OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 26 JULY 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0584 - Erection of single-storey extension; Green
Barn, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs Hartley
- Target Date: 16 July 2012
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Flood Zone 3 1:200 chance sea/1:100 chance river
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II (Adjacent)
Flood Zone 2 - 1:1000 chance
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
PLA/20041660 PF - Erection of conservatory
Approved 22/10/2004
PLA/20020099 PF - Erection of single-storey extension
Approved 21/02/2002
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a single-storey extension to create a bedroom.
received to include a parapet wall and incorporate a grass roof.
Amended plans
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Young having regard to the following planning issue:
Considered to be an appropriate extension in that location. Councillor Young
requests a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Although having been extensively altered and extended over time, the property in
question is nonetheless an attractive former agrarian barn. With it also sitting within
Development Committee
1
26 July 2012
an historic group of vernacular buildings (some of which are listed), it is a property
which is certainly worthy of positive conservation.
Against this sensitive context, there have to be real concerns about the submitted
extension. By virtue of its stunted flat roof form, and its position on the end of the
existing catslide extension, the new build represents a less than sympathetic addition
- the fact that a new wall has been proposed to screen the extension suggests some
recognition of this fact.
Therefore, with our barns policy requiring buildings to be suitable for conversion
without any substantial alteration and/or extension, any addition needs very careful
justification. In this case, the need appears to stem from the internal reordering of the
building. Whilst this is fair enough, it cannot be at the expense of the external
appearance of the building. The starting point for any proposals should be to work
within the existing footprint, and only if this is not reasonably practicable, look at
available opportunities to enhance the appearance and character of the building - in
this case that could possibly involve reworking the conservatory.
As it is, however, the proposed extension of an extension is not considered to be an
appropriate form of development. Whilst accepting that it would not be readily visible
from public vantage points, the fact remains that the new build would stand in close
proximity to an established group of Grade II Listed Buildings. With it also not
complying with Policies EN4 & EN8 of the LDF Core Strategy, Conservation &
Design are unable to support this application.
Environmental Health - No significant concerns, however, as the premises have
previously been used as agricultural barn can I please suggest you add the following
advisory note:- N29
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Development Committee
2
26 July 2012
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Impact on the character of the building and surrounding Listed Buildings
APPRAISAL
Green Barn is located within an area of designated Countryside, where proposals for
extensions to dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
relevant Core Strategy policies. The site also lies within a Conservation Area and
close to Listed Buildings, where proposals should preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of the historic environment. The site also lies within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and an area of Undeveloped Coast.
The proposed extension would be to the southern elevation of the dwelling, built onto
an existing catslide extension and would measure approximately 6.5m wide by 4.9m
deep, with a flat roof and a height of approximately 2.6m.
Materials proposed include Norfolk reds, flint work, brick quoin work and a parapet
wall. In an attempt to try and alleviate Officer concerns, the agent has incorporated a
parapet wall and a grass finish to the roof.
It is considered that the proposed extension, with its stunted flat roof form and its
position on the end of the existing catslide extension would fail to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the host dwelling and nearby Listed
Buildings. Further, there is a general presumption in the North Norfolk Design Guide
against flat roof forms, which are seen as being an inappropriate form of
development.
In addition, former barns converted to residential use should be suitable for
conversion without substantial extension. In this instance, the need for the extension
appears to stem from a reworking of the internal layout, with no other justification
being provided for the proposed extension.
Whilst it is recognised that public views of the extension would be limited, this is not
considered to be sufficient grounds to permit an inappropriate and unsympathetic
form of extension, especially given that the barn is an attractive former agrarian barn
and sited within a historic group of vernacular buildings (some of which are listed).
On balance, it is considered that the proposed extension would be contrary to the
aims of Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reasons:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed extension, by
virtue of its form, design and positioning, would fail to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the host dwelling and the historic environment.
As such, the proposed development would fail to comply with Policies EN 4
and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Further, the applicant has not put forward sufficient material considerations to
justify a departure from adopted Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
3
26 July 2012
2.
CROMER - PF/12/0532 - Construction of skatepark facility; Land at The
Meadow, Meadow Way/Hall Road for Cromer Skate Park
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 July 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Public Rights of Way Footpath
County Wildlife Site (Adjacent)
Conservation Area
Historic Park and Gardens Ungraded (Adjacent)
Undeveloped Coast
Open Land Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for the construction of a skate park facility. The skate park would be of a concrete
construction, measuring approximately 15m x 45m. The highest point of the skate
park structure would be approximately 1.47m. The overall site size is approximately
27m x 70m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Johnson having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Local concerns raised including noise and anti-social behaviour.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection, but due to loss of green space there is a need to look at replacing the
open space in a future Section 106 Legal Agreement.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eleven letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
1. Noise and disturbance
2. Anti-social behaviour
3. Visually intrusive ugly concrete structure
4. Wildlife impact
5. Inappropriate location
6. Will reduce the amount of open space for other users
7. Will discourage tourists from using The Meadow
8. Will increase car parking problems on Meadow Road if parents of users visit site
9. Would be detrimental to the Conservation Area
10. Insufficient information submitted
11. How will it be managed?
12. Alternative options should be explored.
13. Security
14. Litter
15. Obstruction of public right of way
16. Concerns over hours of use
17. Should be located away from residential areas
One letter commenting on the application has been received raising concerns but not
objecting to the principle. It is suggested that Cabbell Park is a more appropriate
location which would maximise use and cause least inconvenience to householders
and the general public.
Development Committee
4
26 July 2012
Twenty three letters of support have been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - Clarification on design required.
Countryside and Parks Manager - No objection. Demand has existed for such a
facility for many years and previous attempts to find a suitable location have failed
largely due to local opposition.
Leisure and Cultural Services Manager - Support. Preference would be divert the
public footpath across the site so it goes around the skatepark and does not
compromise the size/design.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - Awaiting comments
Public Rights of Way Officer (Norfolk County Council) - Awaiting comments
Ramblers Association - Awaiting comments
Open Spaces Society - Object. From the plan it would appear that the site of the
proposed facility would lie across an existing public path, Cromer Footpath No.4.
Based on the submitted documents, it is considered that the development and
activities associated with the proposed skate park would interfere with the exercise
and enjoyment of the public right of way along Footpath No.4.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Awaiting comments
Architectural Liaison Officer - Advisory comments provided (see Appendix 1).
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.
The Committee will be updated orally in respect of this matter.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
Members will be updated orally in respect of this matter in the light of the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer‟s comments.
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
Development Committee
5
26 July 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact upon Conservation Area
3. Impact upon public right of way
4. Impact upon local residents
APPRAISAL
The proposed skate park is located within an area designated as an Open Land Area
(Policy CT1 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy), where development that
enhances the open character or recreational use of the land is permitted. At the time
of writing this report further clarification was being sought in relation to the provision
of more detailed plans of the site area, and position of the proposed concrete skate
park within it. This information is required before the application can be fully
assessed in terms of potential crime and disorder issues and amenity issues.
However, given that the site is a public recreational space adjacent to an existing
play area, zip wire, and pitch and putt golf course the principle of such a use in this
location is considered to be acceptable as it would improve the recreational facilities
in that area, in accordance with Policy CT1.
The site is also located within a Conservation Area and adjacent to an area to the
south designated as a Historic Park and Garden and County Wildlife Site. At the time
of writing this report comments were awaited from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager and Norfolk Wildlife Trust. However, the actual site is low lying
with the mature woodland to the south and high hedging and planting to the western
boundary adjacent to the road. The topography of the site would therefore help to
reduce the visual impact. The highest point of the skatepark would be at one end,
approximately 1.47m above the ground. This is considerably lower than the existing
adjacent zip wire, and also lower in height than some of the children's play
equipment nearby.
Members will also note that a public footpath runs through the application site and in
order to be able to fully assess the impact the position of the concrete skate park
within that site may have on the footpath, (such as a possible need to divert the
footpath route), more detailed plans are required. However, initial indications show
that the footpath may not be obstructed by the skate park at all.
The Committee will be updated on the above matters at the meeting.
The Committee will note the objections received from local residents. However, this
is an existing open public space area for recreational uses. The Meadow is a large
area, which already contains different areas of use. It is not considered that the
construction of a skate park would significantly reduce the ability of others to use The
Meadow.
It is proposed that the skate park would not be fenced and no lighting installed. As
such, it would not be possible to restrict the hours of use given that it would be open
in a public open space. The advisory comments of the Architectural Liaison Officer
refer to issues of anti-social behaviour and the applicant would be advised of these
comments and the need to work with the Liaison Officer. The management of the
skate park is not a planning matter.
In relation to noise and disturbance the skate park would be constructed in concrete.
It was originally suggested that the 'bowl' shape part of the park may be able to be
dug into the ground. However, it is understood that due to the high water levels at
this site that this is not now likely to be possible. The comments on Environmental
Development Committee
6
26 July 2012
Health are currently being sought on this matter.
There are clearly a number of matters outstanding at the time of writing this report.
The Committee will be updated at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee will be updated at the meeting.
3.
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0342 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to D2 (amusement
arcade); 16 Norwich Street for Mr Aygun
- Target Date: 14 May 2012
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
C Road
Proposed Retail Opportunity Site
Conservation Area
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to change the use of the unit from A1 (retail) to D2 (amusement arcade).
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Ward having regard to the following issues:
Detrimental impact on the Conservation Area, to surrounding businesses and historic
buildings. Concerns regarding noise disturbance, creating an unsafe environment
and encouraging anti-social behaviour, disrespectful to the character of the
surrounding area. The proposed change of use would not promote social, economic
and environmental well-being.
TOWN COUNCIL
The loss of a large retail space in one of the main streets of the Town is deplored.
REPRESENTATIONS
8 letters of objection have been submitted on the following grounds:
Detrimental social, economic and environmental impact on Fakenham town
centre and community;
Detrimental impact on Fakenham town centre and community; loss of retail
premises when new (and up-to-date) retail development should be encouraged to
help sustain existing footfall, halt decline of existing traders' profit and encourage
people to shop in Fakenham rather than going further afield. Norwich Street is the
main commercial street to the east of the market place. The Learning Centre took
a retail space before and was wrong choice at the time; approval would make the
same mistake again;
Detrimental impact on Conservation Area and historic market town; development
would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the historic
environment and within an area that consists of late Victorian and Georgian
buildings, would detract from the image and ambience of the centre, would be
out-of-keeping with the area and would lower/damage the quality of life of town
with its distinctive and well-loved character;
Development Committee
7
26 July 2012
Shop front associated with arcades would be completely out of character to a
historic market town;
Increase in anti-social behaviour, which is already a problem within the town.
Unacceptable noise and disturbance concerns for nearby residential dwellings,
shops and regular customers. Concern that the insurance of nearby businesses
would go up if users of the arcade caused trouble and smashed windows;
Development would discourage townspeople from using surrounding businesses,
unsuitable use for this location;
Target clientele would be local residents with the most likely users being the
young and unemployed with most time but least income; should not encourage
these vulnerable groups to use what income they have on potentially addictive
gambling to the detriment of current and future family life;
Safety concern that the arcade could attract Paedophiles as children use
arcades;
Appreciated that market towns need to fill their empty shops, considered that this
would be best achieved if landlords rented at fair rent and the Councils
encourage new businesses with cash discounts on business rates;
Fakenham identified within the LDF as being the focus of new development and
the most capable of accommodating development in a sustainable manner. The
expansion planned to include 'mixed use urban expansion' to the north of the
present town whilst within the centre new retail development is to be encouraged;
A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) should be carried out;
Additional information required in respect of days/opening hours of operation, age
of customers and whether alcohol would be sold at the premises.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection as there is no predicted impact to the
highway network.
Environmental Health: no objection subject to conditions:
All external doors and windows to the building shall be kept shut at all times
during working hours apart from when providing access for personnel and visitors
and deliveries.
The premises subject to this permission shall only be open to the public between
the hours of 9am and 9pm weekdays and Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays
and Bank or Public holidays.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): No
objections to the principle of this change of use. However, should this application be
approved, we need to make it clear that any alterations or advertisements may need
separate applications for planning permission or advertisement consent.
Architectural Liaison Officer: No comments/objections to make on behalf of Norfolk
Constabulary based on limited documents available.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
8
26 July 2012
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Land allocated for retail development in the Site Specific Allocations Development
Plan document adopted by the Council in February 2011.
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Loss of retail use / acceptability of D2 use
Impact on Conservation Area, town centre and community
Potential anti-social behaviour, noise and disturbance, safety concerns
APPRAISAL
The building is currently a double-fronted retail unit fronting onto Norwich Street.
The site is located in an area identified as Town Centre and within a Primary
Shopping Area, but outside the area designated as Primary Retail Frontage. On the
basis that Policy SS5 of the adopted Core Strategy supports a broad range of uses
including shopping commercial and cultural, a change of the use of the premises
from A1 (retail) to D2 (amusement arcade) is acceptable in terms of adopted Core
Strategy policy.
The proposal is purely for a change of use of the unit to a D2 (amusement arcade)
use. No material changes to the building or advertisements are being considered
under this application. Any future applications for material changes or advertisements
would need to be considered on their merits and against relevant policies.
In terms of potential anti-social behaviour, noise and disturbance and safety
concerns, the Committee will note that both the Council's Environmental Health team
and the Architectural Liaison Officer have been consulted on the application. The
Council's Environmental Health team have considered the application and consider
that it is acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions. The Architectural Liaison
Officer has no comments/objections to make.
It is considered that the requested Environmental Health conditions would help to
limit the potential for anti-social behaviour, noise and disturbance and safety issues.
In the absence of objections raised by Environmental Health and the Architectural
Liaison Officer, it is not considered that the application could be refused on these
grounds.
On balance, it is considered that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
the proposed development would be acceptable and compliant with the relevant Core
Strategy policies.
Development Committee
9
26 July 2012
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including
requiring all external doors and windows to the building to be kept shut at all
times during working hours apart from when providing access for personnel
and visitors and deliveries and restricting opening hours to members of the
public between the hours of 9am and 9pm weekdays and Saturdays, and not at
all on Sundays and Bank or Public holidays.
4.
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0278 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection
of two-storey dwelling; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms G Elwood
Minor Development
- Target Date: 30 April 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Tree Preservation Order - Consultation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20061284
PO - Erection of two dwellings and one unit of holiday
accommodation
Refused 04/10/2006
PLA/20070889 PO - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 08/05/2008
PLA/20090237 PM - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 07/05/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is for the demolition of a single storey dwelling and erection of a two storey dwelling.
The proposal would provide a three bedroom dwelling of a contemporary flat roof
design. Materials would consist of white painted render and a coloured timber
cladding.
The form of the proposed dwelling can be described as that of two rectangular
cuboids linked with a taller central element. The submitted plans show the
rectangular cuboids off set from each other to the north and south of the central
element. The rectangle to the north measures approximately 13m x 5.5m, and 6.5m
in height. The rectangle to the south measures approximately 17.5m x 5.5m, and
6.5m in height. The central element measures approximately 8m in height. The
proposed dwelling would measure approximately 30m from east to west, and 13m
from north to south. The site itself measures approximately 75m x 20m.
Amended plans have been received in relation to the external appearance removing
the bin store and roof overhangs and introducing a picture window at first floor on the
front elevation and alterations to the elevational treatment.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Young having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Design
Development Committee
10
26 July 2012
2. Impact upon character of area
3. Impact upon neighbouring properties
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments on original plans - Object on following grounds:
1. It is out of character with the locality let alone neighbouring properties.
2. We would like to see this property have some pitched roofs.
3. This plan does not enhance the area.
4. It is over development of the site.
5. We would like to see this application go to the Development Committee for
consideration.
Comments on amended plans remain as previously - object.
REPRESENTATIONS
Twelve letters of objection have been received on the original plans from local
residents raising the following points:
1. Proposed dwelling substantially larger than the modest one it replaces.
2. Proposed dwelling 5m closer to road dramatically increasing its visibility.
3. Will be clearly visible.
4. Materials are inconsistent with predominance of brick and tile houses.
5. The flat roof jars with the pitched roofs of all the other houses in the road.
6. Inadequate provision for off street parking
7. Proposed building would look too large on too narrow a plot and out of place
8. Overdevelopment.
9. Out of keeping with character of area.
10. Ugly building looks like a dental surgery, school building, office block.
11. Would be a blot on the landscape.
12. Trees removed opening up site.
13. Would not enhance the area.
14. Inappropriate.
15. Impact upon root protection area of trees.
Three letters commenting on the application have been received two of which
request a condition on any approval that a 2m high close boarded fence is erected on
the western and northern boundaries of the site adjacent to the properties known as
Edgewood and Far End to protect the amenity and privacy of these neighbouring
properties.
Eighteen letters of support have been received since the amended plans have been
submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Building Control - No comments
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - Comments on
amended plans: As before, there are no objections to the proposed demolition of the
existing building. In terms of its replacement, there are also no concerns about a
contemporary design approach being adopted. This „in principle‟ support stems from
the fact that: 1. The area is architecturally diverse and already supports a broad range of dwelling
types and styles,
2. Such an approach is in the spirit of the Art Deco and Modernist buildings which are
occasionally encountered in similar circumstances (e.g. Aylmerton, Beeston Regis).
Development Committee
11
26 July 2012
When found, these properties provide unexpected visual interest and depth to the
area, and
3. The approach is an honest one which properly relates to the times.
As regards form and design, concerns were previously expressed over the scale of
the building relative to the plot and about the treatment of its front elevation. Whilst
the amended plans have sought to address the latter criticism, the basic outline and
dimensions of the building remain as originally submitted.
Having now looked at the proposals again, and assessed them in the context of the
photomontages which have been supplied, the proposed building would undoubtedly
be a substantial structure. At approximately 30m front to back, it would have a real
presence on what is a relatively narrow site. This said, it would be broken into a
series of articulated elements to reduce its massing. Indeed the two main parallel
blocks would ensure that the full mass of the build would never be appreciated from
any of the important vantage points. With the varied palette of materials also helping
in this respect, and the building seemingly no higher than the property to the south,
the issue of scale on plan perhaps becomes less of a concern in practice. Particularly
with the design amendments which have been made to the previously rather lumpen
south elevation, it is finely balanced as to whether the size of the building actually
translates into a sustainable ground for objection.
Design-wise, the revised front elevation no longer has such a robust and
unwelcoming appearance. The introduction of the picture window at first floor level,
and the removal of the ground floor bin store would help to enliven the most visible
face of the building. This potentially lighter treatment would also help in bedding the
building onto the site. Clearly, however, it would still be an unashamed piece of
contemporary architecture which would introduce a new architectural layer within the
village.
In summary, it has to be said that this is not an easy proposal to assess. On the one
hand the dwelling is considerably bigger than the existing bungalow and appears
larger than ideal for the site. It also cannot be considered to be locally distinctive in
the vernacular sense of the term. It is therefore understandable that we have
received several local objections.
On the other hand, however, the design would certainly be distinct to the locality. It
would also potentially be an exciting piece of modern architecture which would add
depth and visual interest to an otherwise architecturally disparate context. For these
reasons, and the following it is not considered that there are sufficient grounds for
Conservation & Design to object to this application:
i) the intersecting elements of the build would help to break up its volume on the site,
ii) the site does not occupy an especially public location,
iii) the development reinforces the form and character of the area in the sense that it
involves a single detached house set within its own verdant grounds, and
iv) the plot does not lie within a designated conservation area,
This notwithstanding, should Development Committee be minded to approve the
scheme, we would need to closely condition the external facing materials.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - Original comments - Having
reviewed the Arboricultural Implications Assessment, Design and Access Statement
and the submitted plans there are some questions concerning the proposed dwelling
and the adjacent trees.
Development Committee
12
26 July 2012
The arboricultural report indicates that the dwelling should preferably be designed
outside of the Root Protection Areas (RPA) and canopy spreads of the trees where
possible. This is reiterated in the D&A statement, which states that “as far as possible
building within the RPA has been avoided”. The D&A provides further information
and an engineer‟s foundation sketch where encroachment by the building into the
RPA could not be avoided and specialist construction methods would be applied. The
sketch illustrates that a small section of the building would be cantilevered above
ground (where the RPA of T6 and T8 is met) with the majority of the remaining
foundations being standard concrete strip foundations and outside of the RPA of the
remaining trees. However, when the tree survey information is extrapolated onto the
Site Plan it appears that the building footprint significantly encroaches into the RPA
of trees T6 (pine), T8 (pine), T10 (sliver birch) and T12 (silver birch) and does not
correspond with the engineers foundation sketch design. It has not therefore been
clarified how the building can be built without significantly damaging the roots of the
trees affected, some of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The use of
concrete strip foundations, as indicated, would not be acceptable within the RPA of
the trees.
I would therefore be grateful if you could seek further clarification on discrepancies
between the D&A statement and the Site Plan/Tree Survey detail and how the trees
will be protected. I have attached a copy of the Site Plan with the RPA and Crown
Spread marked up for further information.
Comments on amended plans - No objection. The amended plan illustrates that a
suitable construction method is possible using pile foundations. Conditions are
required to safeguard the trees on and adjacent to the site including the submission
of a full Arboricultural Method Statement. Details will be required on construction
exclusion zones (full Tree Protection Plan), fencing requirements, storage of
equipment and materials, ground protection zones, timing, 'no-dig' driveways,
together with foundation details.
Environmental Health - No objections
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Code Level 3 condition required on any approval in
order to ensure compliance with Policy EN6.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Development Committee
13
26 July 2012
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
4. Impact upon trees
5. Impact upon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
6. Car parking
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where replacement dwellings
are permitted provided they accord with the requirements of Policy HO8. The site is
also located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policy HO8 permits replacement dwellings in the countryside where they would not
result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the original
dwelling and would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding countryside. In determining what constitutes a
'disproportionately large increase' account will be taken of the size of the existing
dwelling, the extent to which it has previously been extended or could be extended
under permitted development rights, and the prevailing character of the area.
The existing dwelling is of a timber construction, and given its modest scale it is not
considered unreasonable that an application has been received for its replacement
with a larger, updated dwelling. Whilst it is currently a fairly inconspicuous property, it
is considered that any replacement would significantly alter its design and
appearance. In its current state it is not considered to positively contribute
architecturally to the varied and mixed character of the road.
The existing single storey dwelling on the site, along with the existing garage have a
built footprint of approximately 105m². The built footprint of the proposed dwelling
would be approximately 179m², less than double the existing. However, the total floor
area of the proposed dwelling, given that it is two storey, would be approximately
300m².
Whilst it is clear that the proposed dwelling is considerably larger than the existing
dwelling the site is located within an already developed area, where there is a wide
mix of sizes, scale, styles and materials. It is not an area where one character
prevails over another, and has no overriding local distinctiveness. Vale Road itself
has a mixture of bungalows, chalets and two storey houses, as well as detached and
Development Committee
14
26 July 2012
semi-detached, varying in scale, periods and style. Therefore, taking into account the
very diverse mix in the character of the area there is no objection to a contemporary
design in this location, or to a dwelling that is larger in scale than the existing. In fact
Policy EN4 positively encourages high quality, innovative design, which this is
considered to be.
In the original comments received from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Conservation and Design) no objections were raised in relation to a
replacement dwelling in this location or to a contemporary design. However, some
concerns were raised over the scale and massing of the proposed dwelling when
viewed from the north and south elevations, as well as what was considered to be 'a
less than welcoming' front elevation. A meeting took place between the applicant and
her then agent and Officers to discuss these points. The applicant took on board
these comments and has attempted to address these concerns by amending the
plans. This has resulted in the large roof overhangs being omitted from the scheme,
the removal of the bin store from the front of the property, the introduction of a picture
window on the front elevation at first floor level, and changes to the elevational
treatment mainly materials and positioning of windows. These amended plans were
readvertised on site and reconsultation carried out.
The Committee will note the detailed comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) following the receipt of those
amended plans. Whilst it is considered that the proposed dwelling would be a
substantial structure it is considered to be an exciting piece of modern design which
would contribute architecturally to its surroundings. It is considered that the
amendments create a more welcoming front entrance and a 'lighter' treatment to its
appearance which would help to bed the building onto the site. The amendments
along with the form of the proposed building being broken down into a series of
elements, would ensure that the full mass of the building is not read as a whole from
important vantage points. The scale of the proposed building in relation to the size of
the site has been raised. However, whilst the site is fairly narrow and long, on
balance it is not considered that the given the overall size of the site that the proposal
constitutes overdevelopment. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
(Conservation and Design) considers the issue of scale on plan to be less of a
concern in practice. Given that the intersecting elements of the build would help to
break up its volume on the site, the site does not occupy an especially public
location, the development reinforces the form and character of the area in the sense
that it involves a single detached house set within its own verdant grounds, and the
plot does not lie within a designated conservation area the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) on balance does not object to the
application.
The NPPF provides guidance on 'Requiring good design' and in paragraph 60 states
that 'Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles
or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative
through unsubstantiated requirements to confirm to certain development forms or
styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness'.
The matter of local distinctiveness has already been addressed in this report where
in this case it is not considered that there is a particular local distinctiveness in this
area. In addition paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that 'In determining applications,
great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise
the standard of design more generally in the area'.
To the north of the application site the adjacent land is well wooded with mature
trees, which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The nearest residential
Development Committee
15
26 July 2012
properties to the north and north west are some 35 - 37m away. The dwellings
directly to the east also have mature planting to their boundaries which would
partially screen views of the proposed dwelling from their properties. Whilst there are
windows/glazing to the first floor of the southern elevation of the proposed dwelling
these are primarily double height glazing to staircases, approximately 5m off the
southern boundary and approximately 19m from the nearest dwelling to the south.
Such relationships are considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the
District Council's guidance on amenity criteria. It is not therefore considered that the
proposed dwelling would have a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and
amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties.
In relation to trees affected by the proposed development the Committee will note
that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) has no
objection to the amended details subject to conditions being imposed on any
approval to safeguard the trees on and adjacent during and after construction. .
Since these comments were made the applicants architect has had a discussion with
Landscape Officer in relation to the possibility of piling the foundations. At the time of
writing this report further details were awaited on this matter. The Committee will
therefore be updated at the meeting.
Whilst the site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it is an
already developed area and not a stand-alone isolated site within open countryside.
In view of this it is not considered that the proposal would be significantly detrimental
to the surrounding countryside or the special qualities and setting of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Objections have been raised in relation to car parking on the site. However, being a
three bedroom property only two car parking spaces are required in accordance with
the District Council's car parking standards. This could satisfactorily be achieved on
site. There is not therefore any objection in relation to the car parking proposed.
In conclusion, the replacement of the existing dwelling along with the contemporary
design proposed, its relationship to neighbouring dwellings and impact upon trees
subject to Tree Preservation Orders is considered to be acceptable. Whilst the
replacement dwelling is undoubtedly larger in scale than the existing it is considered
that given the diverse mix of development in the immediate area and that the overall
scale and massing of the proposed dwelling has been broken down into a series of
elements, as well as the use of a mix of materials to break up the elevations that on
balance the proposed dwelling would be acceptable and in accordance with
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
5.
LANGHAM - PF/12/0721 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 06/0770 to permit design amendments to cottages 1, 2, 3-7, 10-12, 13
& 14 and variation of condition 3 to permit permanent residential occupation;
Former site of Langham Glass, North Street for Avada Country Homes
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 August 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
Development Committee
16
26 July 2012
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19791606 PF - Glass manufacture
Approved 11/12/1979
PLA/19801288 HR - Proposed glass workshop, shop, office, restaurant exhibition
gallery and car park
Approved 07/10/1980
PLA/20060014 PF - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel and
village shop and erection of twenty-eight holiday cottages
Withdrawn 09/03/2006
PLA/20060770 PF - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel and
village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages
Approved 09/12/2008
PF/12/0181 PF
Conversion and extension of barns to provide hotel with swimming pool, restaurant
and bar facilities, conversion of barn to four residential dwellings and erection of five
holiday dwellings
LA/12/0182 LA
Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to four dwellings
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to vary conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission ref: PF/06/0770
to permit design amendments to cottages 1, 2, 3-7, 10-12, 13 and 14 (including some
re-siting) and to permit permanent residential occupation of the units previously
restricted to holiday accommodation.
The applicant proposes to provide a commuted lump sum of £500,000 to pay for offsite affordable housing provision to be used in the village of Langham.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control in view of the fact that
the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan
PARISH COUNCIL
Langham Parish Council - Comments awaited
REPRESENTATIONS
None received to date
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) - Original comments regarding the parking layout and
turning - It is generally accepted, including by the Planning Inspectorate, that
permanent residences generate more movements than those in holiday occupation.
That said, given that Langham has a school and a public house and will have a shop,
there need not be total dependency upon the car, although this will be the dominant
mode, given that the bus service to Holt, the nearest service centre, is spasmodic.
Development Committee
17
26 July 2012
Some of the additional movements generated by permanent residences will be made
by service vehicles and it is difficult to see how such vehicles will be able to turn
within the site, given the constricted approach to cottages 3 – 17, inclusive, and the
lack of a turning area in the vicinity of cottages 13 and 14. Given the silence in the
transport statement on this aspect, the Highway Authority considers that the
applicant should be asked to demonstrate why it considers that the servicing of these
dwellings will not have an adverse impact upon the operation of the rest of the
complex and the adjacent highway.
The juxtaposition of parking spaces 47 – 52, inclusive will give rise to accessibility
problems for users of these spaces/garages.
Further information was requested and received from the applicant.
Further comments - Based on further information submitted from the applicant, the
Highway Authority have commented 'I am pleased to confirm that the information
supplied [by the applicant] allays my concerns so that there are no objections to the
application. I consider that there is benefit in allocating specific parking spaces to
each property'.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - In terms of
the principle of moving from a holiday to a residential use, Conservation & Design
have no need to express a particular view. Although the amenity areas are clearly
very cramped in the back corners of the site, this is not an issue which would really
affect the character and appearance of this part of Langham‟s Conservation Area.
More important in this are the design changes which have been made to the
individual units.
In this respect, the latest revisions are evolutionary rather than radical. For the most
part the footprint of the cottages follows that previously approved with only subtle
changes now proposed. Those that have been made generally involve re-ordering
the interiors. However, where additional accommodation has been considered
necessary, dimensional increases to some of the units are envisaged.
This is most notably seen on the 2 no “flagship” properties (plots 13 & 14) where the
24% increase in floorspace translates into slightly wider gables and a consequential
increase in ridge height. Given these two buildings sit hard against the rear boundary
of the site, and would therefore be readily visible from Blakeney Road, this is
considered less than ideal in visual terms. However, with the ridgeline only being
raised by some 400mm, it is not possible to sustain a C&D objection to this
amendment.
Elsewhere, the minor fenestrational alterations make little appreciable difference to
the overall content of the scheme. The elevations remain generally mild-mannered
and pleasantly detailed in a neo-vernacular style. Certainly there is nothing that
particularly jars on the eye. Whilst the new garaging/car ports would perhaps add to
the perception of the development being cramped, this must be balanced against
getting some of the cars under cover and out of view.
Overall, therefore, this is a scheme which has always pushed at the boundaries of
acceptability. In this respect, the latest revisions are little different. As before,
however, it is still considered that the gains to be had from the scheme in terms of
enlivening this important site, and securing the future of its listed buildings, outweigh
any considerations about over-development at the back of the site. With the materials
still impeccably specified, C&D can conclude that the scheme overall would not harm
Development Committee
18
26 July 2012
the significance of the Langham Conservation Area.
Environmental Health - Comments - I can confirm that I have received and examined
the above application in respect to the development site. The applicant has already
made prior contact to discuss the potentially contaminated land status of the site.
Consequently the applicant has proposed two schemes to evaluate the potential
presence of possible contamination. However after reviewing the proposals and
examining the applicants preferred option, I have provided the following comments:
To conform to best practice, additional sampling is recommended within the area
formally associated with the Langham Glass car park area, the proposed number
of samples within this area (3-4) is deemed to be sufficient.
In accordance with the developer‟s proposals, findings of this assessment should
then be submitted to north Norfolk district council. In the event of contamination
being found proposals for mitigation should also be submitted and agreed with
the CLO before proceeding.
Please note:
Confirmation regarding soil removal from site should be accompanied by relevant
waste transfer receipts.
Any soils imported onto site for landscaping purposes should be analysed to
confirm their suitability for use, in this particular instance this includes those soils
currently stockpiled on site. The sampling frequency proposed for those existing
soils (if used) is deemed to be sufficient for the purposes of validation.
Planning Policy Manager - Response awaited
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Response awaited
Strategic Housing Officer - I have considered the information that has been provided
by the applicant re the former Langham Glass site. I have carefully considered the
information provided and the viability of the site in providing a financial contribution in
lieu of on-site affordable housing. I have also modelled the viability of on-site
affordable housing.
I have concluded that on site affordable housing of the required amount (if this site
was treated as a Service Village at 50%) would not be viable.
I am therefore able to support approval of this application on the basis that it will
provide a financial contribution of £500,000 for affordable housing which will be
provided elsewhere. This financial contribution to be secured through a Section 106
Agreement.
The trigger for the payment of the affordable housing contribution as proposed by the
applicant is generally acceptable, although the current trigger does not include any
reference to sale. The section 106 agreement should therefore be amended to:
“To be paid in five instalments of £100,000 for each 4 completed, sold and / or
occupied properties from the 21 approved within 14 days of the 4th , 8th, 12th, 16th
and 20th property being sold and / or occupied.”
The financial contribution to be used within the parish of Langham, or if not possible,
within the adjoining parishes, or if not possible anywhere in North Norfolk. If not
spent or committed to a scheme within 5 years the contribution is to be repaid.
Development Committee
19
26 July 2012
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy 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 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where
the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy EC 7: The location of new tourism development (provides a sequential
approach for new tourist accommodation and attractions).
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
Background
Principle
Design Amendments
Affordable Housing
Development Committee
20
26 July 2012
Dwelling Mix and Type
Highway Safety
Impact on Residential Amenity
Impact on AONB and Conservation Area
Impact on Viability of Hotel
Other Material Considerations
APPRAISAL
BACKGROUND
On 03 May 2012 the Development Committee considered applications PF/12/0181
and LA/12/0182 on the application site which involved, amongst other things,
changes to the scheme approved under planning ref: PF/06/0770 in order to make
the development more viable in view of the tough economic conditions which have so
far prevented the development from being completed as originally approved. Whilst
applications PF/12/0181 & LA/12/0182 were approved by the Committee, in
considering how to make the development as a whole more viable the Committee
indicated (without prejudice) that it would be minded to support in principle an
amended proposal to provide market housing in place of holiday units subject to
either the provision of affordable housing on site or a contribution towards off-site
provision subject to an open book valuation. Application PF/12/0721 is such a
proposal.
PRINCIPLE
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application site is located
within the Countryside Policy Area where Core Strategy Policy SS2 would not
normally permit the creation of new-build unrestricted residential dwellings. As such,
unless there are material considerations that would justify a departure from the
Development Plan, the proposal should be refused.
DESIGN AMENDMENTS
The applicant proposes to make a number of changes to the units originally approved
under planning ref: PF/06/0770 primarily in order to make the buildings more suited
to permanent residential occupation.
Members will note the extensive comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager who is on balance raising no objections.
On balance therefore it is considered that the proposal would accord with Policies EN
4 and EN 8.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
In relation to affordable housing provision, neither Core Strategy Policy HO 2 or HO 3
are relevant to the proposed development as the site is located within the
Countryside Policy Area and is not proposed as a rural exception scheme. In
considering the need to provide affordable housing the applicant has carried out an
open book valuation exercise which takes account of the uplift in value associated
with unrestricted residential occupation of the. The applicant has offered to provide a
sum of £500,000 for the provision of affordable housing within the village of Langham
and which would be paid in stages when dwellings are sold/occupied on the
application site. The Strategic Housing Officer has reviewed the development using
open book valuations and, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant
and using her own judgement, has accepted the offer in principle to provide a
financial contribution of £500,000 for off-site affordable housing provision, subject to
the completion of an appropriate S106 obligation.
Development Committee
21
26 July 2012
DWELLING MIX AND TYPE
The applicant proposes to provide 21 dwellings in total comprising (in their words) 4 x
2 beds, 3 x Small 3 beds, 6 x Medium 3 beds, 2 x Small 4 beds, 4 x Medium 4
beds and 2 x Large 4 beds. The 2-bed units would be approximately 70sqm in
size and this would be broadly compatible with the aims of Policy HO 1 to provide
a range of smaller units. No information has been submitted to indicate that the 2bed units would be 'suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly,
infirm or disabled'. Most of the properties have bedrooms and bathrooms at
ground floor level with living accommodation (including kitchens) at first floor level
and this would potentially reduce the ease of adaptability. Notwithstanding the
concerns regarding adaptability, taking account of other material considerations
(indicated below) it is considered that the general aims of Policy HO 1 to provide
a range of dwelling sizes is broadly achieved.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
In considering the proposal the Highway Authority have commented: 'It is generally
accepted, including by the Planning Inspectorate, that permanent residences
generate more movements than those in holiday occupation. That said, given that
Langham has a school and a public house and will have a shop, there need not be
total dependency upon the car, although this will be the dominant mode, given that
the bus service to Holt, the nearest service centre, is spasmodic'.
Having considered the proposal, the Highway Authority had raised some concern
about the location and positioning of parking spaces in connection with the dwellings
and had commented about the limited opportunities for vehicle turning areas,
including for both domestic vehicles and service vehicles (which would include waste
collection vehicles and any medium/large delivery vehicles which might be expected
to service residential properties). The applicant subsequently provided further
information to address the concerns raised by the Highway Authority. As a
consequence the Highway Authority have removed their objection but have indicated
that there would be merit in allocating parking spaces for each property and the
applicant is in the processes of preparing plans.
On balance, whilst it is acknowledged that parking and manoeuvring spaces are, in
places, spatially constrained and the development as a whole falls short of the
adopted parking standards (47 indicated parking spaces for the proposed residential
dwellings instead of a required minimum of 50 spaces), taking account of other
material considerations (indicated below) it is not considered that the proposal
would give rise to severe highway impacts and, as such, refusal on highway
grounds could not be substantially justified.
It is proposed that the remaining 56 unallocated spaces would be for the hotel, village
shop and barns 5-8 (which do not form part of this application).
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The proposed design amendments, as highlighted above, would result in some
buildings being closer to existing boundaries with neighbouring properties including
some residents outside of the site. In particular cottage 13 (Plot 16 on the original
approved scheme) would be approximately 2m closer to the northern boundary with
the adjacent primary school and cottages 3-7 (Plots 8-10 on the original approved
scheme) are approximately 1m closer to the western boundary with the adjacent
properties known as No. 12 and 'The Forge' on North Street. In addition to being
physically closer to the boundaries of the site, the internal configuration of rooms at
Development Committee
22
26 July 2012
first floor level has also changed compared with the approved plans which, in the
case of cottage 13, would result in the addition of a further window in the northern
elevation to serve a library. However, this is balanced by the fact that the other first
floor window in the north elevation would now serve a kitchen rather than a living
room. In cottages 4 and 7, the first floor west elevation of each unit would now
contain a four bay feature window whereas previously this proposed a 3-bay window.
The internal rooms would now include a kitchen/living room compared with a kitchen
previously. In all other respects the dwellings are broadly similar to the original
approved scheme. Whilst it may be possible that the amendments could result in
some degree of increased overlooking of neighbouring properties outside of the site,
on balance, compared with the approved scheme, this is not considered to result in
excessive overlooking or adverse impacts to warrant refusal.
In terms of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings, the original scheme was
designed to cater for holiday accommodation purposes and therefore,
notwithstanding the design amendments, there is no hiding the fact that in many
cases the garden sizes/private amenity spaces are smaller than would normally be
required for new build dwellings. In the case of the largest properties (cottages 13
and 14) private amenity space is little more than 50-60sqm in size which is small for
a large 4-bed unit. However these properties do benefit from views across the
adjacent amenity land, which would, to some extent, offset the shortfall in terms of
visual amenity.
On balance, whilst the proposal would result in some dwellings sited closer to the site
boundary and which could facilitate some additional overlooking of adjacent
neighbours; and whilst it is clearly acknowledged that private amenity spaces in
many cases fall below the adopted design guide standards, taking account of other
material considerations (indicated below) refusal on grounds of failure to strictly
comply with Core Strategy Policy EN 4 and Design Guide criteria regarding
amenity space sizes would, in the opinion of officers, be difficult to substantiate in
terms of material harm particularly when compared with the original approved
scheme.
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB) &
LANGHAM CONSERVATION AREA
It is not considered that the proposal would have any greater impact on the AONB
compared with the original approved scheme nor is it considered that the proposal
would substantially harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
IMPACT ON VIABILITY OF HOTEL
A key consideration when approving the original permission was the enabling
argument put forward by the applicant that the cottages were required to financially
enable delivery of the hotel. Part of this consideration was the link between the
holiday cottages and the hotel and the benefit in trade that the holiday cottages
would bring to the hotel in relation to the restaurant and spa/gym facility. By removing
the holiday occupancy restriction there is a probability that this could have an impact
on trade derived from within the complex but there is no firm evidence to substantiate
this. Nonetheless, if the holiday cottages do become permanent residential
properties, it is likely that many of the residents would still use the facilities at the
hotel, although this is still estimated by officers to be at a reduced level compared
with the number of holiday tourist cottage guests that may have financially
contributed to the viability of the hotel. In summary therefore, the Committee are
advised to take into account the potential impact on the hotel viability when making
their decision.
Development Committee
23
26 July 2012
CONTAMINATED LAND
Given the site's previous history and uses, there is the possibility that the site could
contain contaminants. The applicant has already sought to discharge contamination
conditions in relation to application ref: PF/06/0770. However, in view of the change
from holiday accommodation to permanent residential use now proposed, further
investigation is required to ensure that permanent residential occupiers are not
exposed to high levels of contamination and the applicant has proposed two
schemes of evaluation. Subject to certain conditions, the Contaminated Land Officer
has not raised an objection to the proposal, which would comply with Policy EN 13.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
On 27 March 2012 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect
which sets out the Government‟s intended direction of travel in respect of achieving
sustainable development. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF sets out ways in which Local
Planning Authorities should support a prosperous rural economy. “To promote a
strong rural economy local and neighbourhood plans should:
support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and
enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well
designed new buildings;
support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit
businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the
character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and
expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified
needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; and
promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities
in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings,
public houses and places of worship”.
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF also states:
"Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for
enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but
which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the
disbenefits of departing from those policies."
Given that the development as a whole would help enable provision of a significant
tourist asset in the form of a hotel with facilities including a restaurant and spa and
would also enable the delivery of a new village shop, it is considered that the
proposal would be compatible with the aims of the NPPF to foster economic growth,
provide employment opportunities and secure the future conservation of the heritage
asset.
In considering this application the Committee needs to be mindful of the planning
history of the site which is a material consideration in the determination of the
application. In particular the attention of the Committee is drawn to application
reference PF/06/0770 for “conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel and
village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages” which was approved on
09 December 2008. The decision to approve hinged on the “enabling development”
argument put forward by the applicant, a view which was supported by Councilappointed consultants. The applications were considered by Committee on several
occasions and were subject of a subsequently withdrawn legal challenge in the High
Development Committee
24
26 July 2012
Court mounted by the owners of a property in North Street, Langham. The
permission was subject to an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
In 2011 the applicant discharged relevant planning conditions attached to the
permission and listed building consent and a start was duly made on the proposal
within the prescribed time limit. As such, it is a matter of fact that the PF/06/0770
permission has been implemented and could be completed in accordance with the
approved plans/details should the applicant or any successor in title choose to do so.
Another material consideration to which significant weight can be attached is the
enabling argument in support of the proposal.
The unrestricted residential
occupancy of the cottages is likely to make it easier to bring forward finance to
enable the project to proceed and that will see the hotel and associated development
completed and which will bring the benefit of direct and indirect jobs and the
prosperity this will bring.
In addition, local residents may derive benefit from the proposed village shop and the
additional customers as a result of the proposal would help to maintain and possibly
enhance the vitality of Langham village including not only the proposed shop and
hotel but also the local school and public house and church. This would accord with
the aims set out in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which is
a material consideration in the determination of the application.
A significant further material consideration in favour of the proposal is that permanent
residential occupation of the holiday units would provide an uplift in value that would
enable a significant financial contribution of £500,000 towards affordable housing
provision in the village. Clearly a site needs to be found upon which to build
affordable dwellings but the contribution would provide an impetus to make such a
scheme happen with the support of the Parish and District Councils.
SUMMARY
Proposed development on this site continues to present a challenge to adopted
Development Plan Policy in that the proposal currently before Committee for 21
unrestricted residential properties is contrary to the Development Plan and the
application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In this instance, a key material considerations is the need and desire to bring the
former Langham Glass site back into active economic use to help contribute to the
vitality and viability of Langham village as a rural settlement. The original approved
proposal (PF/06/0770) was not considered to be economically viable and the
subsequent amendments proposed under planning ref: PF/12/0181 would, according
to the applicant, have only just made the scheme viable (although there still remained
doubts as to whether that scheme would still be deliverable or bankable in view of a
number of planning restrictions). The proposed application would provide unrestricted
holiday cottages and, as such, would represent the greatest opportunity for a viable
scheme which would deliver not only residential properties but also more importantly
the creation of a hotel and associated development including a village shop.
Whilst undoubtedly the proposal has shortcomings in relation to the slightly cramped
nature of the site for full residential occupation, this has to be balanced against the
benefits that would be derived from a significant affordable housing contribution of
£500,000 and the employment opportunities that would be derived following the
opening of a hotel in addition to the benefits to local residents from improved facilities
Development Committee
25
26 July 2012
within the village.
Taken as a whole, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme are sufficient
material considerations to justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this
instance but this should be on the understanding that the applicant will now ensure
early delivery of the project so that the benefits of the scheme can be derived as
soon as possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to no further objections from consultees and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and the completion of an
amended S106 obligation to include the payment of £500,000 for the provision
of affordable housing and changes to phasing in respect of the delivery of the
hotel.
6.
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.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0418 - Erection of retail store and associated
parking; Polka Road Caravans, Polka Road for Anglia Regional Co-Op Society
and Lindum Group
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Local Members for Wells-next-the-Sea and to expedite the
processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
7.
APPEAL AGAINST NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE TOWN AND
COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: LAND ADJACENT TO HOLT ROAD,
WEYBOURNE
To inform the Committee of the outcome of a recent Court case.
On 15 December 2011 a notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 was served in respect of an area of land adjacent to Holt Road, Weybourne
on which an old caravan, end of life vehicles, a dismantled shed, trailer and rubbish
etc were being stored.. The notice required the removal of those various items to an
authorised place of storage or disposal and was the subject of an appeal to the
Magistrates‟ Court.
Development Committee
26
26 July 2012
The appeal was heard by District Judge Veits in the Norwich Magistrates‟ Court on
12 July 2012 and allowed in part in that the Judge concluded that the Council can
properly require the offending items to be removed from the land but cannot require
the items to be removed to “an authorised place of storage or disposal”.
Subject to that variation the Judge concluded that the notice was properly issued and
the offending items are to be removed within 21 days from the date of the hearing
from the site which the Judge referred to as “an eyesore”. An award of costs was
also made in favour of the District Council.
A copy of the Judge‟s note of the decision on this appeal is appended (Appendix 2)
for the Committee‟s information.
(Source: Kate Steventon, Enforcement Officer ext 6247)
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ANTINGHAM - PF/12/0507 - Erection of first floor side extensions; The Old
Stable Yard, Southrepps Road for Mr & Mrs O Dixon
(Householder application)
BACTON - LA/12/0172 - Retention of replacement windows; 1 Grange Cottages,
North Walsham Road for Mr & Mrs P Lyttle
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACTON - AN/12/0393 - Continued display of non-illuminated direction sign;
Land at Bacton Road, Edingthorpe for Richardsons Sawmill
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BACTON - PF/12/0452 - Erection of detached garage; Rosemary Cottage,
Keswick Road for Mr & Mrs Brown
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/12/0553 - Erection of rear conservatory and detached
garage; Hayletts, Staithe Road for Mr & Mrs Greenwood
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - LA/12/0554 - Erection of rear conservatory; Hayletts, Staithe
Road for Mr & Mrs Greenwood
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0484 - Erection of garage/garden store; Rose Cottage, 4 The
Butts, Saxlingham Road for Mr R Thompson
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0607 - Erection of spiral staircase and erection of fence;
Moonrakers, Back Lane for Mrs Rogerson
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0486 - Increase in height of borehole cover;
Glandford Water Treatment Works, Glandford Road, Glandford for Anglian
Water Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
27
26 July 2012
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0525 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
pergola, re-location of smoking facility and re-tiling of roof; Three Swallows,
Newgate Green for Punch Taverns
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0085 - Installation of five air condition cooling units enclosed
within a single storey lean to side extension; Dolphin, New Street for Mrs J
Alger
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/12/0086 - Installation of five air condition cooling units enclosed
within a single storey lean to side extension; Dolphin, New Street for Mrs J
Alger
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/12/0445 - Conversion of ground floor retail (A1) to two flats; 30
West Street for HandyGary
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/12/0509 - Erection of rear conservatory; 3 Chesterfield Cottages,
West Street for Mr & Mrs Stanley
(Householder application)
CROMER - NMA1/10/0951 - Non-material amendment request for reduction in
width and height of extension and increase in length of extension of garage to
form annexe; Cherry Tree Lodge, 35 Norwich Road for Mr D Fisher
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CROMER - PF/12/0593 - Erection of detached annexe (revised siting); 39 Cliff
Drive for Mr & Mrs C Mayes
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/12/0227 - Erection of replacement garden room extension; The
Old Rectory, Rectory Road for Mr I Mawson
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - LA/12/0228 - Demolition of garden room and erection of
replacement extension and formation of opening; The Old Rectory, Rectory
Road for Mr I Mawson
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/11/0193 - Non-material amendment request for changes to
fenestration and increase in length of single-storey element; Langar Farm, Holt
Road for Mr & Mrs A J Neale
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
ERPINGHAM - LA/12/0583 - Demolition of porch and erection of entrance
extension; Erpingham Lodge, Butts Common, Banningham Road, Ingworth for
Mr Mackintosh
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0200 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; The Garden
House, 30 Bridge Street for JD Wetherspoon PLC
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
28
26 July 2012
FAKENHAM - LE/12/0201 - Demolition of conservatory and extension; The
Garden House, 30 Bridge Street for JD Wetherspoon PLC
(Conservation Area Demolition)
FAKENHAM - LA/12/0438 - Demolition of single-storey rear extension and
conservatory, installation of internal staircase and external door; 14 Nelson
Road for Mr P Parker
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - AI/12/0512 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements; Meditrina House, Meditrina Park, Trinity Road for FMP Norfolk
Ltd
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0559 - Installation of air conditioning units and extract
grille; 14 Millers Walk for Greggs PLC
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0576 - Erection of single-storey front extension, one and a
half storey rear extension, replacement dormer windows and replacement
garage; 100 Wells Road for Mr P Graveling
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/11/1474 - Non-material amendment request for revised wall
construction, removal of approved rear projection, reduction in length and
height, change to the position and style of approved rooflights and installation
of additional rooflights, insertion of additional door and changed position of
windows; 61 Greenway Lane for Mr & Mrs A Ficarra
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELBRIGG - PF/12/0427 - Erection of first floor rear extension and side
conservatory; 8 The Green for Ms King
(Householder application)
FELMINGHAM - PF/12/0492 - Erection of single storey rear extension; Beck
House, Suffield Road for Mrs C Andrews
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - PF/12/0551 - Erection of one and a half storey side/front extension
and single-storey side extension (extension of period for commencement of
permission reference: 09/0519); Rose Acre, Back Mundesley Road for Ms J
Gotts
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/12/0468 - Erection of four bay garages/store; Land at Falgate
Farmhouse, The Common for Mr & Mrs Barclay
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/12/0518 - Erection of rear conservatory; Rose Cottage,
Short Lane for Mr & Mrs Headford
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/12/0448 - Erection of replacement club pavilion; Hempton Bowls
Club, The Green for Hempton Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
29
26 July 2012
HINDOLVESTON - LA/12/0621 - Internal and external alterations; Church
Farmhouse, Church Lane for Mr M Nash
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - AN/12/0440 - Display of non-illuminated hanging sign; 18 Albert Street
for Mr B Lawrence
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HOLT - PF/12/0470 - Erection of side extension and raising of ridge to allow for
conversion of loft space to habitable accommodation; 15 Rowan Way for Mr S
Mulley
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0571 - Erection of side conservatory; Shackleton House, 2 Burrell
Close for Mr & Mrs Stubbs
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/12/0455 - Raising of roof to provide first floor habitable
accommodation; Manna, Crowden Road, Bush Estate, Eccles-on-sea for Mr T
Culyer
(Householder application)
MATLASKE - PF/12/0488 - Increase in height of borehole cover; Land at The
Street for Anglian Water
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0502 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey rear extension and construction of balcony; 44 Sea View Road for Ms Y
Bradley
(Householder application)
NEATISHEAD - LA/12/0491 - Alterations to barns and outbuildings to facilitate
conversion to holiday accommodation (amended scheme following previous
consent LA/2005/0995); Neatishead Hall, Common Road for Mr L Baugh
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - BX/12/0359 - Use of land for vehicle dis-assembly, erection
of de-contamination building, fencing and gates (County Council ref:
2012/1004); Plot 17 Cornish Way for DLH Autorecyclers
(County General Reg 3)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0379 - Erection of rear conservatory; Half Moon
Cottage, 7 Manor Road for Mr Whyman
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PM/12/0443 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 13 Skeyton Road for Mr & Mrs Clarke
(Reserved Matters)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0556 - Removal of garage and erection of singlestorey front extension; 23 Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs S Cameron
(Householder application)
Development Committee
30
26 July 2012
NORTH WALSHAM - NP/12/0603 - Prior notification of intention to erect building
for storage of forestry equipment; Prosperos Barn, Lyngate Road for Prospero
Woodland Management
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0647 - Installation of external cladding and
replacement windows and doors; Paston Sixth Form College, Park Lane for
Paston Sixth Form College
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/89/1288 - Non-material amendment request for
revised window and door arrangements, installation of rooflights and removal
of garage; 2 Old Apple Yard, Brick Kiln Farm, Manor Road for Mr A Mair
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0510 - Erection of timber double garage; Hilltop, Norwich
Road for Mr Shepherd
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0605 - Conversion of outbuildings to ancillary residential
accommodation with link extension; The Old Rectory, Rectory Road for Mr &
Mrs Gurney
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - LA/12/0606 - Alterations to barns to facilitate conversion to
ancillary residential accommodation and erection of link extension; The Old
Rectory, Rectory Road for Mr & Mrs Gurney
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTHREPPS - NMA1/12/0187 - Non-material amendment request to insert high
level window to east elevation; 10 Foundry Close for Mr & Mrs Barratt
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
ROUGHTON - PF/11/1461 - Variation of condition 4 of permission reference:
98/0505 to permit permanent residential occupation at Barn 1 (now known as
Grove Barn); Grove Barn, Back Lane for Mr C Bedford
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/12/0548 - Conversion of garage to ancillary residential
accommodation; 4 Buxton Close, East Runton for Mr A Blakey
(Householder application)
RUNTON - NMA1/91/0280 - Non material amendment request to revise door and
window arrangements to plot 2 dwelling; Land adjacent to Sandyfield, Church
Lane, West Runton for Mr Sheridan
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SALTHOUSE - PF/12/0232 - Erection of single-storey extension; Lor Cot, Cross
Street for Mrs P Johnson
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0450 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 98/0600 to permit residential occupation; Ednas Lodge, Creake Road
for Mr J Banson
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
31
26 July 2012
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0570 - Erection of first floor rear extension and singlestorey side/rear extensions; 2 Ivy Cottages, Fakenham Road for Mr Stubbings
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0573 - Erection of side extension; Westwyn, Chapel Road
for Mr & Mrs S Brittain
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0128 - Construction of fire escape walkway and staircase
and installation of door in window opening, demolition of outbuildings and
blocking up of doorway and windows; The Two Lifeboats, High Street for Punch
Taverns
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0453 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to D1 (veterinary
surgery); 15 Weybourne Road for Miramar Veterinary Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0490 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 48 The
Avenue for Mrs McGarry
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0513 - Construction of front dormer window, rear dormer
with French doors and front porch canopy; 75 Beeston Common for Mr P
Selinsky
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0529 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 09/0203 to permit removal of cycle barriers and bollards; Land
adjacent 13 Lawson Way for Mr N Suiter
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0535 - Increase in height of bore hole cover; Water
Treatment Works, Common Lane, Sheringham, NR26 8PW for Anglian Water
Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/12/0006 - Non-material amendment request for
installation of roof lights to former garage; 12 Laburnum Grove for Mr K Simms
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0609 - Erection of first floor side and rear extensions; 9
Havelock Road for Mr & Mrs Patterson
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/1540 - Non-material amendment request for revised
materials; 4 Churchill Crescent for Mr C Barstow
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
STIBBARD - NMA1/11/1178 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
corner window and light well with fire escape for basement; Evermore Farm,
Wood Norton Road for Mr B Rose
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
32
26 July 2012
STODY - PF/12/0504 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extensions and
single-storey rear extension; Sunnyside Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Mr B
Tollett
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - PF/12/0489 - Increase in height of borehole kiosks; Waterworks,
Cromer Road, Metton for Anglian Water Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/12/0561 - Erection of 1m high side fences; Corner
Cottage, 4 Aylsham Road for Mr D Peers
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/11/1043 - Erection of two-storey replacement side
extension and two-storey rear extension with balcony and detached double
garage; 37 St Giles Road for Mr P Smithers
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/12/0552 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 07/1955 to permit retention of rear extension as constructed; Jireh,
Sandpit Lane for Mr & Mrs P Lomas
(Full Planning Permission)
THURNING - NP/12/0658 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Lime Tree Farm, Corpusty Road for The Trustees of the Knole Second
Trust Fund
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
TRIMINGHAM - PF/12/0503 - Variation of Condition 5 of planning permission
reference: 08/0497 to permit continued use as holiday letting accommodation;
Woodlands Caravan Park, Cromer Road for Woodlands Caravan Park
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/12/0474 - Erection of car port on front elevation; Swingtime, 7
Wrights Loke for Mr B Sumser-Lupson
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/12/0530 - Construction of dormer window to facilitate conversion
of loft to habitable accommodation, Juliet balcony and roof lights; Meadow
View, Trunch Road for Mr S Hayes
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/12/0531 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and attached
garage; The Helens, Trunch Road for Mr B Pearce
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0499 - Erection of replacement single-storey
side/rear extensions; Glenshee, Burnt Street for Mr B Wyer
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0564 - Erection of vestibule extension; 9 Manor
Farm Drive for Mr and Mrs Foreman
(Householder application)
Development Committee
33
26 July 2012
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PO/12/0629 - Erection of dwelling(extension of period
for implementation of permission reference: 09/0475); 21 Mill Road for Alamedal
Ltd
(Outline Planning Permission)
WIGHTON - PF/12/0538 - Increase in height of bore hole cover; Water Treatment
Works, Wells Road for Anglian Water Services Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/12/0495 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension to provide
stable, garaging and garden storage and change of use of land from paddock to
garden; Mill Common House, Mill Common Road, Ridlington for Mr J Pugh
(Householder application)
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0387 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 06/1783 to permit use of chapel of rest/office building for a mixed use
of chapel of rest/office/overnight sleeping accommodation; Abbey Pets
Rememberance Gardens And Crematoria Ltd, Britons Lane for Mr R Edwards
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0412 - Retention of boundary fence; 59 Priory Close
for Mr P Farquharson
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/12/0449 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and detached
garage/store; The Lawsons, Stone Road for Mrs M Daniels
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - AI/12/0236 - Display of illuminated replacement fascia sign; 23 New
Street for Novedene Limited
(Advertisement Illuminated)
GREAT SNORING - PF/12/0357 - Construction of porch and dormer window;
Honeysuckle Cottage, Thursford Road for Mr M Tivey
(Householder application)
HOLT - AN/12/0577 - Display of non-illuminated hanging sign; Lion Cottage, 22
Bull Street for Fudgydoo Country Style Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
SCOTTOW - PF/12/0134 - Erection of boundary fence and porch; 6 Hoveton
Place, Badersfield for Mr Wadey
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/95/0722 - Non-material amendment request for revised
door and window arrangements and omission of chimneys; Land at Cremer
Street for Badger Building (East Anglia) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Committee
34
26 July 2012
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/0270 - Erection of four-bay garage; Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mr Barnes
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0160 - Retention of balcony and installation of screening;
31 Beeston Road for Mr H Ahrens
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items.
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BACTON - PF/11/1000 - Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use
of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for
Castaways Holiday Park
BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
CROMER - PF/11/0460 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Land at Cadogan
Road for Mr Roberts
CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
LITTLE SNORING - PO/11/0826 - Erection of 2 detached two-storey dwellings;
Land at The Old Dairy, The Pastures for Mrs R Fittall
SITE VISIT:- 04 July 2012
SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre
galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, WaxhamJ for ES Renewables Ltd
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1238 - Construction of new roof to provide habitable
accommodation in roofspace; 15 St Austins Grove for Mr Welch
WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash
Tree Farm, Well Street for Mrs C Leggett
Development Committee
35
26 July 2012
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1070 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr Barnes
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear
of 10 Park Road for Mr T Merchant
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include
construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to
fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow
Lane for Isis Builders Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
COSTS OUTSTANDING Awarded: £0.00 Against: £0.00
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to
existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
APPEAL DECISION:- MIXED
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing single-storey
wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells Road for
Mr & Mrs Baker
APPEAL DECISION:- MIXED
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Site at route between Weybourne Hope
(TG104,436) and Little Dunham (TF868,118) for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Committee
36
26 July 2012