten years before the date of the application (ie since before 29 April 1999).
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Requested by the Strategic Director - Community in view of the divergent local views
on the past use of the property.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:
This provision allows an applicant to ascertain whether an existing use is lawful.
If the LPA (Local Planning Authority) are provided with information:
“satisfying them of the lawfulness at the time of the application of the use ……
they shall issue a certificate ……. And in any other case they shall refuse the
application.”
Past and existing development is either lawful or it is not and these procedures
allow landowners to obtain a ruling to that effect.
2. Circular 10/97 - Annex 8: Lawfulness and the Lawful Development Certificate
advises as follows:8.12: The onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the applicant.
8.15: The relevant test of the evidence is the balance of probability. The LPA
should not refuse a certificate because the applicant has failed to discharge the
stricter, criminal burden of proof, namely beyond all reasonable doubt. The
applicant’s own evidence does not need to be corroborated by independent
evidence in order to be accepted. Neither the identity of the applicant nor the
planning merits of the use are relevant to the consideration of the purely legal
issues which are involved in determining an application.
8.34: Any views on the planning merits of the case …… are irrelevant.
Development Control Committee
9
26 August 2010
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19870841 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of barn to two luxury
dwellings
Approved, 4 June 1987
PLA/19872037 - (Full Planning Permission) - Barn conversion into two dwellings with
annexe
Refused, 10 March 1988: Appeal Dismissed, 5 December 1988
PLA/19900260 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of disused barn into a
dwelling (revised scheme)
Approved, 10 April 1990
PLA/19931412 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion of existing barn to private
dwelling
Approved, 30 December 1993
PLA/20041168 - (Full Planning Permission) - Retention of flue pipes, gable end
window and raised ridge line to main roof and revised fenestration
Approved, 28 July 2010
PLA/20071823 - (Full Planning Permission) - Continued use of part of dwelling as
one unit of holiday accommodation
Refused, 3 April 2009
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION
According to the application form, 1 Green Farm Barns “comprises an attached
dwelling converted in the early 1990s from a barn to
(a) private living accommodation for the applicant,
(b) a single unit of lettable holiday accommodation.
This application applies to the holiday unit which is, on examination, accessed
through the courtyard of the main dwelling with no internal connecting door. The
application is supported by a Statutory Declaration made by the applicant (copy
attached, Appendix 3), copies of the applicant’s accounts and copies of year
planners showing holiday lets of the unit for the years 1995 to 2007 inclusive.
A number of copy letters relating to holiday bookings and payments received by the
applicant for holiday lettings have also been submitted in support of the application.
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED CONTRARY TO THE APPLICATION
A number of local residents have challenged the case being put forward by the
applicant (that the property has been used continuously for holiday lets for at least
ten years prior to the application) on a number of grounds. Whilst some of the
objections are of little relevance to the application and cannot be taken into account,
the following assertions are considered to be relevant to the decision on the
application:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enforcement Officer had been informed that the holiday lettings business was
not commenced until 2004.
Business Rates not paid until 2005
Property used for residential lets rather than holiday lets.
Property was advertised as available on a Shorthold Tenancy basis by Brown
& Co.
Property has not been available for holiday lets throughout the year.
Letting records submitted by the applicant incomplete/unreliable.
PARISH COUNCIL
A letter received from Mr J Dymond, Chairman of Stody Parish Council on 17 August
2009, stated that “the property has been used for bed and breakfast since 1995/96
continually with, until recently, no complaints.”
This letter was written on Parish Council headed paper although Mr Dymond has
subsequently confirmed that the letter was written in his personal capacity.
Development Control Committee
10
26 August 2010
A letter was also received from Mrs Charlotte Crawley, a Parish Councillor (and on
behalf of another Councillor, Mrs Liz Waites) objecting to the Lawful Development
application.
APPRAISAL
This application has been and remains locally controversial and a number of matters
raised by objectors cannot be taken into account in the determination of this Lawful
Development application.
Planning permission was granted in 1993 for the conversion of a barn to create a
single dwelling at 1 Green Farm Barn, Hunworth. The consented dwelling has been
sub-divided to create the applicant’s dwelling and the self-contained holiday unit to
which this application relates. However, any physical works to create the holiday unit
are now immune from enforcement action and the application relates solely to the
use of the property as a separate unit of holiday accommodation. There is no doubt
that the applicant has let the property for holiday purposes throughout the last ten
years. Her statutory declaration, year planners and copy correspondence provide
clear evidence of holiday lettings over that time. Allowing family and friends to use
the property for holiday purposes at other times at no charge is considered to be a
holiday use of the property. However, if the property has been used for non-holiday
residential lettings within the ten years preceding the date of the application, such
use will have broken the continuity of the holiday use of the property.
Two specific matters have been raised by an objector to the application. Firstly it has
been stated that the property was let for approximately seven weeks in 1998 for nonholiday purposes. This is outside the ten year period relevant to this Lawful
Development application and therefore should not be taken into account. Secondly,
attention has been drawn to a list of properties available for letting for residential
(rather than holiday lets) purposes by Brown & Co in 2007. This appeared to show
the annexe at 1 Green Farm Barn, Hunworth as available for letting at a guide price
of £685 per calendar month in 2007.
The applicant was asked if she wished to make any comments upon this matter and
replied as follows:
“During the late summer of 2007, the Estate Agent, Brown & Co, visited me to
suggest that I allow them to market, as a proposed short hold tenancy, the part of my
property that was then being used as a holiday let, part of their argument being that
such a form of tenancy would make it easier for me to manage the property.
I said that I would consider what they had to say but was then leaving for an
extended holiday and that I would communicate with them when I returned.
Upon my return from holiday I found that Brown & Co had sent a letter to me quoting
a rental value and offering their marketing services. I considered their offer but
telephoned them saying that I intended to continue using my property as a holiday let
and that I did not, therefore, need their services.
Brown & Co were unhappy at my decision and claimed that they had incurred costs
to date which they demanded reimbursement of from me but I pointed out that they
had no instructions from me to do anything and they agreed not to attempt to make
any charge on me.
Browns did not specify how their costs had been incurred but it would appear that
they were marketing costs which they had no authority from me to undertake and I
had no knowledge of them doing so until after the event.”
Development Control Committee
11
26 August 2010
SUMMARY
Notwithstanding the local opposition to the use of the property for holiday letting
purposes, it is considered that on balance the applicant has demonstrated that the
property has been used or available for use as a separate unit of holiday
accommodation for at least ten years prior to the date of the application. The
reasons for this conclusion are that, in summary:1)
The applicant’s evidence is in the form of a Statutory Declaration and the
application is supported by holiday letting records in the form of year planners,
copies of accounts and correspondence relating to holiday lettings of the
property over a number of years.
2)
An asserted non-holiday letting of the property took place more than ten years
prior to the date of the application and cannot therefore be taken into account.
3)
The documented listing of the property as available for letting by Brown & Co
does not appear to have resulted in any non-holiday lettings. The applicant was
asked to specifically comment on this matter and her written response is set out
above.
On the relevant civil law balance of probabilities test, it is considered that the
applicant has demonstrated that the property has been used as a separate unit of
holiday accommodation for ten years prior to the date of the application.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Certificate of Lawfulness is granted.
(Source: Roger Howe, Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager ext 6016)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
5.
BODHAM - PF/09/1269 - Erection of agricultural building; Land at Hart Lane for
Mr D Gay
Minor Development - Target Date: 3 March 2010
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20051159 - Retention of field shelter as commercial log store
Refused 06/09/2005
PLA/20070522 - Erection of three agricultural buildings and retention of 2.2m high
gate
Refused 10/07/2007
Development Control Committee
12
26 August 2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of an agricultural building.
The proposed building would measure approximately 5m x 30m. It would have a
shallow mono-pitch roof with an eaves of 2.8m and a ridge of 3m.
The steel portal frame building would have green or brown painted finish steel box
section cladding to the roof and walls. The building would be open-fronted with four
bays on the eastern elevation.
The applicant has indicated that the building would used for housing pigs and for the
storage of stock feed and straw. In addition one bay would be used for sanitation
facilities in the form of a WC and a sink area.
Access to the proposed building would be as existing via Hart Lane.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issues:
1. Scale of building.
2. Previous history of refusals for similar proposals on the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects on the grounds that the applicant is already in breach of planning laws and
the barn seems unnaturally large for the amount of animals to be housed.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
1. Previous planning abuse on the site resulting in current enforcement action.
2. Previous refusal for large agricultural buildings on the site.
3. There is no agricultural need for a large building on this small field.
4. Scale and design would have an adverse impact on the countryside.
5. Roads unsuitable for intensification of use that such a large building could
engender.
6. Run-off into the River Glaven.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Do not object to the
application. The section of Hart Lane where the application site is located is relatively
enclosed by mature hedging and trees, therefore the site itself is quite unnoticeable
within the surrounding rural landscape (as an average agricultural holding). However,
due to large gates on the neighbouring property and the presence of caravans on the
existing site, its location is relatively pronounced within the landscape, and does not
fit well with the rural and agricultural nature of the land.
The application proposes an agricultural building to the north west corner of the site,
adjacent to Hart Lane. The building is modest in terms of size and scale and is
appropriate in a rural landscape of this nature. The proposed removal of the existing
caravan will improve the site.
Environmental Health – Due to the close proximity of the agricultural building to the
residential caravan and its proposed use to house pigs and chickens, I would have
serious concerns regarding potential odour nuisance that could detrimentally affect
those living within the residential caravan. The following suggestions with regard to
the proposed adjacent residential caravan are therefore made to improve the
relationship between the agricultural building and the residential caravan:
Development Control Committee
13
26 August 2010
1. The agricultural building could be moved to a location further from the proposed
residential property.
2. Or the agricultural building could be conditioned to limit the number of animals that
can be housed at any one time.
With regard to impacts on other residential dwellings nearby, given that the proposed
agricultural building is not to be used for intensive farming and is small in scale,
provided that conditions are imposed regarding manual disposal and mechanical
ventilation, there would be no Environmental Health concerns in this respect.
County Council (Highways) – Subject to the use of this building being ancillary to the
existing agricultural uses of the land and there being no commercial use whatsoever
being carried out from the site, there is no highways objection to the proposal.
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.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of this development in countryside.
2. Impact on character of the area.
3. Impact on residential amenity.
4. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where agricultural development
is permitted in principle providing it accords with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
In terms of the siting of the proposed building it would be located to the north-west
corner of the site, would be set back from the road, and would be fairly well screened
from the highway. The field however is fairly open to the south. The design and
materials are considered to be acceptable for its agricultural use. In terms of scale,
whilst the building would be fairly large for the intended use, it would not be
Development Control Committee
14
26 August 2010
disproportionately large for an agricultural building within a rural landscape of this
nature. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the rural character of the area.
In terms of the proposed use, the building is intended for the keeping of pigs with one
smaller section (approximately 3.5m x 5m) intended for sanitation facilities for the
farmer which include a WC and sinks. This small sanitation area is considered
ancillary to the main agricultural use and is therefore considered acceptable.
The relationship of the proposed building to surrounding neighbouring residential
properties to the north and south is considered to be acceptable. The proposed
building would be approximately 130m from Franklins Farm to the south and
approximately 260m to the dwellings to the north. Given this relative distance to
dwelling to the north and south and subject to conditions suggested by Environmental
Health regarding manure disposal and details of any mechanical ventilation installed,
the proposal is not considered likely to result in any detrimental impact on the
amenities of those dwellings in terms of noise or odour.
In terms of impact on the amenities of the residential caravan to the east, the
planning status of the caravan is such that there is no lawful residential use for the
caravan and it is subject to enforcement proceedings. A planning application for its
retention (Planning reference 10/0206) was refused by the Committee at the June
meeting. No appeal has been submitted to date but could be submitted up until 21
December 2010. The Environmental Health Officer is concerned that the proposed
building would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the
caravan by virtue of its close proximity and proposed use for the housing of animals.
As such should the residential caravan remain on the adjacent site, the proposed
agricultural building would fail to comply with Policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy. Should the caravan be removed from the site, subject to conditions,
Environmental Health would have no objection to the proposed building.
Overall, the consideration of the impact on amenity of the adjacent caravan is
dependent on the outcome of enforcement proceedings and the decision of any
potential appeal of the refusal of the residential use of the caravan. However, given
that there is the potential for the applicant for the caravan to gain permission for the
residential use through the appeals process (submission until December 2010), it is
considered premature to assume this agricultural building would have no impact on
residential amenity.
The Committee will note that subject to conditions no objections have been raised by
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
In respect of highway safety, subject to the use of the building being ancillary to the
existing agricultural uses of the land and there being no commercial use carried out
from the site, County Council Highways have confirmed no objection subject to the
imposition of conditions.
On balance, the proposal is considered premature to enable a proper assessment of
the impact on residential amenity to be considered and is unacceptable in this
respect. However in all other respects the proposal is considered to accord with the
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse for the following reasons:
Development Control Committee
15
26 August 2010
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed building, by virtue
of its close proximity to the adjacent residential caravan, would result in an
adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of that property in terms of
odour nuisance, contrary to the aims of Policy EN4 and EN13 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy. Whilst the residential use of the adjacent caravan
is currently unlawful, the site could still gain permission for residential use
through the appeals process and as such it is considered premature to assume
that the adjacent residential use will cease. In this respect, the proposed
building would fail to comply with Policy EN4 and EN13 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
6.
FAKENHAM - AI/10/0686 - Display of internally illuminated window display
advertisement and two internally illuminated ATM surrounds; 27 Norwich
Street for ISG Cathedral Ltd
Target Date: 18 August 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
Advertisement Illuminated
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to display an internally illuminated window display advertisement
and two internally illuminated ATM (automated teller machine) surrounds.
The overall size of the window display advertisement would be approximately 1.5m
high by 1.2m wide. The outward face would have a back-lit graphic panel with a
maximum static illumination level of 600cd/m2.
The two ATM surrounds would measure approximately 1.5m high by 0.9m wide. The
static halo illumination and backlighting to text on the face panel would have a
maximum illumination level of 600cd/m2.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Gloria Lisher having regard to the following planning
issue:
Illumination in Conservation Area.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to internal illuminations on this building as it is within the Fakenham
Conservation Area.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - no objection providing imposition of condition requiring
that the level of illumination of the illuminated sign shall not exceed 600 cd/m2 and no
part of the illumination shall be directly visible to users of the adjacent public highway.
Development Control Committee
16
26 August 2010
Conservation and Design - no objection. Mindful of the quality of the existing
shopfront, and the fact that the host building is not listed, Conservation and Design do
not wish to raise a substantial objection to this revised signage.
Notwithstanding the proposed illumination, it is not considered that these minor
proposals would result in harm to the significance of the Fakenham Conservation
Area.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Design Guide (Adopted December 2008):
Chapter 8: Shopfronts and Advertisements.
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the visual amenity of the Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
In the absence of Highway safety objections, the issue for consideration relates solely
to the impact the illuminated advertisement and ATM surrounds would have upon the
appearance and character of the area which lies within a Conservation Area.
The Design Guide aims to allow businesses to advertise themselves successfully
whilst also having regard to their host building and the wider street scene in terms of
the scale, form, detailing, lettering, style and colour of the advertisements.
Given the quality of the existing shopfront and the minor development proposed, it is
considered that the host building is capable of accommodating the proposed sign and
illuminated ATM surrounds without having a detrimental impact on it or the
surrounding area.
On balance, it is considered that the visual impact of the illuminated advertisement
and ATM surround would be minimal, would not detract from the visual amenities of
the area, would preserve the character of the Conservation Area and would be in
accordance with the requirements of the North Norfolk Design Guide and Policy EN8.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of a condition restricting the level of
illumination to a maximum of 600cd/m2.
Development Control Committee
17
26 August 2010
7.
GRESHAM - PF/10/0724 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling (amended
design); Land at 3 Castle Close for Mr & Mrs Khalil
Minor Development
- Target Date: 19 August 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Tree Preservation Order
Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
National Air Traffic Service - Application for Wind Turbines
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070747 PO
Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 26/06/2007
PLA/20080221 PM
Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage
Approved 01/04/2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a one and a half storey dwelling on a similar footprint to the dwelling
previously approved under reference 20080221. The dwelling would have a height to
eaves of 3.5m and a height to ridge of 6.7m. The dwelling would be constructed of
brick with a clay tile roof and timber windows and doors.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Sweeney on the grounds of:
Impact of development on the amenities of adjoining neighbours
PARISH COUNCIL
Object because of the increased height of the proposed building and because the site
is already on higher ground than the majority of the surrounding houses.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters from immediate neighbours, in support.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - I note that planning permission was issued previously
for 07/0747/PO for a previous design. No objection, subject to conditions.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
18
26 August 2010
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy 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).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of Development
Impact of the proposed two-storey dwelling on the amenity of the occupiers of
adjacent properties
Highway Safety Considerations
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the countryside policy area where there is a general
presumption against the erection of new market dwellings. However, in this instance,
outline planning permission was granted in June 2007 which established the principle
of erecting a single-storey residential property on site. Subsequent reserved matters
were approved in April 2008 and the applicant has commenced development. The
applicant therefore has an indefinite period within which to complete the single-storey
dwelling as approved under ref 20080221.
In respect of scale and impact, the proposed two-storey dwelling would sit on an
identical footprint to the approved single-storey scheme but the eaves height would
now be 3.5m compared with 2.7m on the single-storey scheme and the ridge height
would now be 6.7m compared with 4.9m on the single-storey scheme. The proposed
dwelling would therefore be 0.8m taller to the eaves and 1.8m taller to the ridge than
the approved single-storey dwelling. Two first floor windows would look south, one
first floor window and rooflight would look east and a first floor door on the west
elevation would lead out onto a balcony of approximately 9.6sqm.
It is considered that the scale of the proposed two-storey dwelling is significantly
greater than that of the approved single-storey dwelling. However, because of the
ground level changes across the site and the proximity to neighbouring properties,
based on the submitted information it is not possible to clearly advise the Committee
of the potential impact of the first floor accommodation on the amenity of the
occupiers of adjacent properties at the time of writing this report.
The applicant's agent has been requested to submit a plan which identifies the
relative ground floor slab level and first floor level of the proposed dwelling Above
Ordnance Datum (AOD) together with the relative ground floor levels of surrounding
properties at numbers 1-4 Castle Close. This plan will allow the relative heights of the
dwellings to be properly assessed so as to establish whether there will be any
genuine concerns about impact on amenity. The Committee will be updated orally
pending receipt of the additional plan.
Development Control Committee
19
26 August 2010
In respect of highway safety considerations, the highway authority have raised no
objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
In summary, the principle of development on this site has already been established
and there are no highway safety objections subject to conditions. However without
sufficient information to be able to assess the impact of the proposed dwelling on the
amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties, it is not possible to advise Committee
whether the scheme would comply with relevant Development Plan policies. The
required information has been requested from the applicant's agent and the
Committee will be updated orally pending receipt of the additional plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Committee will be updated orally
8.
HOLT - PF/10/0630 - Variation of Condition 3 of 08/0697 to permit increase in
opening hours to 8.00 - 23.00; 28 High Street for Mr J Barnes
Target Date: 28 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080697 PF - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1 (retail) and A3
(cafe)
Approved 23/06/2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a variation of Condition 3 of planning permission 20080697 to allow an
increase in trading hours from 8:00 to 20:00 to 8:00am to 23:00 on any day.
A letter has been received from the applicant confirming his willingness to install a
rubberised floor covering to the stairs leading from the restaurant to the kitchen and
within the kitchen itself in order to mitigate against noise transfer.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL – No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from the owner of the neighbouring property to the rear which
raises the following concerns (summarised):
1. Noise and nuisance from external courtyard including wastes storage, especially
food waste/paper cardboard in enclosed area adjacent to escape route.
2. Noise, vibration and nuisance internally resulting from juxtaposition of restaurant
kitchen and bathroom/bedroom.
3. Extension of hours will exacerbate current problems of noise transfer from kitchen
and access stairs.
4. Risk of kitchen fire and its effect on the ability to evacuate house safely.
Development Control Committee
20
26 August 2010
A letter has also been received from the applicant who seeks to address the issues
raised by the neighbour. It states that air conditioning has been installed in the
kitchen to ensure that the windows are not opened, which they believe demonstrates
their commitment to an on-going relationship. Also that there is no commercial fan in
the wall adjoining the neighbouring property or any equipment adjacent to the party
wall. The only equipment use is a household mixer for the preparation of cakes and
they do not have any cutting or grinding equipment. Also no bottles are disposed of
in the rear yard but are stored in the front serving area of the shop and taken via the
front door to the bottle bank on a daily basis. In addition they state that they take their
Health and Safety issues seriously and employ a contractor who audits the premises
every six months in accordance with all current legislation. Environmental Health has
visited the premises on three occasions since opening and has made no negative
comments or recommendations regarding waste disposal. As far as the flooring is
concerned they are proposing a floor covering which has a impact sound insulation of
16db, which they believe would dramatically reduce any impact sound transfer from
the stairs and kitchen.
A further letter has been received from the owner of the neighbouring property who
consider that the rubberized floor would not remove the transfer of vibration, banging
and clanking and other movement found in a busy kitchen. They consider that the
only way to address the issue would be for the partitioning and soundproofing of the
common joists which run between the two premises to be soundproofed. They also
reiterate their concerns regarding the storage of bins in the rear courtyard and the
noise assisted with this late at night.
Environmental Health
(Original comments) - No objection subject to the applicant applying for an alteration
to the premises licence.
Comments are awaited in respect of the proposed noise mitigation measures.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on neighbouring amenities.
Development Control Committee
21
26 August 2010
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the Committee meeting on 29 July 2010 in order to
allow investigation by the Council's Environmental Protection Officer into the
effectiveness of the proposed rubberised floor covering to the stairs and kitchen area
together with the concerns raised regarding the transfer of noise to the adjoining
property.
The site is located in an area identified as Town Centre, where Policy SS5 of the
Core Strategy supports a broad range of uses, including shopping, commercial and
cultural. In 2008 planning permission was granted for the change of use of the
premises from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1 (retail) and A3 (cafe) when a condition
was imposed restricting the hours of trading on any one day from 8:00 to 20:00 hours.
Given the location of the premises within the town centre and its established use in
principle an extension of the hours of trading to 23:00 hours is considered to be
acceptable.
No. 28 High Street is a Grade II listed building which fronts High Street, but to the
rear of the premises is a modern two storey extension dating from the 1970’s of brick
under a clay pantile roof, the ground floor of which contains part of the restaurant,
servery and staff toilets with a staircase leading to a small kitchen and preparation
area at first floor level. This extension joins and is contiguous with Studio House to
the north which is a two storey dwelling which steps up to a third floor. At ground floor
this property has a garage joining the party wall, whilst at first floor abutting the
kitchen is an en-suite bathroom and bedroom. In addition there is an enclosed
courtyard to the eastern side of the premises which is used as a bin storage area for
the restaurant. This allows a rear emergency access to Studio House, through the
adjoining premises to the east.
As a result of the construction of the restaurant extension and the relationship with
Studio House, the owners of that dwelling have experienced the transfer of noise and
vibration from the restaurant kitchen which appears to be transferred primarily though
the floor joist, as the inner wall to the kitchen has already been soundproofed,
following discussion between the restaurant owner and the neighbours. As a result
the owners of Studio House are concerned that any extension in the hours of use
would exacerbate the current situation affecting their amenity is terms of noise and
disturbance late into the evening.
Following receipt of the letter from the owners of Studio House and a meeting with
the restaurant owner he has agreed as part of the application to install a suitable
rubberised floor covering to the stairs leading from the restaurant to the kitchen and
also the kitchen itself in order to mitigate against the transfer of noise.
In view of the neighbours' concerns and the proposed remedial works, the Council’s
Environment Protection Team has been re-consulted in order to seek a view as to the
acceptability of the proposed mitigation measures. At the time of writing this report
the Environmental Health Officer was due to visit the site to assess the likely
effectiveness of the proposed soundproofing measures.
It is therefore considered that subject to no objection from the Environmental
Protection Team the scheme as proposed would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to no new grounds of objection from Environmental
Health, and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
22
26 August 2010
9.
HOLT - PF/10/0709 - Continued use of former garage as hairdressing salon; 6
Swann Grove for Ms A Warnes
Minor Development
Target Date: 17 August 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to retain the use of an existing attached garage as a hairdressing salon. The
main dwelling remains as residential.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Baker having regard to the following planning issue:
Non-conforming use within a designated Residential Area which has led to parking
congestion.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the application subject to annual renewal.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from an occupier of a nearby flat raising
the following concerns (summarised):
1. Use has resulted in increased parking in adjacent private car park and along the
road.
2. Incorrect information given on the application form; opening hours are longer than
stated and additional part-time staff have worked at the business on a frequent
basis.
3. The commencement of business is stated on application form as being from 6
January 2008. However, business rates did not commence until 6 January 2009.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - no objection providing the imposition of a Condition
requiring the proposed on-site car parking area to be used in accordance with
submitted details.
Environmental Health - no comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Control Committee
23
26 August 2010
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Parking.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within a designated Residential Area where proposals for nonresidential development will be considered acceptable providing it is for an
appropriate and compatible use such as for a small-scale business.
In accordance with the submitted details, the applicant has verbally confirmed that
she is the sole hairdresser working at the salon. The applicant also confirmed that the
salon is open four days a week, although these days do vary on a weekly basis.
County Council (Highways) have assessed the application and are satisfied that
sufficient car parking spaces are provided within the curtilage of 6 Swann Grove to
meet the Parking Standards required by Policy CT6 of the Core Strategy for this size
and type of business and for the likely associated traffic generation.
The use of a garage as a hairdressing salon in a designated Residential Area is in
compliance with Policy SS 3 of the Core Strategy on the basis that it is a compatible
small-scale business use.
In the absence of Highway objections, it is considered that the continued use of the
attached garage as a hairdressing salon would be in accordance with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and a note
reminding the applicant that any future growth in the business at 6 Swann
Grove may be subject to the obtaining of further planning consent.
10.
HOVETON - PF/10/0733 - Erection of two-storey side extension and rear
conservatory; 32 Stalham Road for Mr Bygrave
Target Date: 26 August 2010
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20090405 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling
Refused 03/07/2009
20090742 PF - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage
Approved 06/10/2009
Development Control Committee
24
26 August 2010
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a two-storey side extension with rear dormer window and rear
conservatory.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Dixon having regard to the following planning issues:
Impact on the character and nature of the area
Concern over possible over intensive development
Likely impact on privacy
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection or comment
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received from local residents on grounds of:
1. Detrimental impact on nature and character of the area.
2. Over intensive development
3. Loss of privacy
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design
2. Impact on street scene
3. Impact on neighbour's amenities
APPRAISAL
The property lies within the Residential policy area of Hoveton where extensions to
dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with relevant Core
Strategy policies. The property is a semi -detached thatched cottage, one of a group
of three which face the Stalham Road but are set back off a slip road. Permission was
granted in 2009 for a single storey dwelling and garage to the south west of the
application site (previously part of the garden of the application site).
The proposal seeks to provide a two-storey side extension, rear conservatory and a
rear dormer (bedroom) window. The two storey side extension would replace an
existing single storey element and lean-to conservatory and would increase the
overall existing width of the property by approximately 1m at ground floor level. There
Development Control Committee
25
26 August 2010
is an existing first floor window on the side elevation. The proposal has two windows
at first floor level on the side elevation (bedroom and bathroom). These windows
would overlook the front garden (which is approximately 3.5 metres from the
proposal) of the adjacent (undeveloped) bungalow, It is considered that this element
of the proposal and the introduction of the rear dormer would not introduce any
significant overlooking of other dwelling windows or private garden areas. These
being between 15m - 55m away. The proposed conservatory would not have any
significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties.
In terms of design the proposal uses form, detailing and materials which are
compatible with the original building. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal would
introduce some imbalance with its adjoining semi and the 'group' this is not
considered significantly detrimental to the property or the wider street scene. It could
be argued that the side extension improves the appearance of the property by
removing the clay pantile single storey side element and basic lean-to conservatory.
The proposal would not result in a detrimental loss of private amenity space to the
existing dwelling and no overbearing impacts on other properties would be
introduced.
In conclusion it is considered that the proposal complies with the Development Plan
policies and is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to a materials condition.
11.
ITTERINGHAM - PF/10/0543 - Retention of Detached Annexe; Robin Farm, The
Street for Ms Blake
Target Date: 02 August 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Countryside
National Air Traffic Service - Application for Wind Turbines
Advertising Control
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19990876 PF
Change of use from agricultural land to residential garden and erection of wood store
and cart shed
Approved 20/09/1999
THE APPLICATION - Seeks to retain a detached annexe which is approximately 14m
in length and 6m in depth with a height to eaves of 2.4m and a height to ridge of
3.1m. The annexe is constructed of timber and the roof would be covered with
heather thatch and part earth. The property has three bedrooms set around a core
living area. The applicant proposes to construct two terrace areas, one to the front
and one to the rear, each being approximately 5m wide and 3m in depth and
accessed immediately off the main living area.
Development Control Committee
26
26 August 2010
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control in light of the complexity
of the case and the potential policy conflicts.
PARISH COUNCIL - comments awaited.
REPRESENTATIONS - One letter of objection has been received from the owner of
surrounding land.
Summary of objection:1. This is not a householder application but a change of use to a separate dwelling;
2. The submitted drawings/plans are inadequate;
3. The plans do not show the precise location or dimensions of the annexe;
4. There is no connection between the site and the nearest adopted County Road;
5. There is no delineation on the site plan, or elsewhere, of the boundaries of the
curtilage of the annexe;
6. The annexe is clearly a separate dwelling having no dependence or connection
with the existing dwelling on site;
7. Robin Farmhouse has been used for holiday accommodation;
8. The proposal is contrary to Development Plan policies.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection or comment
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions
Sustainability Co-ordinator - 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.
Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Control Committee
27
26 August 2010
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 a detached annexe in this location;
2. Relationship between proposed annexe and the host dwelling (Robin Farmhouse)
3. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;
4. Impact on Highway Safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside Policy area where there is a general
presumption against the erection of new dwellings. However, Policy SS 2 would allow
the extension and alteration of existing dwellings and this would include the erection
of annexes.
There are no specific Development Plan policies relating to annexes and therefore a
series of planning judgements has to be made on the basis of findings of fact and
degree. The planning case law is inconsistent in relation to annexe proposals and
there are few legal criteria or clear national guidelines that make the judgement as to
whether a proposal is an annexe or an independent dwelling easy. However, based
on relevant case law, the following factors will be relevant in this particular case:a. Physical relationship, proximity and interdependence of common facilities;
b. Size of annexe (needs to be subordinate) and whether the properties are linked or
separate;
c. A separate curtilage and separate access may indicate a separate dwelling;
d. Service connections - common postal address, whether there is a single supply of
electricity etc;
e. Intent to create a dwelling via an annexe;
f. Family ties.
Considering each of those factors in turn, the following assessment is made:
a) The application site is approximately 0.8ha and consists of the principal
residential dwelling known as Robin Farmhouse. Within the grounds of Robin
Farmhouse are a detached cart shed, detached wood store as well as the proposed
detached annexe. The detached annexe would be approximately 65-70m away from
the principal dwelling although would share the same vehicular access point. The
detached annexe has all the functions and facilities that would make it capable of
functioning as a separate dwelling.
b) The detached annexe would have a footprint of approximately 84sqm (excluding
the external decking areas). By comparison, Robin Farmhouse has a footprint of
approximately 103sqm, which is nearly double in size when taking account it also has
accommodation at first floor level. On this basis it is considered that the detached
annexe is subordinate in size to Robin Farmhouse.
c) Robin Farmhouse and the detached annexe are separated by a stand of mature
trees. However, although separated by some distance, there are no apparent
physical barriers (fences, walls or hedges) which delineate individual curtilages or
prevent access between either property. They also share the same access.
d) It is understood that the two properties share a common postal address, although
no details have been provided as to the nature of electricity or other service
connections so as to be able to establish the relationship/link with Robin Farmhouse.
Development Control Committee
28
26 August 2010
e) Prior to submission of the annexe application the applicant had placed Robin
Farmhouse on the open market for sale of the freehold, although had excluded the
detached annexe from within this sale. The applicants were advised of the planning
policy conflicts and breach of planning control that would arise if the proposed
detached annexe were sold separately from the principal property. The applicants
subsequently withdrew the property from sale. However, the applicants now live
permanently in the detached annexe and it is understood that Robin Farmhouse has
in the past and is currently on occasion being used for separate holiday
accommodation purposes. There may well be a case that planning permission would
be required to continue that use because a separate planning unit will have been
created. The applicants have been advised of this situation and further information
has been requested detailing how they intend to continue using Robin Farmhouse
and how the use of the annexe would be ancillary to the use of Robin Farmhouse.
The way in which Robin Farmhouse would be used is critical to the determination of
this application because if Robin Farmhouse became a separate planning unit (as
would be the case if it continued to be used for holiday letting) then it would not be
possible for the detached annexe to be considered ancillary to Robin Farmhouse and
would result in the creation of a separate dwelling in the countryside, contrary to
Development Plan policy. Further information has been requested from the applicant
and the Committee will be updated orally.
f) Whilst many annexes are occupied by relatives of those living in the principal
dwelling (for example elderly parents or disabled children) on this occasion it is
understood that there are no family ties between Robin Farmhouse and the detached
annexe other than the fact that they are both currently in the same ownership. Robin
Farmhouse has in the past and is currently on occasion being used for separate
holiday accommodation purposes, as described above.
Taking account of the above factors, whilst the detached annexe is subordinate in
size to Robin Farmhouse, shares the same access and appears to be part of the
same curtilage, on the basis of the evidence submitted with the application, there
were serious concerns regarding the use of Robin Farmhouse and this calls into
question the relationship between the principal dwelling and the proposed detached
annexe. If Robin Farmhouse continues to be used as separate holiday
accommodation then it is considered that approval of the detached annexe would
result in the creation of a separate dwelling, contrary to Development Plan policies.
The applicant has since indicated that she has agreed holiday lettings for the
farmhouse until mid-September with a possible further let until the end of October.
She has agreed that there will subsequently be no further lettings.
In respect of design, the applicant has stated that the annexe has been constructed
to minimise its impact on the environment and is highly insulated and designed so as
to minimise the use of resources. Whilst this claim cannot be verified and no Building
Regulations application has been lodged, on balance, given the recessive nature of
the building it is considered that the design would accord with Policy EN 4.
In respect of impact on the character and appearance of the Mannington and
Wolterton Conservation Area, the Conservation Design and Landscape Manager has
raised no objection to the proposal and the proposal preserves the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
In respect of highway safety considerations, the Highway Authority has raised no
objection subject to the annexe remaining incidental to the use of the main dwelling
and not being occupied as a separate and un-associated unit of accommodation.
Development Control Committee
29
26 August 2010
In summary, the determination of the application gives rise to a series of planning
judgements many of which are based on matters of fact and degree. As it stands,
there is concern that the annexe application may lead to the creation of a separate
detached dwelling in the countryside primarily because of the way that the applicant
is using the principal dwelling. Further information has been received outlining how
the applicant intends to continue using Robin Farmhouse and how the use of the
annexe would be ancillary to the use of Robin Farmhouse (see above and Appendix
4). However, at this stage further clarification is still required from the applicant in
relation to exactly how the farmhouse will be occupied and how this occupation will
ensure that the occupation of the annexe will remain ancillary and the Committee will
be updated orally.
RECOMMENDATION:
Committee will be updated orally.
12.
OVERSTRAND - LE/10/0716 - Demolition of section of boundary wall to
facilitate formation of vehicular access and parking area; 8 The Londs for Mrs
R Hillary
Target Date: 18 August 2010
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Conservation Area Demolition
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
THE APPLICATION
Demolition of a 4.5m section of a 1.4m high boundary wall, (including 1m width of the
pedestrian gate), to facilitate formation of a vehicular access and parking area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Cllr Mrs Fitch-Tillett for the following planning reasons:
Concern about the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area.
PARISHCOUNCIL
Objects on the grounds that it would constitute a major alteration to the streetscape in
a conservation area.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape - The section of wall to be removed does not
have any real intrinsic value or quality. The proposed demolition would involve a
relatively short length which would not significantly weaken the enclosure down the
Londs. There can be no sustainable Conservation & Design objections to this
proposal. On the understanding that the new wall into the site does indeed match the
remaining frontage wall, the application should not harm the significance of this part
of Overstrand's Conservation Area.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Development Control Committee
30
26 August 2010
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the Character and appearance of the Overstrand Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The application site is within the centre of the Overstrand and its designated
Conservation Area. The site is located near to the High Street end of the Londs
where typically the density of development is more concentrated. The section of wall
to be removed is close to the cottage. A one metre length behind the 45 degree
splay is to be rebuilt to match the boundary wall. The total section of wall lost
amounts to only 11% of the overall length of boundary wall.
Taking into account the section of wall to be removed is small, is close to the cottage
and the position of the dwelling at the southern end of the Londs where the cottages
are close to or abut the roadway, visually its removal would not harm the sense of
enclosure generated by the boundary walls and dwellings along the Londs.
Consequently, it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character and
appearance of the Overstrand Conservation Area.
The proposal complies therefore with relevant adopted Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 This conservation area consent is granted subject to the condition that the works
to which it relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years
beginning with the date on which the consent is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 18(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as
amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.
2 Within three months of the demolition hereby approved taking place the new wall
indicated on the approved plan shall be erected.
Reason:
In the interests of the visual amenity of the conservation area and in accordance with
Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3 The materials to be used on making good the wall and building the new wall shall
closely match those of the existing wall including replicating the flint work pattern, to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of the appearance of the wall in accordance with Policy EN 8 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Control Committee
31
26 August 2010
4 The works to which this consent relates shall be undertaken in strict accordance
with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications, unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure the works are carried out in accordance with the expressed intentions of
the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory completion of works in accordance with
Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0692 - Infilling of front elevation arched window; 35B
Cremer Street for Age Concern North Norfolk
Minor Development
Target Date: 12 August 2010
Case Officer: Miss M Hemstock
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to infill an existing front elevation arched window which currently serves the loft
area above the ceiling level.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact of the loss of the window on the architecture of the building.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection.
CONSULTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from the Sheringham Preservation Society
on the following grounds:
Infilling of the window is architecturally out of keeping.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Control Committee
32
26 August 2010
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on the character of the building.
APPRAISAL
35B Cremer Street is located within a Residential Area of Sheringham and does not
occupy a prominent position within the street scene.
The proposal involves blocking up an arched window on the front elevation with
blockwork which would be finished in a cream-coloured render to match the existing
building. Justification provided by the applicant for the infilling of the window is that
the wood has decayed and that the window no longer serves any purpose as it is
positioned above a suspended ceiling.
Whilst the window is an important feature and currently adds interest to the front
elevation of 35B Cremer Street, the site is not within a Conservation Area and it is not
considered that the loss of the window would have a significantly detrimental impact
on the wider street scene.
On the basis that the window no longer serves any purpose, and given that the
infilling of the window would not prevent its reinstatement at a later date, it is
considered that the proposal complies with the aims of Policy EN 4 of the adopted
Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
14.
STALHAM - PF/10/0869 - Variation of conditions 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17 and 18 to planning reference: 07/1919 to permit retention and
occupation of Phase 1 of development as built; Old Baker's Yard for Victory
Housing
Minor Development
Target Date: 24 September 2010
Case Officer: Mrs T Armitage
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Contaminated Land
Conservation Area
Archaeological Site
Primary Retail Frontages
Primary Shopping Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20010630 LE
Demolition of buildings to facilitate residential development
Approved 19/07/2001
PLA/20020034 PF
Erection of houses, flats, maisonettes incorporating shop unit
Approved 05/11/2003
PLA/20071440 PF
Erection of fourteen dwellings, five flats and two shops
Withdrawn 10/12/2007
Development Control Committee
33
26 August 2010
PLA/20071919 PF
Erection of ten houses, five flats and two shops
Approved 29/02/2008
THE APPLICATION
Is to vary a number of planning conditions previously imposed in relation to planning
ref: 07/1919 for the erection of ten houses, five flats and two shops. The flats and
shops front on to the High Street and have been constructed as Phase 1. The
application seeks to retain and occupy this element of the scheme as built. This
requires variation of planning conditions 2, 4 and 7-18 of the previous planning
permission, as the development has not been constructed in accordance with the
approved plans and a number of details should have been submitted and agreed
prior to the commencement of the development.
The frontage flat/shop block as constructed differs from the approved plans in the
following respects:
• Eaves and ridge height higher than previously approved
As approved - eaves min 6.0m – max 8.0m, ridge min 9.6m – max 11.6m
As built
- eaves min 7.2m – max 8.7m, ridge min 10m – max 12m
• Windows – variation in number of windows and pattern of fenestration on the front
and rear elevations
Material and joinery details are provided retrospectively, having not been approved
prior to commencement (contrary to condition nos. 11, 15)
The application includes full joinery details of the proposed shop front.
Details of Archaeological Evaluation conducted in response to the condition 16 of the
previous permission have been provided.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the sensitively of
the site and the range of planning issues involved.
TOWN COUNCIL
Comments awaited
REPRESENTATIONS
The applicant's agents have submitted a Planning Statement setting out the
background/circumstances behind the application, this is attached as Appendix 5.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager: I refer to the above proposal and to our
discussions concerning the proposed changes to the development approved in 2007.
The development concerned appears to be nearing its ‘practical completion’. Clearly
the building has not been built in accordance with the approved plans.
The site is of course a very prominent one, standing as it does on the main shopping
street of Stalham. The resultant building is very disappointing. In its current form the
general quality of the development and overall choice of materials leaves much to be
desired.
I have the following detailed comments:
Development Control Committee
34
26 August 2010
1. In my view the change in overall height from the approved plans is not that
significant. In ‘townscape’ terms the High Street is composed of a series of quite
variable buildings of different heights and scale and ‘rhythm’ and ‘grain’. The
development does not dominate the nearby church and contributes to the organic
pattern of built form along the street.
2. However the change in eaves heights of both elements of the development is
very unfortunate. This, combined with a poor choice of window, has resulted in a
substantial preponderance of wall to void (brick work :window), especially on the
‘church end’ or ‘buff coloured brick’ element. As it faces the High Street, window
depths are too small and the removal of a fourth window in the ‘buff bricked’
element has led to a very bland appearance.
3. There is lack of quality detailing around the windows and doors and corners of the
building
4. The choice of facing brick detracts from the character and design of the
development.
5. The use of top hung windows throughout and the lack of use of traditional sliding
sash windows also detract from the design. The quality of the frames is
questionable.
6. The change in eaves levels has had the resultant effect of making the roof pitch
shallower. This is at odds with the prevailing form in the Stalham Conservation
Area.
7. Code 3 (Code for Sustainable Construction) is cited as a reason for the changes
in the approved plans. The end result pays little regard to Stalham’s local
architectural distinctiveness.
How can matters be improved without substantial re-construction and cost?
(a) An ‘oriel’ or bay window could be installed in the ‘red brick’ element of the
development at first floor level. When the ‘hood’ to the window is taken into
account then the massive amount of ‘wall to void’ between first and second
floor can be visually reduced and the appearance enhanced. A similar bay or
oriel could be considered at first floor level in the ‘buff bricked’ element.
(b) The new shop fronts, designed in keeping with other Stalham examples with
higher ‘stall risers’ and stronger vertical elements, could have a deeper fascia.
This would help to link the ground with upper floors in a visual manner. The
predominant material should be wood.
(c) All windows could be replaced with deeper sash ones and in softwood painted
white.
(d) Between the first and second floor of the buff bricked element some form of
architectural device such as a cornice/ledge could be introduced. Above it
could be attached, possibly in stone, a plaque/datestone. This would need to
be sufficiently large. An alternative would be some attached but flat facing
signage.
(e) Funds permitting stone or re-constituted stone ‘quoins’ could be introduced for
the corners of each of the two units.
These comments relate primarily to the front elevation facing the High Street. The
side elevation facing the church is probably acceptable. Some consideration could be
given to deepening the windows in the rear elevation of the red brick element. I would
caution against the use of painted brick work to remove the shock of the ‘buff’.
I trust these comments are of assistance. As it stands the development does not
enhance the character of Stalham and its Conservation Area.
Environmental Health - comments awaited.
Development Control Committee
35
26 August 2010
County Council (Highways) - comments awaited.
English Heritage - 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.
Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Design – whether the alterations to the design and appearance of the building are
acceptable given the conservation setting / proximity to a listed building
APPRAISAL
The application site is located centrally on Stalham High Street, within the
Conservation Area and adjacent to St. Mary’s Church, a Grade 2* Listed Building.
The entire site is within the designated town centre and where it fronts the High Street
is part of the Primary Retail Frontage identified for Stalham.
The building subject to this application consists of, in accordance with planning
permission 07/1919, two retail units at ground floor level and 4no flats at upper levels.
This mix of uses is compliant with Policies SS 4 and EC 5 which to support the vitality
and viability of Primary Shopping Areas. The application includes a detailed drawing
of the two proposed retail units and indicates a traditional shop front/fascia design, to
be constructed in timber with a painted finish. At street level the shop fronts will be a
highly visible component of this development and it is considered important to ensure
that the design, in accordance with Policy EN8, makes a positive contribution to the
Town Centre and its Conservation Area designation.
The flats at upper floors have been constructed to comply with Code for Sustainable
Homes Level 3 and Housing Association spatial requirements. These construction
levels exceed those required under planning ref 07/1919 which in accordance with
Local Plan policy at the time, did not seek affordable housing in relation to this
scheme or for sustainable construction measures to be incorporated. In the event,
Phase 1 of this scheme has been acquired by Broadland Homes who are contracted
to sell the flats to Victory Housing Association for use as affordable flats (social rent)
for people in housing need in North Norfolk.
The intended use of the flats as affordable accommodation and the mandatory
requirement to meet Code level 3 standards has had a number of consequences for
the construction of the scheme. In particular the timber frame construction of the
Development Control Committee
36
26 August 2010
building has necessitated the use of deeper floor and ceiling joists. This, along with
the need to accommodate pipework associated with an air source heat pump system,
has increased the proportions of the building and accounts for the variation in
eaves/ridge heights now sought. As a result, in comparison with the approved
scheme the building as constructed has more extensive areas of brickwork given the
increase in distance between upper floor windows. Additionally the position and
number of windows has been revised.
Crucial to the determination of this application are Policies EN4 and EN8 and whether
the change in the proportions of the building has materially altered the appearance of
the building and whether it remains acceptable in design terms, given the
Conservation Area setting of the building and proximity of it to the listed church. This
assessment also requires full consideration of the external materials/joinery details
used in the implementation of this scheme, none of which have been subject to prior
approval by this council. At the time of preparing this report for Committee, Officers
were in the process of discussing possible changes to the proposals given concerns
over the detailing of the scheme and its appearance within the Conservation Area.
The submitted plans have been considered by the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager. His finding and recommendations are reported above and are
forming the basis of current negotiations with the developers.
Members will be updated orally at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
To be reported orally at Committee.
15.
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0339 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1
(retail) and A3 (cafe); Weybourne Stores, 2 Beach Lane for Mr M Joll
Target Date: 19 May 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20031707 PF
Conversion and extension of dwelling to 2 dwellings and a flat and reduction in size of
shop area
Refused 15/01/2004 Appeal allowed 13/10/2004
PF/10/0140 PF
Reconstruction of Shop and Installation of Replacement Shop Front
Approved 14/05/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for a change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1 (retail) and A3 (cafe).
This is a retrospective application and the A3 (cafe) use includes the siting of three
tables outside the shop.
Development Control Committee
37
26 August 2010
Amended plans have been received indicating a revised location for the outdoor
seating area.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Cordeaux for the following planning reasons:
Highway safety
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds of considerable concern for public safety in the immediate area
of the store given the obvious attraction of such a development. This results from the
lack of pathway on the eastern side of (narrow) Beach Road between the store and
Bunteas Cafe, the lack of parking spaces and congested road parking, particularly in
holiday periods, and the position of the entrance to the store virtually on the corner
Beach Road and The Street (A149). The Council wishes Highways to be consulted
over these concerns.
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters of objection have been received, two of which are from the same
objector raising the following points:
1. Highway safety
2. Lack of car parking
3. Increase in traffic
4. Detrimental impact upon other established businesses
5. Do not need another cafe in village
6. The shop should stay as a shop
Two letters of support have also been received.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - Original comments. The site currently operates
as a village shop as it has done for a number of years. The site is located at the
junction with the A149 Coast Road, Classified as a Tourist route under Norfolk
County Councils Route Hierarchy and is witness to considerable volumes of traffic.
There is currently only 2 parking spaces detailed on the site which are located to the
south side of the stores and require reversing manoeuvres to either enter or exit the
spaces adjacent to the junction with the busy A149.
Whilst I am mindful of the need to retain essential village facilities such as a Village
Store, I must seriously consider the impact of the development proposal upon the
highway and all road users
Obstructive parking currently occurs at the junction with the A149, with visibility
regularly obstructed of oncoming traffic to vehicles emerging from Beach Lane onto
the A149, which is considered hazardous, but can be addressed by the Police under
the Highway Code. The proposal for change of use to shop and café introduces a
different type of business. This new type of business is likely to be primarily accessed
by passing tourist traffic that may not otherwise be there. In this respect it is likely to
lead to intensification of use and prolonged parking requirement on the uncontrolled
Beach Lane, this extended parking period together with an intensification of use may
lead to further obstructive parking affecting the free flow of traffic along the A149
Coast road and a reduction in available visibility for emerging vehicles.
Development Control Committee
38
26 August 2010
It is apparent that the applicant is aware of the parking issues as a bollard has been
installed within the Public Highway to prevent obstruction of the new doorway. In
addition to this the new ramp serving the shop has been installed over the Highway
and is considered to be contrary to the Highways Act 1980.
These issues will be addressed from our Highways Operations Department at
Aylsham.
This site has previously been the subject of a planning application to subdivide the
building to 3 dwellings and a smaller shop, which was recommended for refusal by
the Highways Authority including the comment:‘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 therefore be likely to lead to an undesirable increase in
on-street parking to the detriment to highway safety’
Planning consent was subsequently granted at Appeal (ref APP/Y2620/A/04/116470)
where the Appeal Inspector commented;
‘Given the low volume of traffic on Beach Lane and the speed limits, I conclude that
the additional vehicles generated by the new dwellings would not cause unacceptable
harm to road safety conditions.’
Unfortunately, given the Inspectors comments regarding the site and that this
proposal would be likely to engender an increase in parking requirement of lower
magnitude than that permitted by the subdivision, I find I am unable to raise a
highways objection to this proposal, but I would seek to give weight to the concerns
raised relative to this proposal and its effect of the surrounding road network.
Comments in relation to amended plans - No objection
Environmental Health - Providing no ventilation system is being installed in the area
where the food will be produced there are no Environmental Health concerns.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - Awaiting comments.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Development Control Committee
39
26 August 2010
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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. Acceptability of principle of proposal
2. Impact on neighbouring properties
3. Highway safety
4. Impact on Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the residential policy area of Weybourne where compatible
non-residential development including small-scale business, community, leisure and
social uses are permitted provided they accord with other relevant Core Strategy
policies. The principle of a mixed use development of A1 and A3 uses in this location
is therefore considered to be acceptable.
Whilst some concerns from local residents have been raised regarding the impact an
A3 use will have on the established food businesses in the village 'competition' is not
a planning matter. There is no planning policy for this location which restricts the
number of A3 uses permitted.
No objection has been received from the Environmental Protection Officer subject to
no ventilation systems being installed, which can be controlled by condition that
details are to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to installation.
An amended plan has been received indicating the location of the outdoor seating
area for the A3 use. The original location shown was in the small front garden area to
the west facing Beach Lane. However, this was not considered an acceptable
location for the seating as an earlier planning permission had been implemented at
this site for the sub-division of the existing dwelling (Refs: 20031707) and that area
provides the car parking. If the seating area was located there then 20031707 would
not be able to be implemented in accordance with the approved plans. The applicant
has therefore given further consideration to the location for the outdoor seating area
in connection with the A3 use, and has changed the location to the south east corner
of the site facing The Street. Subject to no objections being received from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager it is considered that this location is
acceptable and does not have a significant detrimental impact upon the residential
amenities of nearby occupiers or on the character and appearance on the
Conservation Area.
Concerns have been raised from local residents regarding car parking and highway
safety. However, there are no parking restrictions along the area of Beach Lane
opposite the shop and there are a number of other different uses in the immediate
area which generate traffic and parking, including two other cafes along Beach Lane
and holiday accommodation.
Development Control Committee
40
26 August 2010
With regard to car parking at the site 2 existing spaces are provided. In accordance
with the Council's car parking standards 4 spaces are required in relation to the A1
use and a further 2 spaces are required for the A3 use, making 6 in total. Therefore,
there was already a shortfall of 2 car parking spaces when the use was solely A1, but
with the addition of the A3 use the applicant now has a total shortfall of 4 parking
spaces. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy CT6.
However, notwithstanding this shortfall, the Committee will note that the Highway
Authority is not raising an objection to the application. They are also mindful of the
previous appeal decision on the site. In view of this a refusal of the application based
on lack of car parking and impact on highway safety would be difficult to substantiate
in this instance.
It is therefore considered that subject to no objections from outstanding consultees on
the amended plans that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the mixed
use development is acceptable and would not materially conflict with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to no objections from outstanding consultees, and
imposition of appropriate conditions.
16.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to make
representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
GREAT RYBURGH - PF/09/0966 – Proposed erection of 2 silos and formation of
lorry park; Land at Crisp Maltings, Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control in order for
Members to appreciate the proposed development within the context of the site and
surroundings.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/10/0784 – Erection of two, two storey dwellings
and four apartments; Partners, Northfield Lane, Wells-next-the-Sea
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Savory on the grounds of highway safety and design.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Control Committee
41
26 August 2010
17.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - PF/10/0553 - Conversion of former dwelling from storage
use to residential dwelling with two-storey side and rear extensions and
conversion of former cottage and barn to annexe; Dales Yard, The Street for Mr
J Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/0673 - Variation of condition 2 of planning reference:
08/0322/PO to include siting as a matter for subsequent approval; Hill Top, Mill
Lane for East Anglian Property Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - NMA1/83/0140 - Non-material amendment request to permit
replacement rear balcony with dormer window and changes to door and window
positions; Building Plot at Beach Road for Mr & Mrs Gillingham
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BACTON - LA/10/0700 - Installation of replacement windows; 4 Keswick Road
for Mr Daglish
(Listed Building Alterations)
BINHAM - LA/10/0635 - Installation of replacement windows; The Cottage, Front
Street for Ms Towle
(Listed Building Alterations)
BINHAM - NMA1/10/0483 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
larger equipment cabin; Ntl Site 11407, Cockthorpe Airfield, The Street,
Cockthorpe for Arqiva Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0601 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land adjacent
Sedges, Back Lane for Draycott Develpoments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/06/0284 - Non-material amendment request for revised roof
to sunroom extension; South Granary, 9 The Quay for Mr R Curtis
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
COLBY - PF/10/0531 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide
annexe/holiday accommodation; Hollyhocks, Mill Road, Banningham for Mr P
Lancaster
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/10/0669 - Erection of front and side extensions; Cedarwood, North
Walsham Road, Banningham for Mr S Keeler
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/0670 - Erection of rear conservatory; 5
Mountains Road, Corpusty for Mr & Mrs M Powell
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0628 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions and
rear dormer window; 14 Hill Close for Mr J Sterne
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
42
26 August 2010
CROMER - AI/10/0632 - Installation of illumination to existing advertisements;
36, Prince Of Wales Road for Mrs S Akhter
(Advertisement Illuminated)
EDGEFIELD - PF/10/0470 - Erection of two-storey rear extension, single-storey
side extension and detached double garage; Duck Pond Cottage, Holt Road for
Mr Window & Ms Whittaker
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/09/0811 - Non-material amendment request to re-locate
personnel door; Mount Farm House, Hunworth Road for Dr Chase
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0493 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
four dwellings; 11 The Drift for Mr and Mrs K Topping
(Outline Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0592 - Installation of velux roof windows; 131 Holt Road for
Kennedy
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0647 - Change of use to a mixed use of B1 (office), B8
(storage) and A1 (retail); Heath Barn, Norwich Road for Mr A Broughton
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0660 - Installation of two wall-mounted air conditioning
units; 21 Norwich Street for Flagship Housing Group
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/09/0819 - Installation of three air conditioning units and
external pipework; 37 Bridge Street for Dr D M Hansell
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0726 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Joann,
Heath Lane for Nicholson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0744 - Erection of timber building for use as games room;
10 Barons Close for The Benjamin Foundation
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0775 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (financial and
professional services); 15 Oak Street for A & B Management Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/05/1213 - Non-material amendment request for revised door
and fenestration arrangements; 2 Southgates Drive for Miss C Longwill
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/09/0468 - Non-material amendment request for re-location
of boundary wall; 37 Sculthorpe Road for Mr T Jackson
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELBRIGG - LA/10/0368 - Conversion of One Dwelling into Two Flats; Mill
Cottage, Felbrigg Park for National Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
43
26 August 2010
FELBRIGG - PF/10/0369 - Conversion of One Dwelling into Two Flats; Mill
Cottage, Felbrigg Park for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - PF/10/0617 - Erection of single-storey detached annexe; Rear
Garden of Chusan, Metton Road for Walter
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - NP/10/0706 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Marsh Farm, Little Marsh Lane for Duncan
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
FULMODESTON - PF/10/0613 - Erection of rear conservatory; 132 The Street,
Barney for Mr and Ms Tann
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/0675 - Erection of single-storey extension with balcony
over.; Barn 1: Old Hall Farm, The Street, Barney for Mr Armstrong
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - LA/10/0676 - Erection of lean-to extension with balcony
above.; Barn 1, Old Hall Farm, The Street, Barney for Mr Armstrong
(Listed Building Alterations)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/0690 - Erection of replacement toilet block; Old Brick
Kilns, Little Barney Lane for Strahan
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - LA/10/0516 - Internal alterations to West Wing and reinstatement of external doorway; The Manor House, Barsham Road for Schmidt
(Listed Building Alterations)
GRESHAM - PF/10/0371 - Erection of detached double garage; 32 Holt Road for
Murray
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - PF/10/0680 - Retention of studio/summer house; Mill Farm House,
Mill Road for Mr T Keen
(Householder application)
GUNTHORPE - LA/10/0646 - Alterations to barn to provide meat processing
building with office; Woodhouse Farm, Bale for P & P Professional Farmers Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
GUNTHORPE - NP/10/0762 - Prior notification of intention to demolish part of
dwelling; Wren Cottage, 6 Swanton Road for Albanwise Limited
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
HICKLING - PF/10/0645 - Erection of detached four-berth garage and entrance
gate and walls; Nether Hall, Ouse Lane for Mr S Lambard
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/10/0648 - Erection of games room/annexe, garage and tractor
shed; Beaconsfield Farm, Ingham Road for Mr & Mrs Conrathe
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
44
26 August 2010
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/0640 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land at 62
Pineheath Road for Mr Rogers
(Reserved Matters)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0460 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
formation of vehicular access; 46 Wells Road for Mr and Mrs Shearly
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0730 - Erection of detached annexe (revised roof and
window design); 1 Bale Road for Mr C Courbage
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0540 - Two-storey side extension to detached house; 15 Eccles
Road for Mr and Mrs Ackroyd
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0600 - Erection of single-storey side extension to provide annexe;
21 Greenways for Baker
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/10/0622 - Installation of replacement windows and doors; 50 High
Street for Mr M Lane
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/10/0663 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to B2 (motor repairs/MOT
testing station); Unit 4a, Hempstead Road Industrial Estate, Glaven Road for Mr
G Jeary
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/10/0740 - Erection of single-storey/first floor rear/side extension;
Dragonfly Cottage, 14 Mill Street for Mrs Ingram
(Householder application)
HOLT - NMA1/09/1112 - Non-material amendment request for revised door,
fenestration and brick type; Plot 5, Land at Orchard Piece, Kelling Road for
Character Homes Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOLT - NMA1/08/0943 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
cedar cladding; 58A Grove Lane for Derek Foreman House Builders Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
KETTLESTONE - PF/10/0443 - Conversion of outbuildings to residential annexe;
The Old Rectory, The Street for Mr and Mrs Little
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/10/0585 - Extension and conversion of redundant agricultural
buildings to provide 2 residential dwellings; Junction of Blakeney Road and
Holt Road for Mr P Allen
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/10/0607 - Erection of single-storey side extension and five
dormer windows; 19 North Street for Gozney
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
45
26 August 2010
LANGHAM - PF/10/0637 - Erection of garden/games room and re-construction of
dog kennel; Home Close, North Street for Mr P Allen
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/10/0720 - Alterations to garage/outbuilding; Orchard House,
Field Dalling Road for Mr A Iles
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - LA/10/0721 - Restoration and minor alterations to garage
outbuilding including internal and external alterations to fenestration and doors,
addition of conservation rooflight; Orchard House, Field Dalling Road for Mr A
Iles
(Listed Building Alterations)
LUDHAM - PF/10/0665 - Erection of rear conservatory; High Mill Hill Cottage,
High Mill Hill, Yarmouth Road for Murr
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - NMA1/10/0349 - Non-material amendment request to decrease width
of extension by 300mm, change rear elevation window to patio door and amend
height of first floor windows; 5 Malthouse Lane for Mr P Lambert
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0549 - Erection of Gazebo, removal of bay window,
insertion of entrance doors and windows and installation of replacement
paving; 30 Paston Road for Fotis
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0620 - Erection of two-storey side extension and front
entrance porch; 16 Northfield Road for Rogers
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0644 - Erection of garage; 38 Trunch Road for Mr P A
Lucas
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0610 - Erection of rear garden room and alterations
to front entrance; 57A Mundesley Road for Murrell Cork Funeral Directors
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0614 - Erection of extension to garden room; 29
Norwich Road for Thomas
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0624 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 11
Meadow Close for Mr J Bishop-Laggett
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0638 - Erection of front entrance porch; 24 Aylsham
Road for Mr Fuller
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0658 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 6
Millfield Road for Mr J Long
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
46
26 August 2010
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0718 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission reference 06/1741 to permit continued construction of extension
prior to approval of materials; Richmond, Holgate Road for Mr and Mrs R
Pamment
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/0633 - Erection of garden room extension; 10 Thurst
Road for Ferguson
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - NMA1/09/1160 - Non-material amendment request to replace
shallow and mono-pitched roofs with steeper pitched and flat roofs with roof
light; 3 Cromer Road for Mr P Wegg
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
PUDDING NORTON - PF/10/0778 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear
extension; 4 Dereham Road for Mr R Ward
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0643 - Erection of two-storey rear extension, front porch and
re-location of conservatory; Northenden, Cromer Road, West Runton for Mr G
Montgomery
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0653 - Conversion of dwelling to 2 residential units; Clifden,
High Street, East Runton for Dr E Wilson
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/0756 - Raising of roof pitch and installation of dormer windows
to facilitate conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation; Timneys, 126
Cromer Road, West Runton for Mr P Rose
(Householder application)
RUNTON - NMA1/07/1290 - Non-material amendment request for revisions to
garage; Land adjacent Ambleside, Broomhill, East Runton for Mr N Payne
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RYBURGH - NMA1/08/0654 - Non-material amendment request to permit change
of roof material; The Pool House, Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr & Mrs
Lanham
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0661 - Variation of condition 2 of 08/0598 to permit
retention of single-storey extension and increased size of east gable; 3 Manor
Farm Barns, Cross Street for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0698 - Erection of front porch; Pear Tree Cottage, Cross
Street for Singer
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/10/0573 - Erection of boundary wall with incorporated log
and bin store; 22 Norfolk Road for Munday
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
47
26 August 2010
SHERINGHAM - LE/10/0599 - Demolition of storage buildings; Store Rear Of, 51
Station Road for Rickwood
(Conservation Area Demolition)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0659 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 20 The
Avenue for Mr & Mrs D Eastwood
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0688 - Erection of extension to existing garage.; 7
Orchard Close for Mr Long
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0695 - Erection of detached double garage and office and
replacement gate; 22A Hooks Hill Road for Spence
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0704 - Erection of one and a half storey extension; The
Cottage, 5 St Nicholas Place for Dr McDermot
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - AN/10/0739 - Continued display of non-illuminated poster
panels; Budgens, 2 Church Street for J & P Retail Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - PO/10/0766 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 2 Cremers Drift
for London City Mission
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0776 - Variation of Condition 8 of planning permission
reference 09/0203 to permit occupation of dwellings once a final code
certificate, certifying that Code Level 2 has been achieved, has been issued and
submitted; Land at Lawson Way for Flagship Housing Group
(Full Planning Permission)
SMALLBURGH - PF/09/1083 - Removal of Agricultural Occupancy Restriction;
Barton Meadow, Norwich Road for H J Saunders & Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/0681 - Erection of single-storey side extension; High
Bank, Pit Street for Mrs S Woodcock
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/0701 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Poplar
House, Church Street for Mr & Mrs Richards
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/10/0728 - Erection of single-storey side extensions; Sundown,
Moor Lane, The Green for Boddington
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/10/0650 - Installation of roof and alterations to Courtyard Tower;
The Old Hall, Church Street for Dr & Mr A Bell
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
48
26 August 2010
STIFFKEY - LA/10/0651 - Installation of roof and alterations to Courtyard Tower;
The Old Hall, Church Street for Dr & Mr A Bell
(Listed Building Alterations)
SUTTON - PF/10/0621 - Erection of attached single-storey extension; Wensley
Lodge, Hickling Road for Burton
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/10/0662 - Erection of rear conservatory; The
Bungalow, Long Common Lane for Mrs Jay
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/10/0629 - Erection of rear conservatory; 23 Lancaster Road,
Sculthorpe for Mrs L Belton
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - PF/10/0623 - Erection of extension to provide swimming pool;
Alton House, Letheringsett Road for Mr D P Earp
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/10/0433 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Barn opposite 2 Clarks Lane for Dr Swallow
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/10/0609 - Erection of holiday unit (revised siting).; 14 The
Meadows, North Lane for Mr Cushing
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/10/0626 - Erection of single-storey extension; West Barn, Brick
Kiln Farm, Mundesley Road for Gramlick
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - NMA1/08/1178 - Non-material amendment request for
the installation of three windows and one set of French glazed doors to south
elevation of barn number 3; Ivy Farm Barns, Cranfield Road for Trustees of
John Ashton's Children's Settlement
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0668 - Erection of rear extension; Mill Lodge,
Polka Road for Mr J Stannard
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0727 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land at
The Old Rectory, Church Street for Mr & Mrs Griffiths-Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0735 - Installation of clear glass to upper section
of gable window; Swallow Cottage, 8 Mindhams Yard for Mr & Mrs Fullwood
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/10/0036 - Request for non-material amendment
to permit omission of first floor window and installation of roof light; Westend
House, 26 Dogger Lane for Mr and Mrs Dixon
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Control Committee
49
26 August 2010
WEST BECKHAM - PF/10/0667 - Retention of single-storey rear extension and
converted outbuilding and erection of two-storey side extension; 2 Hall Farm
Cottages, Church Road for Mr W Desmarais
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0732 - Construction of hipped roof to flat-roofed
extension; Westmead, Holt Road for Mr and Mrs R Lee
(Householder application)
WITTON - PF/10/0593 - Erection of rear single storey garden room and insertion
of two velux roof windows to rear elevation; Pine Lodge, Heath Road, Ridlington
for Stone
(Householder application)
WITTON - NMA1/08/1691 - Non-material amendment request to permit
installation of roof lights; The Orchard, Happisburgh Road, Ridlington for Mr
and Mrs R Fitches
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WIVETON - PF/10/0731 - Erection of replacement garage/store; Beaconend, Hall
Lane for Mr and Mrs R Tee
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/10/0722 - Conversion of games room to one unit of holiday
accommodation and creation of new vehicular access; Starwood, Rectory Road
for Mr Hilldrup
(Full Planning Permission)
18.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CATFIELD - PF/10/0496 - Continued use for vehicle storage, repairs and sales;
Former Mushroom Farm, The Street for Catfield Car & Commercials
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0786 - Variation of Condition 2 of 08/1690 to increase
opening hours to 8.00 am to 1.00 am each day; 25 Bridge Street for Mr A Demir
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/10/0694 - Erection of two-storey dwelling (revised design);
Paxfield Farm, Paxfield Road for Mr Agnew
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - PM/10/0636 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; Land
adjacent 57 The Street for Mr Parker
(Reserved Matters)
HOLT - AI/10/0641 - Installation of illuminated window display unit; 1-5 High
Street for ISG Cathedral Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HOLT - LA/10/0642 - Installation of window display unit; 1-5 High Street for ISG
Cathedral Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
50
26 August 2010
LANGHAM - PF/10/0655 - Retention of two metre high close boarded fence and
erection of two metre high mesh fence; Manor Cottage, Cockthorpe Road for Mr
J Blackwell
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0598 - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings; Store
Rear of 51 Station Road for Rickwood
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/99/0990 - Request for non-material amendment
to permit installation of two additional windows and flue pipe; The Coach
House, The Bowling Green for Mr Griffiths-Jones
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0746 - Erection of first floor extension; 4
California Terrace, Warham Road for Mr & Mrs A Dessent
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - AN/10/0751 - Continued display of non-illuminated
advertisement; Armeria, Warham Road for Armeria Bed and Breakfast
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
APPEALS SECTION
19.
NEW APPEALS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/0292 - Erection of Two-Storey Rear Extension; 2
Meadow Cottages, Beeston Common for Mr Gotts
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
20.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57 Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 07 September 2010
CROMER - PF/09/0930 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 57 Church Street
for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 07 September 2010
21.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/09/1202 - Erection of agricultural building and formation of
access roadway; Land at Hart Lane for Mr D Knowles
ERPINGHAM - PF/09/0566 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage and
stable block; site at Eagle Farm, The Street for Mr W G Wright
HOVETON - PM/10/0058 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning reference
20041723 to enable approved holiday units to be occupied as two residential
dwellings; Two Saints Barn, Tunstead Road for Legislator 1363
Development Control Committee
51
26 August 2010
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 - Conversion of A1 (Retail Shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin-store; Barber's Shop to rear 22, Station Road for
Museum Cottages
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0714 - Erection of single storey dwelling; 43, Nelson Road
for Holbrook
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way for Mr P James
SITE VISIT:- 04 August 2010
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0197 - Proposed general purpose agricultural building; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr Clark
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road for Jeffrey
22.
APPEAL DECISIONS
None
Development Control Committee
52
26 August 2010