OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 26 FEBRUARY 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
CROMER - PF/15/0068 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
11/0387 to permit retention of dormer window in revised position; Exton House,
1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
- Target Date: 27 March 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Public Realm
Listed Building Grade II
Archaeological Site
Settlement Boundary
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19970504 LA - Replacement roof
Approved 28/08/1997
PF/10/1376 HOU - Erection of replacement rear extension, installation of dormer
window and introduction of gable end
Withdrawn by Applicant 01/04/2011
LA/10/1377 LA - Internal alterations, door and window alterations, erection of
replacement rear extension, installation of dormer window and introduction of gable
end
Withdrawn by Applicant 01/04/2011
PF/11/0387 HOU - Construction of rear dormer window, installation of side roof
light and erection of replacement rear extension
Approved 09/06/2011
LA/11/0388 LA - Demolition and re-building of rear extension, construction of rear
dormer window, installation of rooflight, rendered plinth, gib door, window to replace
entrance door, new entrance door, uncover flint to rear and internal refurbishment
Approved 13/06/2011
LA/11/1214 LA - Application of painted render to approved rear extension
Approved 11/11/2011
NMA1/11/0387 NMH - Non-material amendment request for replacing flint/brick
external wall finish to rear courtyard to painted render
Approved 14/10/2011
PF/13/0768
HOU - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension and
installation of one rear dormer window and retention of rear dormer to 1 Surrey Street,
as constructed
Withdrawn by Applicant 19/01/2015
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
LA/13/0769
LA - Demolition of rear extension and erection of replacement
extension, installation of one rear dormer window and internal alterations and
installation of revised dormer window to 1 Surrey Street (retrospective)
Withdrawn by Applicant 19/01/2015
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference
11/0387 to permit retention of dormer window in revised position. Condition 2 of
11/0387 required development to be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans. The approved position on the roofslope provided a space between the chimney
and the cheek of the dormer. The dormer to be retained has been constructed
adjoining the chimney. In addition the number of panes within the sash window has
increased from 3 across the width to 4. (See also LA/15/0069 on this agenda).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is an elected Member of the District Council
TOWN COUNCIL
No response received at the time of writing the report. Members will be updated at the
meeting.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations received at the time of writing the report. Site Notice and press
notices expire on 24 & 25 February 2015. Members will be updated at the meeting.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design: No formal response received at the time of writing the
report. It has been indicated informally that there are not likely to be any objections.
Members will be updated at the meeting.
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):
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on historic character of listed building and surrounding Conservation Area.
2. Relationship with neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
Exton House (formerly Cliffside) is a Grade II listed building situated on the southern
corner of The Gangway and Surrey Street and forms the northern end of the row of
attached listed properties, with The Gangway itself also being Grade II listed from the
north of Exton House to the sea.
Development Committee
2
26 February 2015
The property is located within the designated Town Centre for Cromer as defined by
the adopted Core Strategy and is also within the Cromer Conservation Area where
extensions to domestic dwellings are considered acceptable in principle.
The principle of the construction of a dormer to this rear roofslope has been
established by the approval of application reference 11/0387. This application is a
retrospective application to vary condition 2 of 11/0387 to retain the dormer as
constructed. The position of the dormer on the roofslope is not in full accordance with
what was originally permitted and the proportions are also slightly different from that
approved; such that the number of glazing panes has been increased, moving from 3
across the width to 4 to match the number of panes in existing windows.
The applicant has advised that the precise positioning of the dormer was determined
by the position of the existing roof joists and the need to ensure minimum disturbance
to the existing fabric. The position as constructed required alterations to only two roof
joists. However this position resulted in there being a very small gap between the
dormer and the existing chimney stack. This gap was considered to be too small to
allow for acceptable weather-proofing and therefore the dormer was modified such
that no gap was left between the dormer and the chimney.
It is considered that the position and overall scale, design and proportions of the
dormer window are acceptable given its location within the street scene and preserves
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is not considered that it
would give rise to any significant issues of overlooking of neighbouring properties.
The proposal is considered to comply with Policies EN4 and EN8 of the Development
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to
(i) No new material issues being raised following receipt of replies from
outstanding consultees and the expiry of the consultation period.
2.
CROMER - LA/15/0069 - Retention of dormer window to rear roof slope; Exton
House, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
- Target Date: 27 March 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Listed Building Alterations
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Public Realm
Listed Building Grade II
Archaeological Site
Settlement Boundary
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19970504 LA - Replacement roof
Approved 28/08/1997
PF/10/1376 HOU - Erection of replacement rear extension, installation of dormer
window and introduction of gable end
Withdrawn by Applicant 01/04/2011
Development Committee
3
26 February 2015
LA/10/1377 LA - Internal alterations, door and window alterations, erection of
replacement rear extension, installation of dormer window and introduction of gable
end
Withdrawn by Applicant 01/04/2011
PF/11/0387 HOU - Construction of rear dormer window, installation of side roof
light and erection of replacement rear extension
Approved 09/06/2011
LA/11/0388 LA - Demolition and re-building of rear extension, construction of rear
dormer window, installation of rooflight, rendered plinth, gib door, window to replace
entrance door, new entrance door, uncover flint to rear and internal refurbishment
Approved 13/06/2011
LA/11/1214 LA - Application of painted render to approved rear extension
Approved 11/11/2011
NMA1/11/0387 NMH - Non-material amendment request for replacing flint/brick
external wall finish to rear courtyard to painted render
Approved 14/10/2011
PF/13/0768
HOU - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension and
installation of one rear dormer window and retention of rear dormer to 1 Surrey Street,
as constructed
Withdrawn by Applicant 19/01/2015
LA/13/0769
LA - Demolition of rear extension and erection of replacement
extension, installation of one rear dormer window and internal alterations and
installation of revised dormer window to 1 Surrey Street (retrospective)
Withdrawn by Applicant 19/01/2015
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the retention of a dormer window to the rear elevation.
Construction of a dormer window to this roof slope was approved by the Committee
under reference 11/0388; the approved position on the roofslope provided a space
between the chimney and the cheek of the dormer. The dormer to be retained has
been constructed adjoining the chimney. In addition the number of panes has
increased from 3 across the width to 4. (See also PF/15/0068 on this agenda).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is an elected Member of the District Council
TOWN COUNCIL
No formal response received at the time of writing the report. Informally it has been
indicated that there are not likely to be any objections. Members will be updated at
the meeting.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations received at the time of writing the report. Site Notice and press
notices expire on 24 & 25 February 2015. Members will be updated at the meeting.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design: No response received at the time of writing the report.
Members will be updated at the meeting.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
4
26 February 2015
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 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 historic character of listed building.
APPRAISAL
Exton House (formerly Cliffside) is a Grade II listed building situated on the southern
corner of The Gangway and Surrey Street and forms the northern end of the row of
attached listed properties, with The Gangway itself also being Grade II listed from the
north of Exton House to the sea.
The property is located within the designated Town Centre for Cromer as defined by
the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policy EN8 is
applicable. This requires that development proposals, including alterations and
extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated
assets, in this case the listed building and wider Conservation Area and their settings
through high quality, sensitive design. Furthermore development that would have an
adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
The principle of the construction of a dormer to this rear roofslope has been
established by the approval of application reference 11/0388. This application is a
retrospective application to retain the dormer as constructed. The position of the
dormer on the roofslope is not in full accordance with what was originally permitted and
the proportions are also slightly different from that approved; such that the number of
glazing panes has been increased, moving from 3 across the width to 4 to match the
number of panes in existing windows.
The applicant has advised that the precise positioning of the dormer was determined
by the position of the existing roof joists and the need to ensure minimum disturbance
to the existing fabric. The position as constructed required alterations to only two roof
joists. However this position resulted in there being a very small gap between the
dormer and the existing chimney stack. This gap was considered to be too small to
allow for acceptable weather-proofing and therefore the dormer was modified such
that no gap was left between the dormer and the chimney.
It is considered that the overall position, design, scale and proportions of the dormer
window are acceptable and do not detrimentally impact on the character and
appearance of the listed building.
The proposal is considered to comply with Policy EN8 of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to
(i) No new material issues being raised following receipt of replies from
outstanding consultees and the expiry of the consultation period.
Development Committee
5
26 February 2015
3.
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1632 - Change of use of A1 (retail) to mixed use A1 (retail)
and A3 (restaurant/cafe) and insertion of new shop front; 8-10 Bridge Street for
ACCA Ltd
- Target Date: 09 February 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Town Centre
Primary Retail Frontages
Primary Shopping Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19800874 PF - Conversion of existing shop to sell radios and tvs and
alterations to elevations
Approved 06/06/1980
PLA/19840216 PF - Change of use of first floor to restaurant
Approved 26/03/1984
PLA/19882909 PF - Change of use from ladies hairdressers to American fast food
family restaurant
Approved 26/01/1989
PF/14/1632 PF - Change of use of A1 (retail) to mixed use A1 (retail) and A3
(restaurant/cafe) and insertion of new shop front
AI/14/1633 AI - Display of three illuminated fascia and one projecting signs
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is to provide a mixed A1 (retail)/A3 (restaurant/cafe) unit to be used as a
coffee shop (Costa), combining the two existing vacant units into one.
The internal layout measures approximately 115sqm and incorporates seating,
counter service and preparation area, and a toilet. The proposal will also create an
outdoor seating area for customer next to the southern side of the building, the size of
which has been revised, as part of the seating area was situated on land owner by the
Highway Authority. This seating area will be partially enclosed with fixed barriers. Bin
storage is located next to this seating area towards the rear of the building. The
amended plan has been readvertised.
Externally, the stall riser detailing on the front of the premises will be retained and
repainted, and it should be noted that an associated application for signage on the
premises (AI/14/1633) is likely to be determined under delegated powers.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Punchard citing the following reasons:
The proposal is contrary to Policy EC 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy and would
provide no addition to the non-A1 aspect as the town has a number of coffee shops
already. The NPPF states that developments must be sustainable. The proposal could
cause others to close.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object as there is a concern that the proposed entrance in the middle of the property
opens straight onto a very narrow section of pavement on Bridge Street. The
committee feels that the florist entrance should be retained.
Development Committee
6
26 February 2015
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, 6 objections have been received raising the following concerns:
 The proposal is contrary to Policy EC5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy
 The need to increase diversity of shops in towns - there is a current lack of diversity
 Core Strategy states there is no identified need for additional food retailing in the
town
 People go elsewhere to do most of their non-food shopping (e.g. Norwich)
 Findings of the Retail Study and Sustainable Community Strategy produced for the
Core Strategy highlighted the need for a range of goods and shops which is
currently lacking in Fakenham.
 Applicant's Planning Statement is disputed in regards to the stated percentage of
non-A1 uses in the Primary Retail Frontages.
 More competition for existing cafes/restaurants, which may close.
 The proposal is unsustainable and contrary to both the National Planning Policy
Framework and Core Strategy.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - initial objection as part of the external seating area was
on land owned by the Highways Authority. As a result of this the agent reviewed the
plans and subsequently amended the external seating area so that it falls within land
controlled solely by the applicant.
Having re-consulted the Highway Authority, they now have no objection to the
proposal.
Environmental Health - no objection. Have requested two conditions relating to the
installation of an extractor/ventilation system and disposal of sewage.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
7
26 February 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Change of use contrary to Policy EC 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Design (entrance to premises)
Vitality of the Town Centre
Highway safety
APPRAISAL
1. Location and principle of development
The two vacant units in question occupy the ground floor of a two-storey building on
the corner of Bridge Street, adjacent Bridge Street car Park to the south and directly
opposite the Millers Walk shopping precinct to the east, with the main Town Centre
(Market Place) to the north. The units were formerly used as a video shop and florist,
both A1 uses. As the units lie within the Town Centre policy designation for Fakenham,
under Policy SS 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, their use for retail and other uses
compatible with the town centre are deemed to be acceptable in principle, subject to
compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
2. Change of use - North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy EC 5
The site lies within an identified Primary Retail Frontage under policy EC5.
The proposal is contrary to Policy EC 5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, which only
allows for up to 30% of the defined retail frontage, (measured in linear frontage and not
the number of units), to be used for non-A1 uses. For clarity, there are four Primary
Retail Frontages in Fakenham - the frontage in this particular case runs from 8-10
Bridge Street (the subject of this application), to 14 Market Place (Nationwide Building
Society). Currently, approximately 48% of the linear frontage is used for non-A1 uses
and as such, before this application was submitted the percentage allowance of
non-A1 uses had already been exceeded.
Although this proposal does not accord with Policy EC5 and objections highlighting the
need for variety and choice in town centres are recognised (as referred to in paragraph
2.9.8 of the Core Strategy in regards to Fakenham), it is nevertheless considered the
proposal would bring a number of benefits to the Town.
Importantly, it will bring two vacant units (one vacant for nearly 17 months) back into
use on the edge of the Town Centre. Furthermore, the vacant unit is on a key
entrance route into the town centre and opposite Millers Walk. In this respect, the
benefits visually of bringing two units back into use should be recognised, along with
the prospect of providing employment opportunities in the town. The units presently
display a rather stark blue and pink colour scheme, and as such, the new proposal, by
way of using a darker and more subdued colour scheme, would visually enhance the
site which lies within the Conservation Area.
Whilst it is acknowledged that a number of coffee shops/cafes already exist in the
town, it is considered that in this instance, given the relatively small floorspace and the
edge of town centre location (on the edge of the Primary Retail Frontage), that the
proposal will not have a significantly detrimental impact upon the vitality of the town
centre as a whole. It could also be argued that bringing the two vacant units back into
use will encourage visitors to venture further into the town centre.
Finally, the proposal is described as a mixed A1/A3 use and as such, although largely
a coffee shop, there is a retailing element of the proposal, with the coffee shop also
selling merchandise to customers - the agent has confirmed that retail display units
would be located towards the front of the store.
Development Committee
8
26 February 2015
3. National Planning Policy Framework - Town Centres
The government is taking an increasingly flexible approach to town centre uses.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities should 'promote competitive
town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer...'. As discussed
above, although a number of coffee shops/cafes already exist in the town, allowing this
proposal will add to competition and choice which will be of benefit to consumers.
Competition with other similar businesses is inevitable and is not a planning reason for
refusal.
Paragraph 10 of the NPPF also states that 'Plans and decisions need to take local
circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for
achieving sustainable development in different areas.' Furthermore, paragraph 19 of
the NPPF states that 'Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an
impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on
the need to support economic growth through the planning system.' Taking the issue
of sustainable development into account, the proposal could be argued as sustainable
as it is located in the town centre, with good links to public transport and adjacent to an
existing car park. It also brings two vacant units back into use and therefore represents
a good opportunity to revitalise a sustainable brownfield site. Strictly adhering to the
Primary Retail Frontage limits as detailed in Policy EC 5, could be seen, in this
instance, as a barrier to supporting economic growth and as such, the inward
investment opportunity presented by this proposal should be given significant weight in
coming to a decision.
It is also worth noting that the flexible approach to town centres is also made clear
through the Government's recent changes to Permitted Development Rights relating to
retail units. Under these rights, it is possible to the change the use of the unit in
question to an A3 (cafe) use for a temporary period of up to two years without planning
permission.
4. Shop entrance
The Town Council have raised an objection in regards to the entrance to the proposed
shop onto Bridge Street, where there is currently a narrow stretch of pavement.
Although these concerns are noted, it would be unreasonable to insist upon an
alternative entrance given the previous use of the premises as a retail unit utilising the
same entrance. Furthermore, the florist entrance has also been retained affording
customers the choice of two entrances.
Furthermore, the Highway Authority has raised no objections on highway safety
grounds.
5. Design and appearance (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
The building lies within the Conservation Area of Fakenham. As previously mentioned,
most of the detailing would be retained, including the stall riser, plinths and pilasters,
but with a colour scheme that will appear less stark within the Conservation Area. The
signage for the proposed use is being dealt with under an associated application. As
such, given that the fabric of the building will remain largely as existing and possibly
enhanced, there are no concerns in regards to the impact of the changes upon the
Conservation Area and therefore is considered to be compliant with Policy EN 8.
Furthermore, there are no concerns regarding amenity, as the proposal should not
result in any detrimental impact upon adjoining premises or nearby residents in terms
of noise and disturbance, or odour, and as such, it is considered to be compliant with
Policy EN 4. Any installation of extractor equipment will be dealt with under Conditions
Development Committee
9
26 February 2015
requested by Environmental Health.
The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections subject to conditions.
6. Access and Parking (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The building is within the town centre and adjacent the Bridge Street car park where
ample parking currently exists. The building is also within short walking distance of
other car parks in the town and public transport service. Furthermore, the Highway
Authority have raised no objection to the proposal in regards to parking and current
flows of traffic and as such, it is considered to be compliant with Policies CT 5 and CT
6.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that, although the proposal is contrary to Policy EC 5 of
the North Norfolk Core Strategy, the benefits of the proposal outweigh any possible
negative impacts. These benefits include bringing two vacant units back into use and
the economic benefits this would bring to the town in terms of investment and jobs, and
the tidying up visually of a key gateway into the town. As such, a departure from
adopted policy in this instance is considered to be justifiable and and as such, the
proposal it is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new
material issues or grounds for objection being raised following readvertisement
and the imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
4.
FIELD DALLING - PF/14/1384 - Erection of 2 storey side extension with glass
link; School Lane Cottage, 10-11 School Road, Saxlingham for Mirka McNeill
Design
Target Date: 17 December 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Development in the Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19831329 PF Garage - Approved 04/11/1983
PLA/19872193 PF Conservatory - Approved 11/01/1988
PLA/20050017 PF extension of garden store to form sunroom and alterations to
conservatory - Approved 02/03/2005
PF/13/0389 HOU Erection of two-storey front extension, construction of dormer
window and alterations to existing dormer windows, re-instatement of first floor side
window and demolition of conservatory - Approved 10/06/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to erect a two-storey side extension with a glazed link to the host
dwelling‟s northwest elevation. The extension would measure 15m D x 4.5m W x 6.3m
H giving a footprint of approximately 67sqm.
Materials: Front elevation, reclaimed oak structure with glazed panels. Rear elevation,
reclaimed oak structure with rendered panels. The northwest side elevation would be
Development Committee
10
26 February 2015
rendered. Southeast, side elevation would be reclaimed oak structure with a
combination of glazed panels and panels infilled with red brick laid in a herringbone
design. The chimney would be red brick and the roof tiled with reclaimed terracotta red
peg tiles.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at the last meeting for a committee site visit.
Previously at the request of Cllr. L. Brettle with regard to the development‟s scale and
appropriateness of design.
PARISH COUNCIL
Did not wish to comment
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection. The objectors raise the following issues:
 The extension is contrary to Core Strategy Policies HO8, EN2, EN4 and EN8
 Adverse impact on neighbouring property‟s trees
 Design, scale and mass of the extension
 Extension‟s design would change the character of the village – not of
local/vernacular design
 A Welsh cruck barn is entirely incompatible with the character and appearance of a
conservation area
 Proposed building incongruous in this setting (proximity to village church), the
objector wonders whether English Heritage would have a view where such a
sensitive heritage asset is concerned
 The applicant is in breach of Conditions 2 and 3 of PF/13/0389 with regard to
roofing materials
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - makes
the following comments:
The site lies within the designated Saxlingham Conservation Area. School Lane
Cottage whilst not being ‘listed’ does by virtue of its age, form, detailing and
materials make a significant contribution to the prevailing character of the area.
The principal cottage was subject to a recent application (PF/13/0389) to extend
and alter the buildings detailing and materials, as a consequence of which the
architectural style of the property has taken a distinct move away from its original
vernacular character to a more contrived architectural style. This latest proposal
further emphasises this change in character and perception.
The revised scheme does represent a significant step forward from the original
Dev21 application. The plans have addressed C&D’s previous reservations
regarding overall footprint, scale, lack of subservience and relationship to the host
building. That said, the concern remains over the honesty of the design principles
and the erosion of local distinctiveness. In essence the extension is a piece of
architectural fantasy more akin to a monastic barn or Tudor farmhouse rather than a
North Norfolk cottage.
Notwithstanding the above, the general form and scale of the extension does sit
comfortably with the host building, the introduction of the glass link helps in creating
visual separation and a clear break to the cottage. The extension being sited on the
north-west elevation of the cottage means it will not hold a prominent position on
Development Committee
11
26 February 2015
approach to the site or from the public domain and will to a large extent be screened
by the vegetation boundary and host building.
Overall, whilst the proposal fails to reflect the local distinctive characteristics of the
original dwelling and locality – on balance the impact of the wider setting of the
Conservation Area will be relatively minor.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): raises no objection to
the proposed development subject to the development being carried out in strict
compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) submitted with the
application (Arbor Research Associates 22/10/2014). The landscape officer notes that
CD&L cannot comment on the High Hedge calculations submitted in the Arboricultural
Method Statement without a formal High Hedge compliant submission.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy 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 8:
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
Appropriateness of design and scale
Impact on a Conservation Area
Impact on neighbouring property
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at committee 30 January 2014 for a site visit.
School Lane Cottage lies in a location defined by the North Norfolk Local Development
Framework Core Strategy as Countryside Policy Area and a Conservation Area, where
subject to compliance to Policies SS2, HO8, EN2, EN8 and EN4 the extension to
existing dwellings is in principle permitted.
Policies SS2 and HO8 – states development should be designed to a high standard,
Development Committee
12
26 February 2015
reflect local distinctiveness and should not result in a disproportionately large increase
to the height and/or scale of the original dwelling. Furthermore development should not
result in the material impact of the host dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside.
Policies EN2 and EN8 – requires that proposals should demonstrate that there
location, scale, design and use of materials will protect, conserve and where possible
enhance an areas special qualities, local distinctiveness, settlement character and
preserve heritage assets.
Policy EN4 – states development be designed to a high quality, be suitably designed
for the context within which it is set and that the scale and massing of building relate
sympathetically to the surrounding area. In addition, proposals should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
A number of local concerns have been raised regarding the design, scale and palate of
materials to be use on the proposed extension. However, it is considered that as a
result of alterations the host dwelling has taken a distinct move away from its original
vernacular character to a more contrived architectural style. Thus the proposed
extension would be in keeping with the host dwelling and would sit comfortably
alongside it.
The current proposal represents a step forward from an original informal proposal in
that its overall footprint and scale have been significantly reduced. These changes
permit the extension to take on a subservient role and the glazed link helps in creating
a visual separation and clear break with the cottage. Furthermore, the extension would
not hold a prominent position and to a large extent would be screened from view via
boundary vegetation and the existing property.
Whilst the proposal fails to reflect local distinctiveness its secluded location suggests,
on balance, it would have a relatively minor impact on the conservation area and the
wider community.
In terms of impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, the absence of windows
to the northwest (side) and north northeast (rear) elevation and its distance from
neighbouring properties suggests the development would not impact upon their
residential amenity. However, concern has been raised as to what impact the
development would have on the adjacent property‟s trees. An Arboricultural Method
Statement (AMS) submitted with the application suggests if the development is carried
out in strict accordance with the AMS the development would not harm the trees.
With regard to the breach of conditions imposed to planning application PF/13/0389:
The breach relates to the roofing of the approved front extension and dormer windows.
This is to be dealt with as a separate enforcement matter.
Notwithstanding the lack of local distinctiveness, the Conservation and Design team
do not object, and the design of the proposal, its appearance in the conservation Area
and relationship with neighbouring properties are considered acceptable.
The proposal does not significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan policies
and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
To approve subject to the following conditions:
Development Committee
13
26 February 2015
(i)
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
(ii)
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications
received by the Local planning Authority 22 October 2014 and 16 December 2014.
(iii)
Prior to their use on site, details of the brick and tile shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA. The work shall then be carried out only in strict
accordance with the approved details.
(iv)
Details of the external colour finish to the render shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.
(v)
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA, all rainwater goods shall be finished in
black.
(vi)
The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Arboricultural
Method Statement (AMS) submitted with the application (Arbor Research associates
22/10/2014.
(vii)
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that
Order with or without modification) no windows or rooflights shall be inserted in the
flank wall or roof of the hereby approved two-storey side extension‟s northwest
elevation unless planning permission has been first granted by the Local Planning
Authority.
5.
HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/1499 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Lion
House, The Street for Mr & Mrs Iles
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 January 2015
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19780330 HR - Erection of dwelling
Approved 07/04/1978
PLA/19860394 PO - Erection of a single dwelling
Approved 28/03/1986
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to erect a detached dwelling within the garden of Lion House. It
would be sited between Lion House and Hindringham Methodist Church. The site is
approximately 17 metres wide and 56 metres deep.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of both Councillor Peter Terrington and Councillor Jonathan Savory
Development Committee
14
26 February 2015
having regard to paragraph 55 of the NPPF which promotes sustainable development
in rural areas.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response at time of writing report.
REPRESENTATIONS
1 letter objecting, 3 letters commenting and 2 letters supporting received.
Issues raised in the objecting letter;
 View from their house will be obstructed (3 Chapel Road)
Issues raised by the letters commenting;
 No objection to the plans (4 The Street and 1 Moorgate Road)
 Seems to be a sensible in-fill and better than erecting dwellings on agricultural land
 No anticipated adverse impact upon the Methodist Church or its members
 Plot is separate with its own access
 Planning permission has been granted twice before
 Applicants take an active role in the life of the village, contributing to the community
Issues raised by the supporters;
 Dwelling has been designed to be sympathetic and blend in with the former farm
workers cottages which align both sides of the road
 Church does not have any overlooking windows to the site
 New house would improve immeasurably that side of the road, filling a gap which
has been stark and somewhat untidy for a number of years
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highway Authority) (summary) - concerns regarding the
parking provision and access arrangements. The highway boundary extends into the
site approximately 4m from the kerb line over land which is owned by Norfolk County
Council. This land would require Stopping Up (removing highway rights) to allow the
development to take place, in addition to an agreement in relation to the ownership
(however the ownership is not a material planning consideration). Amended plans
have been requested to ensure 3 acceptable parking spaces, together with turning
space, could be provided. At the time of writing this report the amended plans do not
meet this requirement. However further advice has been provided to the agent in
relation to the alterations needed. Visibility from remaining Lion House's access would
need to be improved. Internal consultation is underway within Norfolk County Council
regarding the potential Stopping Up Order.
Planning Policy Manager makes the following comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above proposals. I have considered
the documents submitted in support of the proposals by the agent but have not visited
the site. I have confined my comments to the applicability of adopted planning policies
in relation to development in the Countryside (SS2).
The agent acknowledges that the proposals are contrary to adopted policy which
includes a presumption against residential development in areas designated as
‘Countryside’ in the Development Plan. It is argued that the site has formally enjoyed
planning permission for erection of a dwelling, that the Core Strategy is out of date
given that it predates the NPPF, and that the sustainability credentials of the proposal
justify a departure from adopted policies.
The planning history of the site is a material consideration which should be taken into
account in reaching a decision. However the permissions granted on this site were
some years ago when the North Norfolk Local Plan constituted the adopted policy
Development Committee
15
26 February 2015
framework. The former Local Plan allowed for residential development in this location.
The last recorded planning permission was granted in 1986 and unless works were
undertaken to implement this permission it lapsed in 1991. Given the passage of time,
and the replacement of the Local Plan with the adopted Core Strategy the history of the
site should be afforded very little weight in the decision making process. Certainly this
issue alone is insufficient to justify a departure from adopted policies.
The Core Strategy includes controls over the location of development. The extent to
which development is supported is based on the relative sustainability of the location.
The ‘Countryside’ policy area is the least sustainable and within this designation Policy
SS2 states that planning permission for residential development should not be
permitted. Nevertheless some forms of housing, including the re-use of existing
buildings for dwellings and the provision of affordable housing, are acceptable in
recognition of the wider sustainability benefits associated with such proposals.
The NPPF post-dates the adoption of the Core Strategy and is a material
consideration. It provides, at paragraph 214, that for 12 months after the publication of
the Framework, decision makers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies
adopted since 2004. This 12 month period has lapsed and it follows that if policies
conflict with the NPPF, full weight should be attached to the NPPF. Policies should not
be regarded as out of date merely due to the passage of time.
The NPPF states at paragraph 55 that to promote sustainable development in rural
areas housing should be located where it will ‘enhance or maintain the vitality of rural
communities’ and ‘isolated homes in the Countryside should be avoided’. The NPPF is
silent in relation to what might constitute ‘isolation’ and what is necessary to
demonstrate that a proposal might ‘enhance or maintain vitality.’ The limited number of
appeal decisions in the District which address this issue have focused on a
combination of the physical relationship of the site to other development and the
proximity of day to day services. There are very few facilities in Hindringham and
residents are highly dependent upon car journeys to access services. Notwithstanding
that the proposal appears well related to existing development and represents an ‘infill’
development the location is nevertheless unsustainable and the grant of permission
would be contrary to both national and local policy.
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
Development Committee
16
26 February 2015
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Overlooking
3. Stopping up of highway land at front of site
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development, Policy SS2 and NPPF
The site lies within an area of Countryside where new residential dwellings are not
normally permitted under Policy SS 2. Whilst a dwelling has previously been approved
at this site, under PLA/19780330 and PLA/19860394, there are no extant planning
permissions.
The site is currently used as a garden by the applicants and is largely laid to lawn, with
two steel containers on the site. In this part of the village buildings lie either side of the
road, mainly consisting of dwellings. All of Hindringham lies within the Countryside
Policy Area. It is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling.
New dwellings are not normally permitted under Policy SS 2, however the
applicants/agent consider the site to be a sustainable location for a new dwelling under
NPPF.
They consider the location to be sustainable, therefore complying with the NPPF,
specifically paragraph 55. Whilst it is noted that the site is within the main fold of the
village, the village does not have a development boundary according to NNDC's Core
Strategy. The guidance within the NPPF in paragraph 12 states that "Proposed
development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and
proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise". Members will note the comments of the Planning
Policy Manager. The Core Strategy is considered to be an up to date Local Plan.
Whilst it is noted that the village offers some local facilities, they are relatively few in
number and the location is considered unsustainable and therefore contrary to
Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
Policy EN 4
With the applicant's dwelling being two storey and the neighbouring church of a similar
height, a two storey dwelling could prove to be acceptable in terms of design. The new
dwelling would be readily visible from the road and has been designed to relate to the
form and siting of applicant's dwelling. The immediate street scene here is largely
characterised by dwellings sited relatively close to the road with their principal
elevations fronting the highway. With traditional materials to be used to the front of the
dwelling, the design would preserve the existing character of the area.
With minimal windows in the gable ends of the neighbouring buildings and the
proposed dwelling the impact upon neighbours at these points is considered
acceptable. However a projection to the rear would lead to the introduction of several
windows serving this section along both elevations; facing north-east to the church and
south-west to Lion House. The impact upon the Church is considered acceptable; the
adjacent land is hard standing and used for parking only. However the south-west
windows would create overlooking into the rear garden serving Lion House. The
Development Committee
17
26 February 2015
proposed windows currently number 4-5, to include 3 bedroom windows, 1 en-suite
window and a glazed section serving the balcony. The combined impact from all these
windows is considered to be unacceptable under Policy EN 4, leading to a significant
impact upon the residential amenity of Lion House. Whilst this may not be an issue at
the current time, the ownership of both properties is unlikely to stay within one
person/one family indefinitely. It is noted that this garden is partially overlooked
already, but the proposed windows would allow direct sight under 10m away.
Policies CT 5 and CT 6
Lion House is currently served by two accesses. It is proposed to retain two accesses
(one to be relocated), with one continuing to be used by Lion House and the other by
the proposed dwelling. The principal is considered to be acceptable, with appropriate
visibility splays created and maintained. A requested amended plan is anticipated to
demonstrate that the site is large enough to be able to provide sufficient parking for
both properties, complying with Policy CT 5.
A strip of land running along the frontage of the whole site is currently owned by the
Highway Authority, who have rights over it enabling them to control the use. Following
discussions with the Highway Authority the applicant/agent has been advised that a
Stopping Up Order under The Town and Country Planning Act could be possible,
removing the rights that the Highway Authority currently have. This can be done as
part of a planning application. If the Committee were minded to approve this
application a note and condition would be added advising the agent/applicant of the
requirement to obtain a Stopping Up Order prior to any development. However there is
no certainty that this would be granted. At the time of writing this report the Highway
Authority have yet to finally advise whether they would be likely to object or not.
However statutory undertakers may also choose to object, who would not be consulted
prior to a formal application.
Committee shall be updated on both matters at the meeting.
Policy EN 6
With a suitable condition added, compliance with Policy EN 6 can be achieved.
Conclusion
The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy EN 4 and Policy SS 2 of the
adopted Core Strategy, and the NPPF, and is therefore recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse, on the following grounds;
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO 9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside
Policy EN 4: Design
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) (published 27 March 2012)
is also material to the determination of the application.
The site lies within an area designated as Countryside, where there is a general
presumption against residential development. Furthermore the location is
considered to be unsustainable under paragraph 55 of the National Planning
Policy Framework. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the case put
Development Committee
18
26 February 2015
forward by the applicant does not provide sufficient justification to permit the
erection of an additional dwelling in the Countryside contrary to Policy SS 2 of
the adopted Core Strategy.
Furthermore it is considered that the cumulative impact from the proposed
windows along the southwestern elevation of the rear projection would result in
significant overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, to the
detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of the property,
conflicting with the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
6.
HOLT - PO/14/1603 - Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land South of Lodge Close for Gladman Developments Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 11 March 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Unclassified Road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/14/0846 PO
Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated infrastructure
Refused 02/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
The application is in outline form with all matters of detail reserved for later approval.
It is supported by the following plans / documents:
Illustrative 'Development Framework' plan
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement (including 'Illustrative Masterplan')
Affordable Housing Statement
Transport Assessment
Travel Plan
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Arboricultural Assessment
Ecological Appraisal
Archaeological Assessment
Soil Resources and Agricultural Use Assessment
Land Contamination Report
Flood Risk Assessment
Foul Drainage Assessment
Utilities Appraisal
Socio-economic Sustainability Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Habitats Regulations Assessment
Housing Trajectory Report
Future Housing Requirements Report
Development Committee
19
26 February 2015
Also submitted is a list of Heads of Terms (S.106 Obligation) covering the following:
Affordable Housing
Open Space
Play Facilities
Public Footpath Links
Education
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This is a repeat application to one recently considered by members which raises
significant planning policy issues.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects. Repeats previous grounds of objection raised to application ref: PO/14/0846,
which was as follows:
"Unanimous decision that the application should be refused due to the following:
 Access straight onto playing field
 Problems with access from small inadequate roads and also issues with a ransom
strip needed from Victory Housing
 A very real fire risk, being situated so close to Holt Country Park
 Infrastructure issues
This land could be better utilised for other purposes such as a new junior school"
REPRESENTATIONS
20 individual letters of objection received on the following grounds:
- site is outside of the town development boundary / contrary to development plan
policy.
- planned housing for Holt has already been met.
- would result in over-provision of new housing in Holt.
- the Council has a five year land supply.
- local primary school is at full capacity.
- town's infrastructure (schools, doctors surgery) will not support another 170
dwellings.
- unsustainable development for Holt.
- limited local employment opportunities.
- unacceptable road access routes to the site.
- Lodge Close access inadequate
- traffic safety.
- approved housing development off Hempstead Road will already increase traffic on
Edinburgh Road / Charles Road.
- would be very visible from and have adverse impact upon Holt Country Park.
- close proximity to a site of special scientific interest (SSSI)
- type of housing proposed would be out of character with the area..
- will destroy character of Holt.
- will lead to traffic congestion in town.
- loss of agricultural land.
- loss of wildlife habitat.
- fire risk.
- noise.
- misleading statements submitted with the application.
Letter of objection received from CPRE Norfolk arguing against the applicant's case
that there is not a five year housing land supply in the district. Even if this were to be
the case the adverse impacts of the proposed development outweigh the benefits.
Development Committee
20
26 February 2015
Also raises concerns in relation to access and infrastructure capacity (primary school
and sewage treatment works).
Letter received from the applicants contending that the application represents
sustainable development and consequently should be approved at the earliest
opportunity. The proposal is eminently deliverable and will deliver homes quickly which
contribute towards the Council's 5-year land supply. Reference is made to the
following S.106 contributions which are being offered as part of the application:
 a bus hopper scheme
 education
 libraries
 fire hydrants
 45% affordable housing subject to viability
 maintenance of the Country Park
 A LEAP or payment towards off-site play equipment
The letter goes on to say that in their experience there is no certainty that an Inspector
at appeal will agree with the parties that all contributions meet the required tests for a
S.106 planning obligation. "This would mean that a community may not be guaranteed
the same level of community benefits if the matter is determined at appeal."
The letter argues the applicants' case in terms that the Council's housing requirement
in the adopted Core Strategy is out of date and that the Council does not have a five
year land supply. (Full contents of letter attached in Appendix 1).
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Confirms that there is at present available capacity at Holt Sewage
Treatment Works to cater for the development but in terms of the foul sewage network
the development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. A drainage
strategy will need to be prepared in consultation with Anglian Water to determine
mitigation measures.
Recommends conditions requiring submission of both foul water and surface water
strategies in the event of planning permission being granted.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to a surface water drainage scheme
condition being attached to any permission.
County Council (Highways) - Advises that a development of this size requires two
points of access.
Two accesses are illustrated as being from Beresford Road and Lodge Close, however
the access point from Lodge Close does not appear to be deliverable at present due to
a strip of land between the end of Lodge Close and the site. Lodge Close at this point is
also not adopted and whilst the Highway Authority is working towards the adoption of
Lodge Close, this may not be for some considerable time. The applicant has stated
that this will be resolved prior to any reserved matters application.
Should a reserved matters application be submitted with a single point of access from
Beresford Road, the applicant would have to demonstrate that this was acceptable to
the emergency services. In addition the road layout from a single point of access would
need to be in the form of a loop with a short stub from Beresford Road. If a reserved
matters application did not include two points of access or did not demonstrate the
emergency services acceptance of a single point of access, the Highway Authority
would object.
In addition a development of this scale, in this location, should contribute towards the
local hopper bus scheme. For 170 dwellings this will be £60,000 and should be
secured by a Section 106 Agreement.
Development Committee
21
26 February 2015
Given that this application is an outline application with all matters reserved, the
Highway Authority raises no objection subject to a condition requiring full details of
highway / access proposals.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-ordinator) - Response relates to
education provision/contributions, library and fire service contributions.
In terms of education advises that a development of 170 dwellings would generate the
following need in terms of child places:
Nursery School - 16
Primary School - 44
High School
- 29
6th Form
- 3
Currently there is the following spare capacity at local schools:
Holt Primary School
+19
Sheringham High School & 6th Form +54
However, other developments in Holt* will generate the following additional child place
numbers:
Nursery
- 44
Primary School - 118
High School
- 78
Sixth Form
8
* These include land off Hempstead Road (215 dwellings); land off Cley Road (85
dwellings) and three sites owned by Greshams School (153 dwellings).
The current proposed development in addition to these other developments would
generate an additional 163 Primary age children. There would be insufficient places at
the local Holt Primary School for children from this proposed development should it be
approved. The current school site, which is a split site and thus restricted in
construction opportunities, is not large enough for expansion to accommodate children
from this number of houses when taken together with other approved/planned
development in the area. "We would have serious concerns about any further
development outside any published Local Plan in Holt without being given the
opportunity to understand the strategic options for meeting future pupil place demand".
If the District Council is minded to approve the application the following contributions
will be sought to mitigate the impact of development:
Primary School: 44 x £11,644 = £512,336
High School: 29 x £17,546
th
6 Form: 3 x £19,029
= £508,834
= £57,087
Total education contribution = £1,078,257
In addition payments are required for library provision (£60 per dwelling) and fire
hydrants (£892 per hydrant per 50 dwellings).
County Council (Minerals and Waste) - Would not object provided that in the event
of planning permission being granted a condition is imposed requiring the submission
of a scheme of investigation of possible mineral deposits on the site which could be
potentially extracted prior to the development being undertaken.
Development Committee
22
26 February 2015
County Council (Historic Environment) - Recommends that if outline planning
permission is granted, conditions are imposed for a programme of archaeological work
in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework para. 135.
Natural England - Comments that the application site is in close proximity to a
European designated site ( the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (SPA),
SAC, SSSI and it is listed as Ramsar site), and therefore has the potential to affect its
interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the „Habitats Regulations‟). The
application site is also approximately 500m from Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of
Conservation (SAC) and is notified at this location at a national level as Holt Lowes
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The notification features of the SSSI broadly
relate to the features associated with the internationally designated site. both an
international and national context.
Refers to the Habitats Regulations Assessment submitted by the applicants and
concurs with the assessment conclusions, namely that any significant adverse impacts
of the proposed development upon these designated sites would be mitigated by a
financial contribution of £50 per dwelling (in relation to the North Norfolk Coast Special
Protection Area), and by a combination of greenspace as part of the development site
and a financial contribution towards the maintenance and upkeep of paths within the
Country Park (in relation to the Holt Lowes).
Landscape Officer - Comments that the site is bordered by Holt Country Park to the
south and east and existing housing to the north, the visual impact of the development
will be localised. The site is currently an arable field on Grade 3 agricultural land
divided by a hawthorn hedge. It is located within the 'Wooded with Parkland
Landscape Character Type' as defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment (June 2009 SPD). This document states that due to its relatively level
topography and enclosed land cover, any expansion of Holt to the south is considered,
to result in less impact on landscape character than development to the north or west
of the town. The conclusions of the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment that there will be no significant harm to the landscape character of the
area and the visual effects of the development will be confined to the immediate setting
of the site are concurred with.
The Glaven Valley Conservation Area wraps around the site to the south, west and
east. Given the location of the site adjacent to existing housing and degree of visual
containment, it is not considered that there would be any significant harm to this
designation.
Considers that the submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment provides sufficient
information to determine that the proposed development will have no significant
adverse effects on the identified designated sites subject to the mitigation measures
proposed.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments that the illustrated amount of open
space to be provided on-site is consistent with policy at around 1.3 ha.
A main concern is the impact of increased visitor use on Holt Country Park and indeed
that of the Holt Lowes SSSI which only lies 220m from the proposed development. Up
to 400 potential daily users, plus dogs could be generated. Agrees with Natural
England‟s suggestion that should the development proceed a contribution should be
made towards the upkeep of the Country Park particularly in terms of making the
certain paths more resilient.
Development Committee
23
26 February 2015
On the illustrative masterplan the eastern boundary has a wide open space but on the
southern boundary the dwellings are sited closer to the woodland. Dwellings and
gardens would need to be situated sufficiently far enough away from the woodland so
that natural light is not shaded by the trees. The shading of domestic properties by
trees can be the subject of complaints from residents and such potential future conflict
needs to be avoided. Suggests that the „buffer‟ area that is shown to separate the
country park from the development needs to be substantial enough to screen the
development from the country park.
The District Council may be agreeable to adopt the public open space upon payment
of a commuted sum. This would enable the open space to be managed in a way
complementary to the management aims of the country park.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Concurs with the conclusions of the submitted
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that the proposed development would have
no noticeable impact on the landscape setting of the AONB.
Planning Policy Manager - Comments as follows regarding the applicants'
submissions in respect of housing need and five year land supply:
"The Council‟s published five year land supply position is that it can demonstrate 5.4
years supply of deliverable housing supply. This figure is derived from three significant
components, the target number of dwellings to be provided, a buffer which is added to
the target figure, and an assessment of the deliverable supply. The applicant
challenges all three components and suggests that as a consequence a five year land
supply is not demonstrated. In such circumstances planning permission should be
granted for sustainable development, whilst if the development is unsustainable
permission should be refused.
Target - The target number of dwellings to be provided in North Norfolk is derived from
the adopted development plan (400 per year) and is adjusted upwards to take account
of the accumulated shortfall that has arisen from previous years under-provision, a
further buffer of 5% is then added to this figure and the Council aims to deliver the
resulting number of dwellings over the following five years. For the purposes of five
year land supply statements „deliver‟ means completed dwellings rather than the grant
of planning permissions.
The Council has commenced the process of Local Plan review and has commissioned
a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to provide evidence in relation to the need
and demand for dwellings in the District. This evidence will be considered alongside
other evidence to derive a new housing target for the next Local Plan. This may be
lower or higher than the existing target, will be evidence based, and will be subject to
independent scrutiny when the next plan is submitted for examination. In December
2014, Brandon Lewis, Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to all Local Planning
Authorities, stating:
Councils will need to consider Strategic Housing Market Assessment evidence
carefully and take adequate time to consider whether there are environmental and
policy constraints, such as Green Belt, which will impact on their overall final housing
requirement. They also need to consider whether there are opportunities to co-operate
with neighbouring planning authorities to meet needs across housing market areas.
Only after these considerations are complete will the council’s approach be tested at
examination by an Inspector. Clearly each council will need to work through this
process to take account of particular local circumstances in responding to Strategic
Housing Market Assessments.
Development Committee
24
26 February 2015
Pending receipt and consideration of the SHMA and other related evidence it is
considered that the current Local Plan housing target represents a robust basis for
determining five year land supply requirements.
Buffers - Adding a buffer to housing targets is required by the NPPF and is the
governments preferred approach to extending the opportunity to deliver sufficient
housing to meet objectively assessed targets. In normal circumstances this buffer
should be 5% additional provision but in circumstances where there is a record of
persistent under delivery this buffer should be increased to 20%. North Norfolk has
added a 5% buffer to its housing target notwithstanding that insufficient dwellings have
been built in many of the preceding years. If a 20% buffer had been added to the
current land supply statement the Council would have slightly less than five years
supply (4.97 years).
Rather than add larger buffers to targets the Council has taken specific measures to
increase the supply of deliverable housing including a number of planning policy
changes, introduction of the Housing Incentive Scheme, and provision of loan funding
to Housing Associations. These are intended to focus delivery on policy compliant and
planned development sites pending the forthcoming review of the Local Plan. As a
result of these measures and a general improvement in market conditions the Housing
Trajectory concludes that housing delivery is likely to exceed current targets over the
next few years.
Deliverable Supply – Only sites where houses will actually be built in the next five
years can be included within the supply. All larger sites are subject to an assessment
which takes into account planning status, ownership, and deliverability indicators. It is
acknowledged that there are a wide range of factors which influence building rates and
establishing likely future supply involves judgments. It is highly likely that some sites
will not be developed over the expected time period and equally that others, as yet
unidentified, will be developed."
Strategic Housing - Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in Holt with 79
households on the Housing Register and in addition there are a further 93 households
on the Transfer Register and 665 households on the Housing Options Register who
have stated that they require housing in Holt. The proposed development would
therefore assist in meeting some of the proven housing need.
Refers to certain discrepancies in the submitted documentation with regard to the
amount of affordable housing being proposed. If the application is to be approved, it
should be subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to require 45%
affordable housing to be provided on the site, subject to viability.
NHS England (NHSE) - Response awaited.
Environmental Health - Recommends conditions in relation to land contamination,
lighting, surface and foul water drainage, and control of construction noise.
Norfolk Constabulary - Provides comments in response to the submitted Design &
Access Statement and Illustrative Plan with regard to the type of play areas proposed,
safety (particularly of children) in Lodge Close, and pedestrian links with the country
park.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Development Committee
25
26 February 2015
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies
DPD (adopted September 2011):
Policy CS16: Safeguarding mineral and waste sites and mineral resources.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development plan policy.
2. Housing need / land supply.
3. Access
4. Housing density and type
5. Landscape and ecological impacts.
6. Local school capacity
APPRAISAL
This is a repeat application for the same proposal under application reference
PO/14/0846 which was refused by this committee in October 2014 and is now subject
to an appeal.
Development Committee
26
26 February 2015
The application site comprises a rectangular area of flat, open agricultural land (7.1
ha.) located on the southern edge of Holt. It adjoins existing residential development to
the north and west, and woodland (Holt Country Park) to the south and east.
The site lies outside of the defined development boundary for Holt (the boundary runs
along the northern boundary of the site) and it forms part of the 'countryside' policy
area. Under Policy SS2 of the Core Strategy housing development is not permitted in
the 'countryside' (apart from 'exception' affordable housing developments and the
re-use of existing buildings). The application therefore represents a departure from the
development plan.
Development Plan Policy
The development plan for North Norfolk comprises:


The North Norfolk Core Strategy (adopted 2008), and
The North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (adopted 2011)
Core Strategy Policy SS3 (Housing) spells out the Council's strategy to provide for at
least 8000 new dwellings in the district during the plan period (2001-2021). In the case
of Holt 700 new dwellings are proposed (also referred to in Policy SS9 – Holt). This
figure is to be achieved by a combination of past and existing planning permissions,
future windfall sites and land allocations. Two sites have been allocated in Holt,
namely:


Site HO1 – Land west of Woodfield Road. (Outline planning permission granted for
up to 85 dwellings)
Site HO9 – Land at Heath Farm / Hempstead Road. (Approved Development Brief
refers to up to 290 dwellings - outline planning permission granted for up to 215
dwellings on a large part of site).
To date 306 new dwellings have been built in Holt since the start of the plan period.
The two allocations could provide up to a further 375 dwellings. With the addition of
windfall sites coming forward during the remainder of the plan period and sites which
already have planning permission but are yet to be built, it is predicted that the 700
new dwellings in Holt by 2021 should be achieved.
Whilst it is important to note that dwelling numbers which are included with the adopted
policies are expressed as minimums rather than upper limits, it is evident that there is
no pressing need for further large scale developments to come forward in Holt at the
present time.
The NPPF and Five Year Land Supply
A key element of the applicants' case for approval of their application is based on the
issue of land supply.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) States (para.49) that "Relevant
policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local
planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing
sites". Furthermore the NPPF states that where development plan policies are out of
date planning permission should be granted unless "any adverse impacts of doing so
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits..." (para 14). In other
words local planning authorities are in a weakened position in refusing applications for
residential development if they cannot demonstrate a five year land supply.
Development Committee
27
26 February 2015
Accordingly the NPPF requires local authorities to identify annually a supply of
deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against their housing
requirements with an additional buffer of 5%. Where there has been a record of
persistent under delivery of housing the buffer should be increased to 20%. The
Council's published Statement of Five Year Land Supply & Housing Trajectory as of
April 2014 demonstrates a supply equivalent to 5.4 years. This has been calculated
using a 5% buffer.
The applicants' have submitted two reports in support of their case which disputes the
Council's stated five year land position. The first of these reports, 'Housing Trajectory
Analysis' firstly contends that a 20% rather than a 5% buffer should be used in
calculating the land supply figure. In which case, based on the Council's assumptions
of sites coming forward in the five year period there would be a supply equating to
4.97 years. However the report goes on to consider nine 'key' sites which are identified
in the Council's published statement and disputes in the case of several of the sites the
numbers of dwellings which are likely to be completed during the five year period. The
conclusion reached is that significantly fewer dwellings will be completed than
predicted in the Council's statement, thus resulting in a land supply equating to 4.31
years (assuming a 20% buffer) or 4.76 years (assuming a 5% buffer). In addition the
report concludes that if more sites were to be analysed it is likely that these figures
would reduce still further.
The second report 'Future Housing Requirements for North Norfolk District' considers
the wider issue of housing need in the district. The report's conclusions are that for
reasons of population growth, changes in household type and size, employment
growth and the demand for affordable housing, the current target for housing growth in
the district as referred to in the Core Strategy is increasingly out of date and is in need
of early review.
Notwithstanding the case put forward by the applicants, members have previously
agreed the methodology to calculate the District's currently published land supply and
officers consider that the 5.4 year figure is the one to be used in consideration of this
planning application. In this regard members are referred to the comments (above) of
the Council's Planning Policy Manager.
Landscape and Ecological Impacts
The site is not prominent within the surrounding landscape, being as it is enclosed by
woodland and residential development. Neither does the site itself contain any
significant landscape features. If it were to be developed for housing one important
feature would need to be the provision of a soft landscaped edge, between the built
development and the woodland of the adjoining country park, something that to a
degree the submitted (illustrative) 'development framework' plan alludes towards.
In terms of ecology the site is some 500m from the Holt Lowes SSSI, a site of national
importance, and some 5kms from the internationally important North Norfolk Coast
Special Protection Area. The issue here relates to increased visitor pressure upon the
integrity of these sites arising from new residential developments in the vicinity. The
applicants have submitted a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) which
acknowledges that the proposed development has the potential to have a significant
adverse impact upon these designated sites. The HRA concludes that any such
significant adverse impacts could be mitigated by a financial contribution of £50 per
dwelling (in relation to the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area), and by a
combination of greenspace as part of the development site and a financial contribution
towards the maintenance and upkeep of paths within the Country Park (in relation to
Development Committee
28
26 February 2015
the Holt Lowes).
Access
Whilst this is an outline application with all matters of detail reserved, the applicants
state that it is anticipated vehicular access would be provided via two existing
cul-de-sacs which adjoin the site's northern boundary, Beresford Road and Lodge
Close. The illustrative 'Development Framework' plan indicates that these two access
points would be linked within the site. In practice these are the only available options to
provide vehicular access into the site without acquiring additional land or property.
Beresford Road and Lodge Close link into Charles Road / Edinburgh Road, all of which
form part of the residential estate on this southern part of Holt. Charles Road and
Edinburgh Road connect with Norwich Road and Hempstead Road which link to the
town centre and beyond. Much of the local concern received to the application relates
to increased traffic using the local road network.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority has not raised an objection to the
application as it currently stands with details of access reserved for future approval.
What is clear is that the Highway Authority consider that provided two adoptable road
links are provided to serve the development (e.g. from Beresford Road and Lodge
Close) this would be acceptable. They might object however to a single road link.
Housing density and type
The submitted Design and Access Statement states that the net developable area of
the site would be around 5.4 ha. with approximately 1.8 ha. comprising open space.
This would equate to an overall density of 24 dwellings per hectare (or 32 dwellings per
hectare excluding the open space), which is considered reasonable for a site of this
size and location.
In a letter accompanying the application the applicants have confirmed that they would
agree to a condition requiring that 45% of the dwellings are affordable (subject to
viability). This would accord with Core Strategy Policy HO2, although if the application
were to be approved, as in the case of other outline applications for housing
development, this should be secured by means of a S.106 Planning Obligation rather
than by a planning condition.
Local School Capacity
The Committee will note the response from Norfolk County Council (Planning
Obligations Co-ordinator) who raise serious concerns with regard to capacity issues at
Holt Primary School if this application is approved, after taking into account other
major housing developments in the town (these relate to outline planning permissions
at the two allocated sites at Cley Road and Hempstead Road, and the three (as yet
undetermined) outline planning applications on land owned by Greshams School).
Normally applicants would be expected to pay a financial contribution towards any
shortfall in school capacity arising from their proposed development (secured by
means of a S.106 Obligation). This remains an option if this application were to be
approved. However in this case it will be noted that the education authority advises that
there are physical constraints at Holt primary school which will prevent it being
expanded to accommodate future numbers of pupils if this application is approved.
Issues relating to infrastructure and local service capacity / provision are properly
considered as part of the development plan process. This would appear to be a case
where a significant departure from the development plan raises such capacity issues.
Development Committee
29
26 February 2015
Conclusions
There do not appear to be any insurmountable technical reasons to indicate that the
site could not be developed for housing. In addition the proposed development would
have limited impact upon the wider rural landscape surrounding Holt.
However planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. The principle of housing on this site does not accord with the
development plan (Policy SS2 - Development in the Countryside). A principal reason
for drawing development boundaries around existing settlements is to guard against
unplanned piecemeal growth and to protect the countryside for its own sake.
A lynchpin to the applicant's case in support of the proposed development is their
assertion that the district does not have a five year land supply and in which case in
accordance with the NPPF the Council's development plan (Core Strategy) cannot be
considered to be up to date, and as such there should be a presumption in favour of
permitting sustainable development. The view of officers is that the district does have a
five year land supply, and in any case the proposed development would not be
sustainable given the lack of available infrastructure in the town to accommodate it (I.e.
capacity at the local primary school).
It is therefore the view of officers that there are no material considerations in this case
which outweigh development plan policy and that any further significant housing
development in the town should be properly considered through the established
development plan process.
Accordingly refusal of the application is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
SS 3 - Housing
SS 9 - Holt
CT 2 - Developer contributions
The application site lies outside of the development boundary for Holt in an area
designated as 'countryside' in the adopted Core Strategy. Housing development
(apart from 'exception' affordable housing developments and the conversion of
existing buildings) is not a use permitted in the countryside policy area under Core
Strategy Policy SS 2. The proposed development would encroach into an area of open
countryside.
Development Committee
30
26 February 2015
7.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1583 - Alterations to dwelling including erection
of two-storey front and rear extensions and the installation of front balcony;
East Quay House, East End for Mr S Howe
- Target Date: 28 January 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Young
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Flood Zone 3
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/1030 HOU
Alterations to dwelling including erection of second floor extension
Withdrawn by Applicant 06/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
Alterations to dwelling including erection of two-storey front and rear extensions and
the installation of front balcony.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Terrington on the following planning grounds:
The proposed building is not in keeping with its surroundings or the historic nature of
the East Quay.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objection. The Council strongly objects and doesn't want to see a carbuncle on the
East Quay.
REPRESENTATIONS
The site notice expired on the 8th January and to date no representations have been
received.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design:
With this resubmission according with pre-application advice, Conservation & Design
do not have any objections to this application.


Firstly, in terms of scale, pre-application discussions focused on reducing the
overall mass of the building to ensure its compatibility with the tight confines of
the site. In this regard, the applicant‟s timeline below is actually very useful in
illustrating how the latest proposal would be smaller than the existing building
and all the subsequent iterations. This is considered important in ensuring that
the property does not overly exert itself within the street scene; NB: it is
arguable whether the existing building would be approved today given its
pitched roof and solid brick gables, and its close proximity of the adjacent
buildings - certainly it does not make a positive contribution to the appearance
and character of the conservation area in its current form.
Turning to design, negotiations initially involved retaining the pitched roof as a
means of grounding the building on site. However, it quickly emerged that a
much „lighter‟ and more „honest‟ building could be created by removing the
roof. It was also apparent that the impact upon the property behind could be
Development Committee
31
26 February 2015
significantly improved in the process. For this to be successful, however, it was
felt that the elevations needed to make better use of relief and materials to
move away from the original bulky and boxy proportions. This has been
reflected in the layered elevations now submitted which would not only offer
depth and visual interest, but which would also effectively break up the overall
mass. With the glazing and the balcony then taking advantage of its coastal
position, it is considered that the building as altered would sit comfortably on its
site and will continue the welcome trend of good contemporary architecture
within the town (which began with the superb Roundhouse, which continued
with the Shellfish Handling facility and which will perhaps best be illustrated
when the re-worked proposals for the Maltings are submitted).
Whilst such buildings do not fit the conventional view of local distinctiveness, they have
been purposefully designed for their immediate context and are without doubt distinct
to each locality. Moreover, they not only add interest within the designated area but
also continue the tradition of each age making its own contribution to the established
form and character (the Quayside alone features a range of building types and ages).
Providing this is done in a complementary rather than a competitive way, there need
be no Conservation & Design objections.
In summary, it is considered that this amended scheme would produce a building
which: a) would now be compatible with the site in scale terms,
b) would not harm the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed East Quay House,
c) would offer a qualitative and bespoke design which would enliven and add visual
interest to the existing building, and
d) would enhance the appearance and character of this part of the Wells
Conservation Area.
In the event of an approval being issued, please condition the prior agreement of
the bricks, windows, balcony detail and render colour.
Environmental Health –
There are no adverse Environmental Health concerns in relation to this proposal
therefore have no objections.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
Development Committee
32
26 February 2015
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
3. Design
4. Impact on Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
APPRAISAL
The site falls within the residential policy area of Wells-Next-the-Sea as designated in
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, where alterations and extensions to
dwellings are permitted in principle provided they are in accordance with other relevant
Core Strategy policies. The site is also located within the designated Conservation
Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policy EN1 states that development will be permitted where it does not detract from the
special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals, including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in this
case the Wells-Next-The-Sea Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings and their
settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that would have an
adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
The existing building is a detached two-storey property with a pitched roof which is
approximately 574 square metres. The existing dwelling is not considered to be of any
special architectural interest or design merit and it makes little contribution to the
immediate context or the wider character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
This application seeks to alter the existing property with the erection of a two-storey
front and rear extension and the installation of a front balcony. Given the form and
appearance of the existing dwelling, these changes offer the opportunity for
enhancement.
The proportions of the proposed extensions have been kept to a minimum with the two
storey extension to the rear projecting by approximately 1.2m and the front extension
by approximately 1.5m. The single storey extension would be to the rear of the
property and would measure 3m by 3.7m with a height of 2.6m. It is considered that the
overall scale of the extensions proposed would be acceptable and would not have an
adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties. The proposal also
includes the removal of the existing pitch roof and replacement with a flat roof, this will
improve the outlook of the dwellings to the rear of the property and reduce the impact
on their views to the north. The overall reduction in scale and massing would ensure
that the dwelling fits in with those of the neighbouring properties and the overall rhythm
Development Committee
33
26 February 2015
of the street scene, the reduction in scale and massing means the building will not be
overly dominant. The proposed balcony to the front elevation of the property would
face over the Quay, it is not considered that it would cause any adverse forms of
overlooking.
In terms of local distinctiveness, the Conservation and Design Officer considers the
design to be acceptable. Whilst the majority of buildings in the immediate area are of a
traditional form and constructed in brick and flint, there are a number of exceptions to
this. In view of the context and given that the proposed alterations would result in an
improvement from the existing dwelling and the reduction in scale secured, there is no
objection to a contemporary design in this location. In fact Policy EN4 positively
encourages innovative design which reinforces local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 2.3.1. of the adopted North Norfolk Design Guide states that whilst
successful elevations respond to the materials seen on surrounding buildings this does
not imply slavishly copying existing materials, rather it can involve creating interesting
contrasts and textures between complimentary materials. It is considered that the use
of different materials of the extension including vertical cedar cladding, lead cladding,
render, red brick and the differing heights helps to break up the building elements on
front elevation more effectively, providing more depth and visual interest. The
materials and joinery can be conditioned in order to ensure that the materials proposed
would be appropriate for the site and its location.
Overall, it is considered that the building as altered would sit comfortably within the
locality and will continue the welcome trend of good contemporary architecture within
the town. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm the appearance
and character of the Conservation Area and it would be compliant with Policies EN4
and EN8.
In terms of the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, although East Quay
House holds a prominent position, it is considered that the alterations would not result
in the dwelling having an adverse impact on the special qualities of the area.
In conclusion, it is considered the alterations to the existing dwelling proposed will
improve its relationship with the neighbouring properties, reacts well to the constraints
of the site and adheres to the Development Plan policies as outlined above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve with appropriate conditions.
8.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following application.
The application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
SHERINGHAM – PF/15/0001 – Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 32
no. dwellings, accesses, roads, open space and associated works; Hilbre,
Holway Road for Norfolk Homes
Development Committee
34
26 February 2015
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Shepherd with regard to overlooking and road access
issues.
Please note this site inspection will take place on 16th April.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site inspection.
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/14/1531 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Seaview Cottage,
Watch House Lane, Bacton, Norwich, NR12 0HL for Mr Fox
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/14/1565 - Continue period of all year occupancy of caravans and
chalets to 08 October 2020; Red House Chalet & Caravan Park, Paston Road,
Bacton for Beach Farm Park
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/1577 - Erection of 4m cage and netting for cricket
practicing area; Cricket Club, Hall Road, Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8AR for Ms
S Sheldrake
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/14/1409 - Change of use of agricultural building to two residential
dwellings; Old Barn Farm, Wighton Road, Binham, NR23 1NX for Mrs Nicolle
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/14/1576 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission ref:
01/1632 to permit full residential occupancy; 2 Westgate Barns, Warham Road,
Binham, FAKENHAM, NR21 0DQ for Mr A Perrin
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1525 - Erection of detached single-storey building; The Coast
House, Back Lane, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NR for Mr and Mrs Moorland
(Householder application)
BRININGHAM - PU/14/1555 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to (C3) dwelling house; Lobbs Valley Farm Barn, Dereham
Road, Briningham, Melton Constable, NR24 2QL for Harold Jones Farms Limited
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
BRISTON - PF/14/1630 - Erection of two-storey side and single-storey front
extensions; 1 The Loke, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JZ for Mr D Barber
(Householder application)
BRISTON - LA/14/1644 - Internal alterations and erection of single-storey side
extension and lean-to porch canopies to east and west elevations (revised
design); Craymere Beck House, Craymere Beck Road, Thurning, Melton
Constable, NR24 2LN for Mr S Garnier
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
35
26 February 2015
CATFIELD - PF/14/1482 - Retention of vehicular access and hardstanding; The
Catkins, New Road, Catfield, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5BQ for Mr M Ellingham
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/0797 - Erection of detached
cart-shed/garage, 1.8m boundary fence and creation of new vehicular access;
Orchard House, Horseshoe Lane, Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QN for Mr & Mrs J
Angier
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - HN/14/1690 - Notification of intention to erect a
rear extension which would project from the original rear wall by 5m and which
would have a maximum height of 3.6m and an eaves height of 2.4m; Thornes
Cottage, Wood Dalling Road, Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QW for Mr R Wadlow
(Householder Prior Notification)
CROMER - PF/14/1554 - Erection of front porch and replacement steps; 19 Court
Drive, Cromer, NR27 0BB for Mr and Mrs T Hunt
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/1556 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 56 Mill
Road, Cromer, NR27 0BH for Mr D Harrison
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/1115 - Erection of single-storey dwelling (revised design) with
accommodation if roofspace; Adjacent 8 Station Road, Cromer, NR27 0DX for J S
Building Services
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PU/14/1684 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Tin Lodge, Broad Fen Lane, Dilham, NR28
9PP for Bindwell Limited
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
EAST BECKHAM - PF/14/1427 - Conversion of agricultural barn to residential
dwelling; Field Barn, Holt Road, Aylmerton, Norwich, NR11 8QA for East
Beckham Produce Co
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1618 - Erection of single-storey detached valet bay; Thurlow
Nunn, Enterprise Way, Fakenham, NR21 8SN for Thurlow Nunn
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/14/1631 - Internal alterations to facilitate installation of
additional en-suite bedrooms; 14 Nelson Road, Fakenham, NR21 9EN for Mr
Parker
(Listed Building Alterations)
FELBRIGG - PF/14/1592 - Erection of extension to storage area to house wheelie
bins; Felbrigg Hall, Felbrigg Park, Felbrigg, NR11 8PR for Mr Bradshaw
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
36
26 February 2015
FELBRIGG - NMA1/13/0587 - Non material amendment to permit to extend the
proposed south elevation of music room and revised windows and doors to west
elevations of proposed extension; Driftway Farm, The Driftway, Felbrigg,
Norwich, NR11 8PL for Mrs J Oliver
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FELMINGHAM - PF/14/1607 - Erection of single-storey link extension to Units 1 &
2 to create bedrooms and single-storey glazed link extension from Unit 3 to main
barn; Oak Tree Barns, North Walsham Road, Felmingham, North Walsham, NR28
0JJ for Mr and Mrs Evans
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/14/1637 - Erection of single-storey replacement rear
extension; 100a Horseshoe Cottage, Holt Road, Field Dalling, Holt, NR25 7LE for
Mrs L Wales
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/1611 - Erection of first floor side extension; 1 Harvey Estate,
Gimingham, Norwich, NR11 8HA for Mr M Mayes
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/1446 - Erection of two-storey rear extension to house lift,
replacement bin store and installation of ramp to front entrance; Mundesley
Hospital, Mundesley Road, Gimingham, Norwich, NR11 8ET for Hope Community
Healthcare LLP
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - LA/14/1447 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate the
installation of en-suite pods and erection of two-storey rear extension to house
lift and ramp to front entrance; Mundesley Hospital, Mundesley Road,
Gimingham, Norwich, NR11 8ET for Hope Community Healthcare LLP
(Listed Building Alterations)
GIMINGHAM - PF/15/0017 - Erection of single-storey side extension and front
car-port; Hall Farm, Hall Road, Gimingham for Mr Phillips
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - PF/14/1113 - Construction of vehicular access; Common Farm,
Sustead Road, Lower Gresham for Mr and Mrs A D Young
(Full Planning Permission)
GUNTHORPE - HN/14/1683 - Prior notification of intention to erect rear extension
which would project from the original wall by 4.5m, have a maximum height of
3.4m and an eaves height of 2.3m; Kingfisher Cottage, Swanton Road,
Gunthorpe, Melton Constable, NR24 2NS for Mr and Mrs Francis
(Householder Prior Notification)
HEMPTON - PF/14/1366 - Variation of conditions to 2, 7, 13 and 17 to planning
permission ref: 12/1079 to permit inclusion of "alligator bag tanks", revision to
layout, landscaping, to export gas instead of electricity and associated
development.; Land rear Hempton Poultry Farm, Helhoughton Road, Hempton,
FAKENHAM, NR21 7DY for Raynham Farm Co (AD) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
37
26 February 2015
HICKLING - PF/14/1453 - Conversion of barns/workshop to 4 holiday lets and
single-storey side and two-storey rear extensions to existing dwelling; Meadow
Farm, Heath Road, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0AX for Mr Johnson
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/14/1581 - Erection of two-storey side/front extension, creation of
vehicular access and erection 1.8m boundary fence; The White House, Town
Street, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0AY for Mr Lombard
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/14/1535 - Erection of single-storey front/side extensions to link garage
and extension to rear of existing garage; 62 Grove Lane, Holt, NR25 6ED for Ms
Newton
(Householder application)
HOLT - PM/14/1350 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Adjacent 8 The
Fairstead, Holt, NR25 6JE for Primrose Developments (Anglia) Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
HOVETON - NMA1/14/0539 - Non-material amendment request to replace bi-fold
doors in rear elevation with 3600mm wide bi- fold doors and 1200mm wide
window; Land adjacent 28 Waveney Drive, Hoveton for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
MORSTON - PF/14/1501 - Re-alignment and repair of existing footpaths; Morston
Quay, Quay Lane, Morston, HOLT, NR25 7BH for National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/1654 - Raising roof height to provide habitable
accommodation in roofspace and insertion of velux windows; 5 Warren Drive,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8AS for Mr D Howard
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1543 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
detached garage; 45A Bacton Road, North Walsham, NR28 9DS for Mr & Mrs
Kent
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1614 - Erection single-storey rear extension for
residential use.; 30 Station Road, North Walsham, NR28 0EA for Mr T Lam
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1639 - Subdivision of existing dwelling to two
dwellings; 2 Vicarage Street, North Walsham, NR28 9DQ for Mrs C Meaney
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1599 - Conversion of single-storey outbuilding to
ancillary annexe accommodation; Heath Farmhouse, Heath Road, North
Walsham, NR28 0JA for Mr Lysaght
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/1494 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 4 Craft
Lane, Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 0LL for Mrs Coleby-Hurley
(Householder application)
Development Committee
38
26 February 2015
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0023 - Erection of two-storey side, single-storey rear
extensions and detached double cart shed garage; 73 Crossdale Street,
Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 9LB for Mr and Mrs G Last
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PU/14/1653 - Prior notification of intention to change of use
of agricultural building to two dwellings; Rose Farm T, Green Lane, Potter
Heigham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5LP for Norfolk County Council
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
PUDDING NORTON - PF/14/1514 - Conversion of 2 agricultural buildings to two
dwellings; Hall Farm, Dereham Road, Pudding Norton, Fakenham, NR21 7NB for
Mrs C P Giles
(Full Planning Permission)
PUDDING NORTON - PF/14/1647 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 14/0588 to permit revised external design and layout of proposed grandstand
rear extension; The Racecourse, Dereham Road, Pudding Norton for Fakenham
Racecourse Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - LA/14/0858 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to five
residential dwellings; Home Farm, Hollow Lane, West Raynham, Fakenham,
NR21 7HA for Raynham Farm Company
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - PF/14/1572 - Installation of pole mounted CCTV equipment; Former
Airfield, West Raynham for Good Energy West Raynham Solar Park (030) Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PO/14/1454 - Erection of eight dwellings; Roughton Motor Co,
Chapel Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8AF for Tooley Investments
(Outline Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/14/1402 - Erection of detached dwelling (revised windows and
doors design, insertion of dormer windows to south and west roofslopes and
external material change to garage wall); Land to rear of House on the Green,
Lower Common, East Runton, Norfolk, NR27 9PG for Mr P Wreford
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/14/1368 - Change of use of agricultural land to churchyard and
creation of pedestrian access; St Nicholas church, Church Lane, Salthouse for
St Nicholas Parochial Church Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - LA/14/1369 - Insertion of pedestrian access to boundary wall; St
Nicholas church, Church Lane, Salthouse for St Nicholas Parochial Church
Council
(Listed Building Alterations)
SALTHOUSE - PF/14/1598 - Installation of swimming pool; Salthouse Hall, Purdy
Street, Salthouse, Holt, NR25 7XA for Mr Gayfer
(Householder application)
Development Committee
39
26 February 2015
SCOTTOW - PF/14/1365 - Change of use from storage associated with former
airbase to B8 storage (storage of empty plastic bottles/caps and cardboard
packaging only); Building 380, Former RAF Coltishall, Scottow, NR10 5GB for
Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/14/1496 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission ref:
11/1426 to permit an additional 2 hours per day for a maximum of 30 days per
year (harvest period) for deliveries, unloading of feedstock and the filling of
silage clamps (07:00 to 21:00hrs) and reduction in the times the feed hopper can
be filled to between 07:00 to 16:00 per day; Land at Oak Grove, Scottow Road,
Scottow, NORWICH, NR10 5GD for Oak Grove Renewables
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - AI/14/1516 - Display of illuminated and non illuminated
advertisements; Hillside Filling Station, Creake Road, Sculthorpe, Fakenham,
NR21 9HT for Shell UK Retail
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1561 - Erection of two and a half storey rear extension and
detached garage and office building; 7 Victoria Street, Sheringham, NR26 8JZ for
Mr and Mrs K Woodcock
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1582 - Demolition of existing detached garage and
erection of detached ancillary annexe and erection of 1.2m wire fence to amenity
land at rear; 21 Nelson Road, Sheringham, NR26 8BU for Mr Patston
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1610 - Installation of replacement glazed double doors;
35B Cremer Street, Sheringham, NR26 8DZ for Age Concern North Norfolk
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/14/0850 - Non material amendment request to permit to
omit Juliet balcony to side elevation, revised window arrangements and
installation of two 2 roof lights to front roof slope of Type C dwellings; 15
Weybourne Road, Sheringham, NR26 8HF for Blaber Builders Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/1685 - Erection of detached single-storey garden
room/studio ancillary to 4 Warren Road, Lower Southrepps; 4 Warren Road,
Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8UN for Mrs J Brooks
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/14/1458 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and first floor
window on side elevation; Ashleigh, St Johns Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12
9BG for Mr & Mrs Ford
(Householder application)
STODY - LA/14/1563 - Demolition of two internal walls; Green Farm House, The
Green, Hunworth, Melton Constable, NR24 2AA for Mrs M Moore
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
40
26 February 2015
SWANTON ABBOTT - NP/15/0035 - Prior notification of intention to erect
agricultural building; North-East Corner of Field, South of The Hill, Swanton
Abbott for Mrs P Crow
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
THORPE MARKET - LA/14/1590 - Installation of 4 replacement windows to rear
elevation; Nursery Farm, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TU for
Ms P Black
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/14/1502 - Installation of dormer window to south roof
slope to facilitate conversion of part of loft to habitable accommodation and
insertion of 4 roof lights to west roof slope; East Norfolk House, Gunton Station,
Station Road, Thorpe Market, NR11 8UD for Mr S Hurn
(Full Planning Permission)
THURSFORD - PF/14/1589 - Demolition of existing garage and single-storey side
extension and erection of two-storey replacement front/side extension and
insertion of rooflight to east elevation roofslope; 8 Clarks Lane, Thursford,
Fakenham, NR21 0BS for Mr & Mrs Perry
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - NMA1/14/0960 - Non material amendment request to permit revised
windows and doors design and, addition of rendered panels and change balcony
balustrade to glazing; 1 Wrights Loke, Trunch, North Walsham, NR28 0QJ for Ms
L Philips
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/0032 - Erection of side single storey extension; Bracken
House, Anchor Street, Tunstead, Norwich, NR12 8HR for Mr Atthowe
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/1645 - Demolition of single-storey rear extension and
erection of single-storey replacement extension and insertion of replacement
windows; The College, 1 Knight Street, Walsingham, NR22 6EF for Walsingham
College Trust Association Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - LA/14/1646 - Demolition of single-storey rear extension, internal
and external alterations to the North Wing barn and North Wing of the College of
Clergy; The College, 1 Knight Street, Walsingham, NR22 6EF for Walsingham
College Trust Association Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1558 - Strengthening of flood wall and provision
of new flood boards; The Quay, Wells-next-the-Sea for Wells Harbour
Commissioners
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1612 - Demolition of existing single-storey side &
rear extensions, erection of replacement side & rear extensions, decking to side
and rear elevations and erection of ancillary one and a half storey detached
annexe; The Warren, Warham Road, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1NE for Mr & Mrs
M Few
(Householder application)
Development Committee
41
26 February 2015
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1408 - Alterations to outbuilding (including
balcony) to ancillary studio accommodation; Barn Close House, High Street,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EN for Mr & Mrs Finkemeyer
(Householder application)
WESTWICK - PF/14/1401 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission ref:
04/1631 to permit residential occupancy; Hill Farm, The Hill, Westwick, Norwich,
NR10 5BQ for Mr A Dewing and Miss T Reynolds
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/14/0999 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permision reference:
14/0370 to permit increase in length of garages; Whitehouse Barn, Old Hall Road,
Witton, NORTH WALSHAM, NR28 9UG for Mr R Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/14/1372 - Erection of detached building to house swimming pool
and facilities and detached three bay garage/store; Mill Common Farm, Mill
Common Road, Ridlington, North Walsham, NR28 9TY for Mr P Tompkins
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/14/1016 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
two-storey dwelling; Longfield, Blakeney Road, Wiveton, Holt, NR25 7TN for Mr &
Mrs Kenyon
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - LA/14/1512 - Installation of replacement windows; Gothic Lodge,
Sloley Road, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9RS for Worstead Farms Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - PF/14/1591 - Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of
replacement dwelling; One Acre, Sandy Lane, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9NE
for Mr & Mrs Woodrow
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/1515 - Change of use of land from D2 (visitor attraction)
to siting of thirteen holiday chalets; Priory Maze & Gardens, Cromer Road,
Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8SF for Priory Maze and Gardens
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/1602 - Change of existing pitched roofs to first and second floor
flats to flat roofs to provide insertion of first and second floor balconies; 8 Alfred
Road, Cromer, NR27 9AN for Mrs Lodge
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1222 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling; 17
Greenway Close, Fakenham, NR21 8DE for Ms Richardson
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1436 - Erection of first floor side and two-storey rear
extensions; 10 Hipperson Close, North Walsham, NR28 0SU for Mr and Mrs
Rayner
(Householder application)
Development Committee
42
26 February 2015
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/1235 - Change of use and extension to agricultural
buildings to residential dwelling; Land at Pit Street, Southrepps, NR11 8UX for
Wayware Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/1530 - Conversion of agricultural building to residential
dwelling; Barn at Pitt Street, Southrepps for Wayware Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road, Aylmerton
for Mr D Oliver
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
12.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0785 - Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two
and a half storey replacement dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PD for Mrs K Cargill
INFORMAL HEARING 17 March 2015
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0120 - Formation of caravan park to provide pitches for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area with office/warden
accommodation and amenity building; Land South of North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh for Happisburgh Estates
INFORMAL HEARING 12 May 2015
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park and
ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9JJ
for Crematoria Management Ltd
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road, Hempstead, Holt, NR25 6LD for
Mrs V Purkiss
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8JU for Mr & Mrs J Bonham
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0626 - Use of land for siting six mobile units (4 caravans, 2
pods) for residential accommodation for family and friends and use of the
existing dwelling for shared facilities (amended description); 67 Cromer Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8DF for Mr & Mrs G Malone
Development Committee
43
26 February 2015
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SA for Mr R Banester
SITE VISIT:- 26 January 2015
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0450 - Continued use of land as camp site and retention of
amenity block; The Barn, Bolding Way, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7SW for Mr C
Harrison
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
WALSINGHAM – PF/13/1494 – Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference 01/0855 to permit full residential occupation Barsham Barns, Green
Way, North Barsham, Walsingham, Norfolk NR22 6AP for Mr A Hudson
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Application PF/13/1494 sought permission for conversion of Lower Farm Barns to
residential use without complying with a condition attached to an earlier permission, 01
20010855 PF (this restricted use of the converted barns to holiday use only). The
appeal Inspector identified the main issue as whether or not the condition is
reasonable and necessary in the interests of sustainable development.
The Inspector assessed the appeal against policies HO9 and SS2 of the Council‟s
adopted Core Strategy which he found to be broadly consistent with the National
Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF). He found North Barsham to be a small
scattered hamlet with no day-to-day facilities, where future occupiers would be
dependent on use of a car. He concluded that permanent residential use of the barns
would conflict with the local sustainability objective of reducing car dependency. The
Inspector noted that the appellant had referred to a number of permissions elsewhere
in the district where holiday let conditions had been removed but stated that he had
very little information of the circumstances of those decisions and had therefore
considered the appeal proposal on its own merits.
The Inspector concluded that the condition meets the tests set out in paragraph 206 of
the NPPF and in the current Planning Practice Guidance; accordingly he dismissed the
appeal.
CROMER – PF/13/0979 – Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one
two-storey dwelling, Adjacent Roughton Road Station, Burnt Hills Cromer NR27
9LW for Mr P Robinson of PP3
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Planning permission was sought for three houses with parking and terraced gardens
on a steeply sloping site close to the railway halt at Roughton Road. The Inspector
found the main issue to be the effect on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area.
The Inspector noted that the appeal site is within the defined residential area of Cromer
where appropriate residential development will be permitted, subject to compliance
with relevant Core Strategy policies. Policy EN4 requires all development to be
designed to a high quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. The Inspector found policy
EN4 to be broadly consistent with the NPFF‟s design objectives and gave it significant
weight in his decision.
Development Committee
44
26 February 2015
In a comprehensive decision the Inspector assessed the character and appearance of
the appeal site, concluding that the site is relatively self-contained, visually divorced
from the form and layout of existing development in the area. He acknowledged that
the proposed three-storey dwellings would introduce a new style of dwelling in the
locality but did not find that this would result in significant harm. The Inspector found
the design of the proposed dwellings to be appropriately innovative, responding well to
the topography of the site and introducing a “small, self-contained contemporary
development which due to its massing, detailing and materials would make a positive
contribution to the variety of architectural styles in the locality.”
Local residents had expressed concerns relating to highway safety and potential
damage to foundations and subsidence. However the Inspector noted that the highway
authority had raised no objection to the appeal proposal “which is a significant factor in
regard to this matter”. Whilst noting the neighbours‟ concerns the Inspector found no
evidence that the appeal site is in an unstable location and concluded that any damage
caused to property during the course of construction would be a private matter
between the parties involved.
The appeal was therefore allowed but subject to a number of conditions.
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/14/0728 – Erection of one and half-storey dwelling,
Rear of 3 St Benets Avenue North Walsham NR28 9HT for Mr G Sexton
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Planning application PF/14/0728 was for a one and half-storey dwelling and detached
garage and refused on 4 September 2014. The Inspector identified the main issues to
be the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area and on the living conditions in neighbouring dwellings.
The relationship of the proposed dwelling and surrounding dwellings was described in
some detail with the Inspector concluding that the building “would be at odds with the
style and pattern of the surrounding development.” As such it would appear
incongruous and respect neither the character nor density of the surrounding area, as
required by policy EN4 of the Council‟s Core Strategy.
Turning to the living conditions of neighboring occupants, the Inspector found that the
proposed building would appear overbearing and cause overshadowing of a
neighbour‟s garden and would also lead to disturbance from both pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
The Inspector therefore concluded that the proposal would be harmful to the living
conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings and would conflict with policy
EN4 of the Core Strategy and also with the National Planning Policy Framework‟s core
principle that planning should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing
and future occupants.
The appeal was dismissed.
(Source: Roger Howe (Planning Legal Manager) Ext. 6016)
15.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No report.
Development Committee
45
26 February 2015