Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
18 March 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 26 March 2015 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 16 April 2015.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council‟s leaflet „Have Your
Say on Planning Applications‟ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council‟s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so, must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Arnold, Mr M Baker, Mrs L Brettle, Mrs A Green, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P High, Miss B
Palmer, Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mrs A Sweeney, Mrs V
Uprichard, Mr J Wyatt
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr N Dixon, Mrs B McGoun, Mr E Seward, Mr N Smith, Mr R
Stevens, Mr P Terrington, Mrs L Walker, Mr S Ward, Mr P Williams
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN‟S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 26
February 2015 (copy enclosed)
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 9 or 11 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS‟ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(1)
BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks
and crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road for Genatec Limited
Pages 1 - 47
(2)
BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room;
Primrose Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr L Kidd
Pages 47 - 55
(3)
BRISTON - PF/15/0122 - Installation of 300KW of ground mounted solar PV
array; Lawn Farm, Edgefield Road for RenEnergy
Pages 55 - 58
(4)
HOLT - PO/14/1509 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of two
detached two-storey dwellings; 59 Hempstead Road for Mr P W High
Pages 58 – 61
(5)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/1505 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling (revised
access); Munbeck, 19 Marina Road for Mr Smith
Pages 61 - 64
(6)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/1559 - Demolition of buildings and erection of forty
dwellings, refurbishment of existing dwelling, contouring site, alterations of
the existing access and off-site highway improvements; Former Cherryridge
Poultry Site, Church Street for Lovell Partnerships Ltd
Pages 65 - 72
(7)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0887 - Partial demolition of hotel and erection of six
residential apartments and single-storey rear extension to hotel; Burlington
Hotel, The Esplanade for Mr S McDermott
Pages 72 - 74
(8)
THURSFORD - PF/15/0028 - Erection of single-storey extension to side/rear of
existing annex accommodation; Heath House, Brick Kiln Road for Mr GrahamWood
Pages 74 - 77
(9)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1583 - Alterations to dwelling including
erection of two-storey front and rear extensions and the installation of front
balcony.; East Quay House, East End for Mr S Howe
Pages 77 - 81
(10)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
Pages 81 - 82
(11)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Pages 83 - 90
(12)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
(13)
NEW APPEALS
Page 91
(14)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 91
(15)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
Pages 91 - 92
(16)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Pages 92 - 93
(17)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
8.
ATTENDANCE AT SITE INSPECTIONS
Page 90 - 91
Page 93
Members are requested to confirm whether or not they will be able to attend the site
inspections to be held on 16 April 2015.
9.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
10.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
11.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
12.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Circulation:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Substitutes
(Note: Members of the public receiving this agenda should note that in the unavoidable
absence of the Councillors shown above, their places may be taken by the Councillors
shown in the list of substitutes. Anyone wishing to contact a Councillor or Councillors
regarding an item on the agenda may therefore also wish to contact substitute members.)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mr N Dixon
Mrs B McGoun
Mr E Seward
Mr N Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mr P Terrington
Mrs L Walker
Mr S Ward
Mr P Williams
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of Management Team and other appropriate Officers.
Press and Public.
Councillors who receive only this executive summary are reminded that they may obtain a
copy of any full report by contacting the Report Originator as identified by the Source
Reference.
OFFICERS‟ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 26 MARCH 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule
12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the
reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
1.
BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks
and crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road for Genatec Limited
Minor Development
- Target Date: 15 September 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission `
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19930648 PF
Erection of four wind turbines and one switchroom
Refused 06/05/1994 Appeal Dismissed 08/09/1995
PF/11/0983 PF
Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m, maximum tip height 86.5m,
associated infrastructure, single-storey substation building, access tracks and crane
hard-standing
Refused 30/08/2012, Appeal Allowed 08/04/2013, High Court quashed Inspector’s
decision 19/02/14
PF/14/0656 PF
Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and blade tip height of 66m with
associated substation buildings, access tracks and crane hardstanding
Withdrawn by Applicant 30/06/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 40m and a
height to blade tip of 66m with a rotor diameter of 54m. The turbine would be located
at Easting: 613970, Northing: 338220. The base of the turbine would be at 90m AOD.
The proposal also includes associated infrastructure to support the turbine, a singlestorey substation building, access tracks and crane hard standing and turning areas.
The applicant has indicated that the turbine likely to be used is an EWT DW52
900kW model which, with a mean wind speed of 7.58m/s at the site would produce
approximately 2,856,880 kWh per annum (enough electricity for approximately 655
average sized Norfolk homes).
Details submitted by the applicant indicate that the 40m high steel turbine column
would have a diameter of approximately 3.5m at its base tapering to approximately
1.8m at hub height.
Development Committee
1
26 March 2015
The single-storey substation building would have a footprint of approximately 20sqm.
It would have a height to eaves of approximately 2.6m with a range of possible roof
options including either a flat roof, pitched roof and pitched roof with hipped ends. In
either case the maximum height to ridge would be approximately 3.5m. The building
would be constructed of brick under a tile roof. The proposed access track would be
approximately 4m wide with a 50mm thick gravel finish. Under the proposed turbine,
a crane hard standing and turning area would be created which will enable
construction and decommissioning of the turbine.
The proposed turbine would have to conform to current safety standards.
The applicant has submitted a number of reports to support their view that the
proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
All turbine applications are required to be determined by the Development Committee
PARISH COUNCIL – Bodham Parish Council – No objection - As the height of the
blades have been reduced the Parish Council have no reason to object and agreed
at a recent meeting to support the project.
Subsequent letters dated 19 and 20 October 2014 received from Bodham Parish
Council seeking to distance themselves from the earlier „No Objection‟ response on
the basis that the meeting took place in August when many people were on holiday
and could not attend the Parish meeting to put their views across. The letter suggests
the village of Bodham is divided by the proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date 1,152 representations have been received, 175 in favour and 977 against.
Summary of comments in objection (the first seven points formed part of a standard
letter of objection received on numerous occasions):
1. The turbine would be far too close to people‟s homes: its noise and overpowering
visual presence would put residents‟ health at risk
2. It would wreck our priceless Norfolk skyscape: It would invade views for many
miles in all directions, deterring tourists upon whom our economy depends;
3. It directly conflicts with guidance in NNDC‟s Landscape Character Assessment,
which says that care should be taken „not to place [turbines] so prominently that
they are apparent for miles (i.e.e near the Cromer ridge)‟;
4. The turbine would cut off many rural homes and businesses from the only high
speed broadband service available to them, which is provided by ITSWisp‟s
projected mobile police unit service;
5. Approval of this turbine would establish a precedent for a rash of others that
would destroy the unique character of our local landscape;
6. It would ruin the timeless setting of our highly graded heritage assets including
Baconsthorpe Castle, a Grade I listed building and Scheduled Monument, local
churches and Barningham Hall;
7. Any benefits claimed for the project are greatly outweighed by its negative
impact;
8. The reduction in height does not make the turbine any more acceptable and
harm would still be created which is not outweighed by public benefits;
9. We do not want turbines onshore;
10. No to the turbine;
11. There are environmental and aesthetic reasons not to have turbines onshore;
12. This turbine will not benefit North Norfolk;
13. As a regular visit to North Norfolk I may not want to return if ugly wind turbines
are built;
Development Committee
2
26 March 2015
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Many birds migrate this way and turbines kill birds and other wildlife
They are unsightly and not good value;
Why not solar energy;
The turbine would only provide power intermittently and at vast cost;
Turbines should not be placed in areas of important landscape value;
Very concerned about „sweeteners‟ of £3,000 per annum being offered which
may have led to some Parish Council‟s withdrawing their objection;
This along with other recent developments will industrialise the landscape;
How many times do we have to say NO;
Concerned about noise and shadow flicker and ice throw from the turbines;
The turbine would spoil the views from local footpath networks;
Dark skies should be protected and turbine would require lighting;
Would pose a risk to aircraft in the area;
The turbine will adversely affect the health of nearby residents;
Transporting the turbine to site will adversely affect hedgerows which will take a
long time to recover;
The proposed turbine would dominate our views and constantly rotating blades
will adversely affect our residential amenity as we live only 540m away;
The on-going turbine debate is blighting property and people‟s lives in the area;
Noise calculations are wrong;
Energy output will likely be much lower than stated so reducing further any
benefits in favour of the proposal;
CPRE conclude that the proposal should be refused due to conflicts with the
NPPF and Core Strategy policies;
There are likely to be historic remains on or near the site;
The turbine will be visible for many miles (the existing mast is already visible so a
turning blade will draw ones eye);
Its contribution to renewable energy is very very small;
Will be visible from the AONB;
Will adversely affect Broadband provision and will reduce quality of police
communications from the existing mast;
Turbines off the coast have already have a negative visual impact so let‟s not do
the same onshore please;
Proposed landscaping and woodland planting will do little to mitigate the visual
impact;
A 31 page document with appendices opposing the application was submitted on
behalf of a local campaign group called No To That Turbine (NOTT). The document
comments, amongst other things, in relation to:
1. Physical and mental harm to local residents;
2. The ruinous impact upon the landscape;
3. Grave harm to the setting of heritage assets;
4. Damage to tourism and resulting loss of income and jobs;
5. The significant exaggeration of the proposal‟s „benefits‟;
6. The destruction of the wireless rural broadband service;
7. Interference with and restriction of rural police communications;
8. Destruction of Wildlife; and
9. Precedent and proliferation.
Appendices included reference to Noise, Landscape and Heritage Assets.
Summary of comments in support:
1. I am all for this turbine;
2. It will benefit Bodham;
Development Committee
3
26 March 2015
3. We need to do our bit to help meet renewable energy targets and schemes like
this can help with that;
4. I support a landowners right to earn a living;
5. There is no evidence a turbine will affect tourism;
6. NIMBY-ism is rife with this application;
7. The alternative is that small farms are subsumed by vast estates or agricultural
contractors, which will do far more harm to local communities than the odd wind
turbine;
8. The benefits outweigh the negatives;
9. Turbines add to the view on the horizon;
10. Will objectors learn to live without electricity or plan to use it less;
11. The proposal will support the environment and the local community;
12. The turbine will benefit tourism;
13. Biodiversity enhancements will be significant;
14. Please ignore the objections and allow the turbine;
15. Time for the Council to stop getting in the way of our future;
16. I can see no justifiable reason to refuse the application;
17. This is all a fuss about nothing;
18. The Pond Farm site benefits from high wind speeds;
19. A total of £225,000 will be invested into the local community and environment on
the back of this proposal;
20. It‟s better than the nuclear option;
21. The positives of this project will clearly outweigh any potential negative effects
that could be caused by the proposed development;
CONSULTATIONS
Council‟s appointed Heritage Consultant (Beacon Planning) Objection - Beacon
Planning were appointed to assist the Council by providing heritage advice on the
application. They formed their own independent view of the application.
Beacon Planning identified harm to the contribution which the setting makes to the
heritage significance of Baconsthorpe Castle (an ancient monument containing listed
buildings and of Barningham Hall (a Grade I listed house containing other listed
structures in a designated park and garden). The harm to the setting of these assets
is of greatest concern to Beacon Planning, as those are assets of the highest
heritage value and the desirability of the preservation of their settings must be given
special regard. This refers to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires the local planning authority, in
considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a
listed building or its setting, to have “special regard to the desirability of preserving
the building or its setting”.
Beacon Planning conclude: “In the case of Baconsthorpe Castle, the turbine will be a
feature at odds with the isolated rural location and what this contributes to the
heritage significance of the place. In the case of Barningham Hall, the turbine will
effectively become an „eye-catcher‟ or distraction outside the parkland serving to
undermine the design intention of the park and how it relates to the main house and
the Winter Church.
Whilst the harm to these designated heritage assets is „less than substantial‟ using
the tests in the NPPF, nevertheless it is of considerable significance.
We have also identified harm to the settings of Bodham and Baconsthorpe Churches
and to those at Bessingham and Plumstead, the latter to a slightly lesser extent. This
harm is caused by the impact which the turbine will have on the relatively isolated
Development Committee
4
26 March 2015
rural settings of the churches because this contributes to the heritage significance of
the buildings. We attribute a higher degree of harm where the turbine will be clearly
seen from the church and their immediate environs. Again this harm is „less than
substantial‟ but nevertheless of some significance.
In our view there is also some harm to the setting of Baconsthorpe Conservation
Area and lesser harm to that at Bessingham. Section 72, unlike Section 66 does not
specifically mention the setting of conservation areas but does require special
attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving the character and appearance of
the area.
In our view there is a significant level of harm to a number of highly-graded Listed
Buildings and there must therefore be a strong presumption against the granting of
planning permission. We would also add to this a similar presumption against
approval caused by the harm which we have identified to the character and
appearance of Baconsthorpe and to a lesser extent the Bessingham Conservation
Areas.
It is not within our remit to undertake the ‘planning balance’ between the harm which
we have identified and the wider benefits which this scheme will bring. We would
however advise that in our view these would need to be ‘powerful’ (using Justice
Lindblom’s word [in the case of Forge Field]) to outweigh the clear harm which has
been identified.”
(See full copy of responses at Appendix 1).
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) – Objection - The Landscape
Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted by the applicant concludes that the
proposed turbine would be „compatible with the local landscape‟ and would not result
in any unacceptable harm to either the landscape resource or visual receptors. It is
considered that the LVIA demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the significance of
the number of heritage assets that are such recognised land mark features of the
North Norfolk landscape that would be affected by this proposal, nor does it
recognise the value of this largely traditional landscape to both residents of the area
or to the numerous holiday makers who come to the area for these very reasons.
Conservation Design & Landscape set out a number of instances where, in their
view, the assessment in the LVIA is inadequate.
Recognised professional best practice (Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact
Assessment, 3rd edition, 2013, Landscape Institute and IEMA) highlights the
importance of heritage features and their setting in the assessment of the value of a
landscape and the significance that should be attributed to ordinary landscapes that
do not benefit from designations.
The latest proposal would incur harm to the landscape (TF3 and WP5) and the
numerous heritage assets and their settings that are intrinsic to those landscapes
and to receptors within these landscapes. Conservation Design & Landscape
conclude that the proposal is contrary to Policy EN2 and to EN8 and on these
grounds is recommended for refusal.
With regard to Policy EN7: Renewable Energy, it is a matter of careful judgement
whether this „large scale renewable energy proposal‟ can be considered to „deliver
economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local area‟.
Development Committee
5
26 March 2015
Benefits in terms of renewable energy potential will need to be quite considerable in
order to outweigh the harm that has been demonstrated.(See full copy of responses
at Appendix 2).
Environmental Protection Officer - No objection subject to conditions Recognised guidance is contained within „The Working Group on Noise from Wind
Turbines Final Report September 1996: ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of
Noise from Wind Farms” and the Institute of Acoustics “A Good Practice Guide to the
Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise.
The applicant previously carried out noise assessments in accordance with the
earlier ETSU guidance and a further assessment using the latest IoA guidance is
therefore recommended and can be secured by way of planning condition. (See full
copy of responses at Appendix 3).
English Heritage – Objection - We have considered the current proposals in light of
the legislation, government policy and English Heritage guidance. We have
concluded that the erection of a single wind turbine in the vicinity of the grade I listed
and scheduled site of Baconsthorpe Castle, the grade I Barningham Hall and grade II
registered park and the church at Barningham Winter, the churches at Bodham and
Baconsthorpe would result in harm to the significance of these assets through
inappropriate development to their setting. It would also have a negative impact on
the wider setting of the more distant churches at North Barningham and Bessingham,
and Baconsthorpe Conservation Area. We conclude that the development would be
harmful to designated assets in terms of paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF and
does not satisfy the public benefit test in paragraph 134. The NPPF requires Local
Planning Authorities to weigh any public benefit deriving from renewable energy
generation against harm to the historic environment. Unless your authority is satisfied
that there is a clear and convincing justification for the harm and that this is
outweighed by the public benefits of the development, we recommend that the
Council should refuse the application. English Heritage also draws attention to
sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990, and the requirement that the local planning authority have special regard to the
desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building and to the desirability of
preserving and enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. (See
full copy of responses at Appendix 4).
County Council (Highway) - No objection subject to conditions - As outlined
previously, when assessing the technical and commercial elements of project
viability, several factors need to be considered including (amongst other
considerations) land availability and also Road Access.
Having considered the information submitted, whilst the current proposals intend to
erect a turbine of reduced height some components being transported to site are
larger than previously proposed (PF/11/0983). It is noted that the applicant intends to
mitigate the impact of transporting a wider generator to site by transporting it
vertically for the last leg of the journey. At present, it is not clear at present how /
where the applicant intends to reload the generator. I would be grateful if the
applicant could confirm where the generator will be unloaded / reloaded to avoid
disruption on the network.
Whilst no details have been provided for the off-site highway improvements required
to widen the edge of the carriageway, nevertheless I am satisfied that such works
Development Committee
6
26 March 2015
can realistically be achieved and I would be happy for this point to be covered by
standard conditions as set out below.
Notwithstanding the above, please be advised the delivery route for the abnormal
loads will result in temporary loss of highway verges and impacts upon overhanging
tree branches.
Whilst we will expect the developer to fund the off-site works, if you grant approval to
this development then the requirement to facilitating free passage along the public
highway would overrule any TPO‟s protecting overhanging branches. Accordingly
you are advised to take this point into account when assessing the suitability of the
impact to the landscape.
In conclusion I have no objection subject to conditions including those relating to a
Construction Traffic Management Plan, and off-site highway works.
Defence Estates Organisation (Lands) - No objection subject to conditions (See
full copy of responses at Appendix 5).
National Air Traffic Services - No objection subject to conditions - The proposed
development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not
conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited
Company (NERL) has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Norwich Airport - Safeguarding Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to development
being built as proposed.
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service – Objection - The
application as submitted included a heritage impact assessment (HIA) by Grover
Lewis Associates, which sets out their opinion on the impact of this development on
the historic environment. The Historic Environment Service considers that the degree
of harm to the historic environment has been considerably played down in this
document, particularly with reference to the impact on Baconsthorpe Castle, which is
a scheduled monument. The NPPF states that applications which harm the
significance of scheduled monuments should be wholly exceptional, and that the
harm done should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal (para. 132, 134).
The Historic Environment Service also refers to All Saints‟ Church, Barningham Hall
and Park and Barningham Winter church, disagreeing with the assessment in the
HIA.
The Historic Environment Service concludes: “While we do not object outright to this
proposal, there is harm to the historic environment (considerably greater harm than is
detailed in the heritage assessment), and the Planning Committee must judge
whether the benefits of this proposal outweigh that harm, in accordance with
paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF.” (See full copy of response at Appendix 6).
Norfolk Constabulary Headquarters – Objection –The new maximum height of
66m, although reduced from the original, is still 5m higher than our existing radio
mast adjacent to the site proposed. Unfortunately this will still hamper any
transmissions directed through that sector to much the same effect as the previous
application, the blades being directly in the path at the height proposed.
In particular, the Wireless Internet Broadband provider (Intouch Systems) located on
the mast will be affected and I also have concerns over a constabulary link to
Cromer.
Development Committee
7
26 March 2015
I object on similar grounds as per our previous objections to PF/11/0983 on the
basis that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the use of the Cock Point
Radio mast due to the height.
If the maximum blade tip height were to be reduced to approximately 40m this would
help greatly, to the extent of our non-objection.
Natural England - No objection subject to conditions - Natural England is generally
satisfied with the ecological surveys and assessment of impacts that has been
undertaken for this proposal, particularly concerning bats and birds. We welcome the
proposal for post-construction monitoring and advise that this should be conditioned
if planning permission is granted. (See full copy of response at Appendix 7).
Royal Society for Protection of Birds - No response
East of England Ambulance Headquarters - No response
Norfolk Fire Service - No objection subject to compliance with Building Regulations.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No objection - This proposed wind turbine sits to the
south of the AONB and we recognise that it will be screened from many coastal
areas of the AONB by the rise of the Cromer ridge. It appears that the current
proposal, being 40m hub height and 66m tip height, will have less visibility from
across the AONB than the original proposal of 60m hub height and 86.5m tip height.
There appears to be little, if any, cumulative effect from other wind turbine
developments or proposals (the majority of which are for off-shore schemes to the
north and east of the AONB boundary) but there is a cumulative impact from the two
adjacent telecommunications masts and, to a lesser extent taking into account the
distance, the local electricity lines and poles. We note that, since the first application,
solar arrays have been constructed in the area but, with low height at a distance to
the AONB boundary, we do not consider that these have a significant visual impact
on the AONB.
However, though this cumulative effect does not appear to be significant at the
moment, any further additions, for example addition of another wind turbine in the
area, would raise concerns and require a new assessment.
Based on current information and site visits, the Norfolk Coast Partnership does not
raise an objection to the planning application for this project.
SURROUNDING PARISHES
Aylmerton Parish Council – Objection – Concerned about impact on the landscape
and the AONB. Could also set a precedent for further development.
Baconsthorpe Parish Council – Comments awaited
Beckham East/West Parish Council – Objection – No benefit to the local area, lack of
consultation, local broadband could be adversely affected, impact on tourism, impact
on wildlife.
Beeston Regis Parish Council - No comment
Gresham Parish Council - Objection - damaging to the environment, will affect
tourism.
Hempstead Parish Council – No Objection (3 councillors objected and 4 with no
objections)
High Kelling Parish Council - Comments awaited
Development Committee
8
26 March 2015
Holt Town Council – Objection – Object to land based turbines
Kelling Parish Council – Objection – will detract from Baconsthorpe Castle, will spoil
the area, will be visible from Kelling Heath SSSI, could affect geese, will set a
precedent for more turbines.
Matlaske Parish Council - No objection or comment but residents of Barningham
have strong reservations.
Plumstead Parish Council – Objection – Would be visually intrusive in the
countryside and detrimental to heritage assets.
Upper Sheringham Parish Council – Supports the application
Weybourne Parish Council - Objects
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
EQUALITIES ACT 2010
In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has considered the
requirements under S149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It is considered that the
application raises no significant equality issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008), as well as supplementary
planning documents: the North Norfolk Design Guide Supplementary Planning
Document (December 2008) and the Landscape Character Assessment (June 2009).
The relevant policies are:
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Development Committee
9
26 March 2015
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Issues for Consideration
1. Planning Policy Context
2. Background History
3. Landscape and Visual Impacts
4. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
5. Impact on Designated Historic Assets;
6. Impact on Residential Amenity;
7. Impact on other Infrastructure Provision
8. Impact on Wildlife/Ecology
9. Impact on Aviation;
10. Impact on Highway Safety & Public Rights of Way;
11. Impact on Tourism & Other Sectors;
12. Grid Connection;
13. Benefits of the Proposed Development;
14. Overall Summary
APPRAISAL
Members previously visited the site on 01 December 2011, viewing it from a number
of significant local vantage points.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and have had regard to
advice within the Planning Practice Guidance. A Screening Opinion was adopted on
25 July 2014 which considered that that the proposal was not EIA development and
that the potential impacts could be properly and rigorously assessed through the
standard planning process. Officers remain of this opinion.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development
plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). Although it preceded the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF), the relevant policies (other than Policy EN8) are consistent with the NPPF
and full weight should be given to them.
Local Policy
Three CS policies are relevant to the application. They are:
 EN2, which requires development proposals to demonstrate that their
location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and where
possible, enhance, inter alia, “the special qualities and local distinctiveness of
the area (including its historical, biodiversity and cultural character),” “visually
sensitive skylines, hillsides” and „the setting of and views from historic parks
and gardens.‟;
 EN8, which provides that development proposals should preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of designated assets and their settings and
that development which would have an adverse impact on their special
historic or architectural interest would not be permitted; and
Development Committee
10
26 March 2015

EN7, which provides:
„Renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the
context of sustainable development and climate change, taking account of
the wide environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy
gain and their contribution to overcoming energy supply problems in parts of
the District.
Proposals for renewable energy technology, associated infrastructure and
integration of renewable technology on existing or proposed structures will
be permitted where individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant
adverse effects on;
•
•
•
the surrounding landscape, townscape and historical features / areas;
residential amenity (noise, fumes, odour, shadow flicker, traffic,
broadcast interference); and
specific highway safety, designated nature conservation or biodiversity
considerations.
In areas of national importance large scale renewable energy infrastructure
will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the
designation are not compromised. Small-scale developments will be
permitted where they are sympathetically designed and located, include any
necessary mitigation measures and meet the criteria above.
Large scale renewable energy proposals should deliver economic, social,
environmental or community benefits that are directly related to the
proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to the local
area‟.
Policy EN7 operates in two ways. It commits the Council to granting planning
permission for renewable energy technology where there will be no significant
adverse effect on the landscape and historical assets, residential amenity, highway
safety and designated nature conservation or biodiversity considerations. If there will
be a significant adverse effect on these things, then the Council must consider the
benefits of renewable energy gain, including the contribution to overcoming energy
supply problems, and these benefits must be balanced against the significant
adverse effects. If the benefits are outweighed by the adverse effects, the proposal
will not accord with policy EN7. If the benefits are not outweighed, the proposal will
accord with policy EN7.
The applicant‟s view is that Policy EN8 is not consistent with the NPPF, on the basis
of the Batsworthy Cross High Court judgment – a case known as Colman [2013]
EWHC 1138 (Admin). Officers accept that Policy EN8 is not fully NPPF compliant,
and advise the Committee to have regard to relevant parts of paragraph 14 and 98 of
the NPPF as set out below, together with the legal duties required to be discharged
under Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) came into effect on 27 March
2012 and sets out the Government‟s planning policies. It identifies that the purpose of
the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
The core principles of the NPPF include encouraging the use of renewable resources
such as the development of renewable energy; conserving and enhancing the natural
Development Committee
11
26 March 2015
environment and; conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their
significance.
In determining planning applications for wind energy development, Footnote 17 of the
NPPF states that planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the
National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), which should
be read with the relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for
Energy (EN-1). Amongst other things, EN-1 states that the Government is committed
to increasing dramatically the amount of renewable generation capacity.
The Government‟s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes advice relating to
renewable and low carbon energy schemes. Amongst other things, this states that all
communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green
energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically
overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.
The PPG also includes advice relating to the historic environment.
In June 2013 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued a
Written Statement in respect of onshore wind. A separate Written Statement was
also issued at the same time by the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change.
The Climate Change Act 2008 includes a legally binding reduction in carbon
emissions of 80% by 2050. Towards that goal, the UK Renewable Energy Strategy
2009 includes a 30% national target for renewable electricity production by 2020.
That would contribute to a 15% target for all energy to come from renewable sources
by that date. These goals were restated in the National Policy Statement for Energy
(EN-1). Of that 30% electricity target, the Renewable Energy Strategy expected 35%
to come from offshore wind and 29% from onshore wind, with the remaining 36%
from other sources such as solar power, tidal and wave power, landfill gas and
incineration.
Chapter 10 of the NPPF - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change states at paragraph 93:
„Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the
impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and
environmental dimensions of sustainable development‟.
At paragraph 97 the NPPF states:
„To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local
planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to
contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:
•
•
•
have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon
sources;
design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy
development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed
satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;
consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy
sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the
development of such sources;
Development Committee
12
26 March 2015
•
•
support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy,
including developments outside such areas being taken forward through
neighbourhood planning; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for colocating potential heat customers and suppliers‟.
More specifically, when assessing development proposals paragraph 98 of the NPPF
states:
„When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:
•
•
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall
need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even smallscale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions; and
approve the application [unless material considerations indicate otherwise] if
its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for
renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local
planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for
commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the
proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas‟.
In considering this proposal, the Committee should have in its mind the advice set
out within paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:
„At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour
of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running
through both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:
•
•
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-ofdate, granting permission unless:
− any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or
− specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted‟.
BACKGROUND HISTORY
Planning application PF/11/0983 for the proposed erection of a wind turbine at Pond
Farm, Bodham with a hub height of 60m and a height to blade tip of 86.5m was
refused by the District Council in August 2012. That decision was the subject of an
appeal to the Secretary of State and the Inspector, Mr Alan Novitzky, allowed the
appeal and granted permission for the proposed turbine. The appeal decision letter
was issued on 8 April 2013 (reference: APP/Y2620/A/12/2184043).
The Council appealed to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and County
Planning Act 1990, and the case was determined in the Council‟s favour on 14
February 2014. The Inspector‟s decision was quashed. The applicant (Mr Mack)
then applied to the Court of Appeal, seeking permission to appeal against the High
Development Committee
13
26 March 2015
Court judgment. Permission was refused by way of an order made by Lord Justice
Sullivan. That order was issued on 2 June 2014 and Lord Justice Sullivan stated that
“the sole ground of appeal does not have a real prospect of success.”
The application has been remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate and has
subsequently been called-in for determination by the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government. A Public Inquiry is scheduled to take place in
June 2015.
Planning application PF/14/0656 was registered by the District Council on 28 May
2014 and the consultation process was commenced. However, following legal
advice, the applicant withdrew the application on 30 June 2014 because they
considered that they had not met fully with the requirements of new legislation
relating to pre-application consultation for on-shore wind turbines.
LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
When considering landscape and visual impact, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 2
(Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character), which
states:
„Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment [NNLCA] and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its
historical, biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses,
woodland, trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological
corridors for dispersal of wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and
geological features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and
Gardens.
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals
Map‟.
CS Policy EN 7 states at paragraph 3.3.35 that „All proposals for renewable energy
should complement the particular characteristics of the surrounding landscape and
the Landscape Character Assessment will assist in assessing the impact of individual
proposals.‟
The application site is located on a 24ha arable field at Pond Farm, Bodham, which is
bounded by hedging to the west and east and a wooded area to the south. The site
lies at an elevation of approximately 90m AOD, which is one of the highest points in
the District. More recently, a 3.6MW solar farm has been erected by the applicant
adjacent to the site of the proposed turbine (planning ref: PF/13/0960).
Development Committee
14
26 March 2015
At present there are a number of vertical masts within relatively close proximity to the
application site, including a 65m high lattice tower immediately to the west of the
application site known as Cock Point Radio Mast (located at 98m AOD) and a lattice
telecommunications mast at Camp Farm approximately 35m high to the north of the
application site.
The site lies within the Tributary Farmland character type as defined in North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (Supplementary Planning Document) (June
2009). This landscape type extends across the middle section of the District and is
characterised by an open landscape with long uninterrupted views comprised of
predominantly arable land-use. Prominent features of this mainly pastoral landscape
are cited as telecom towers, larger isolated farmsteads and houses and churches.
The overall condition of this Type is assessed as Fair to Good with a Moderate
strength of character.
Bodham lies within the sub-area defined as TF3 incorporating Hempstead, Aylmerton
& Wickmere. The landscape character of this area is evaluated as being in a Fair to
Moderate condition with a Moderate strength of character. This is because the
majority of the landscape has been affected by commercial agricultural activity over
the past 50 years resulting in the removal of field boundaries which defined the
underlying structure of a relatively old landscape, pre-dating the Enclosure
movement of the C18th & C19th. Where this has not occurred, the impression of an
older landscape is prevalent and the character is therefore much stronger. Outlying
hamlets and farmsteads around Bodham are defined as such an area.
The application is supported by a Landscape & Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) dated
May 2014, undertaken by The Landscape Partnership which, according to the
Council‟s Landscape Officer, has for the most part been carried out in accordance
with recognised professional best practice (Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact
Assessment, 3rd edition, 2013, Landscape Institute and IEMA) (GVLIA 3). The 10km
radius selected as the study area incorporates key viewpoints in order to assess the
potential visual and landscape effects. Likely effects are assessed at two time
periods in terms of degree of change on completion of works, at Year 1 in the winter
and at Year 10 in the summer in order to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed
mitigation planting.
Having laid out a set of criteria and methodology for assessment in Appendix 1 of the
LVIA, the Council‟s Landscape Officer considers that the value judgments attributed
to specific viewpoints or receptors have been under-estimated by the applicant and
that the actual effects incurred as a result of this development will be more
significant. Within the context of this largely traditional arable landscape of rural North
Norfolk, the ratings attributed under-value the effects on the landscape character and
under-estimate the visual effects. In the view of the Landscape Officer, the landscape
value of sub-area TF3 is High, with a Very High Susceptibility to Change. The effect
of the proposal on the landscape would be Major/Moderate.
The site of the proposed turbine within TF3 Landscape Type is at approximately 90m
AOD, which is one of the highest points in North Norfolk. The location on Cromer
Ridge is directly contrary to the advice within the NNLCA which in 5.3.5 states „the
landscape is moderately sensitive depending upon the location within the area and
the type of development proposed. Some parts may be suitable for small scale wind
turbine siting taking care not to place them so prominently that they are apparent for
miles (i.e. near the Cromer Ridge)‟.
Development Committee
15
26 March 2015
Comprising glacial moraines and forming some of the highest land in East Anglia,
Cromer Ridge extends for 14km across North Norfolk and is a highly significant
landscape feature within an otherwise gentle low-lying undulating landscape. This is
reinforced by its reference as a „key characteristic of the landscape of Central North
Norfolk‟, as described in the Natural England National Character Area 78 Central
North Norfolk. In sections 8.22 and 8.23 the LVIA seeks to diminish this important
consideration by claiming that the NNLCA does not define Cromer Ridge nor does it
consider how this ridge is more sensitive than other ridges in North Norfolk. It also
argues in 8.24 that the site location is on the „less sensitive‟ section of the Ridge and
that this diminishes the effect. The Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that
the applicant raising these issues does not detract from the fact that a 66m high
turbine sited at one of the highest points in North Norfolk on the domed plateau
formed from the Cromer Ridge would be visible for miles around as illustrated by the
wide extent of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (Genatec, Figure 1) and the
Topographical Map (Genatec, Figure 8). The extent of high level topography within
the 10km radius in Figure 8 demonstrates clearly where long range views of the
turbine would not be obscured by vegetation.
Furthermore the LVIA concludes in 11.2 that the turbine „would not be considered
incompatible with the Norfolk landscape and the character of Cromer Ridge‟. At 66m
to blade tip, this is a medium (not small) scale turbine that would be highly significant
on the skyline. The skyline itself is highlighted in the NNCLA as a prominent
characteristic of the rolling landscape and long uninterrupted views of TF3, the
receiving landscape type. There are no other medium scale on-shore turbines in this
part of North Norfolk and for the applicant to conclude that the turbine would be
compatible with this landscape is, in the opinion of the Landscape Officer,
misleading. To also claim that it would be compatible with the character of Cromer
Ridge is also erroneous. The Ridge forms an almost continuous wooded backdrop on
the horizon when viewed from inland. The addition of a prominent moving turbine
could in no sense be considered as a „compatible‟ element.
In respect of masts and blades, the presence of the two existing transmitter masts is
used in section 8.17 of the LVIA to justify a „localised change‟ to the landscape of
TF3 arguing that „the effect on the skyline would be of adding another element to the
existing character rather than introducing a new element…‟
The Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that the effect of the constant
moving element of the blades has been underestimated and this distracting feature
would constitute a new element in the landscape. The existing masts are latticed
structures which give some degree of transparency as opposed to the solid
composition of a turbine. Again, this aspect of the proposal and its effect both on the
landscape character and receptors has not been given due consideration and weight
in the overall assessment.
In respect of heritage assets within the landscape, Norfolk is renowned for hosting
the greatest concentration of medieval churches in the world (Norfolk Churches
Trust). These designated assets form an important component of the landscape
character of the county and their landscape setting is an intrinsic part of their
significance. The siting of these and other heritage assets, their relationship with
their parish, together with the inter-visibility between the assets were all part of the
design considerations in their original sitings. Section 5.29 of the GVLIA 3 notes that
„areas of landscape whose character is judged to be intact and in good condition, and
where scenic quality, wildness or tranquillity, and natural or cultural heritage features
make an important contribution to the landscape, or where there are important
associations, are likely to be highly valued‟.
Development Committee
16
26 March 2015
Within the Tributary Farmland landscape type (TF3), Bodham church, Baconsthorpe
church, North Barningham church, Plumstead church and Bessingham church are
all designated Grade II* assets that would, to varying degrees, be impacted by the
development. Baconsthorpe Conservation Area would also be affected by the
proposal. This will inevitably have a negative impact on the landscape character and
the perception of these key buildings within their landscape. This is a key
consideration in assessing the effects of the development on the landscape of TF3.
Within the LVIA (p.48) the effects on the setting of these significant buildings and the
resulting impact on the landscape character have, in the opinion of the Council‟s
Landscape Officer, been under-assessed. Detailed heritage impact issues are
considered below.
In respect of visual effects, within the LVIA they are assessed by combining the
magnitude of the change that would be incurred with the sensitivity of the receptor to
derive a significance of impact.
The LVIA concludes that the most significant visual effects (Major Adverse) would
be experienced at two properties in the vicinity of Camp Farm (VP1). Two other
viewpoints are assessed as Major-Moderate Adverse (VP2 Plum Lane & VP3 Hill
Farm). Given the proximity of these properties to the turbine, the Council‟s
Landscape Office is of the opinion that the mitigation measures proposed such as
instant hedging and large oak trees will have minimal beneficial effect, as reflected in
the Significance of Effect in Year 10 and acknowledged in 9.22 of the LVIA.
Although not addressed in the current best practice guidance (GVLIA3), the LVIA in
Section 9, discusses the concept of „overbearing‟ at some length, citing recent case
law to back their argument that this development would not be „overbearing‟ on any
of the properties. Clearly each case needs to be assessed on its own merits and
must take into account the nature of the setting and context of the dwellings. Given
the proximity of the dwellings combined with the elevated and open nature of the
landscape around the site and the acknowledged significant adverse effect, the
Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that the visual effect could be
considered to be overbearing, certainly on properties close to the site along Osier
Lane and at Hill Farm on Rectory Road. Further assessment of effects on residential
amenity are considered below.
The visual effects incurred by users of Bodham Footpaths 8 & 9 and the Sustrans
Regional Cycle Route 30 have been briefly assessed within the LVIA (9.41 and 9.42),
but little emphasis attributed to these receptors who would be significantly affected,
given the proximity of the turbine. GVLIA 3 (6.33) assesses users of public rights of
way, those engaged in outdoor recreation and visitors to heritage assets as „visual
receptors highly susceptible to change‟. Mitigation planting is used to justify a
diminished effect, but the Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that this
impact would only be reduced after a significant period of time and would be less
effective than anticipated, given the height of the turbine.
The effects of the turbine on views experienced by road users of the A148 main
tourist route through North Norfolk are assessed via Viewpoints 4, 5 & 6. The
conclusion of Minor Adverse for all three locations does not take into account the
repeated views of the moving blades that would be experienced, albeit not in the
near view. Viewpoint 6, A148 between High Kelling and Bodham does not account
for the combined view of the turbine and All Saints Church, Bodham. Along this
stretch of road the significance of the church in the landscape will be overshadowed
by the scale and movement of the turbine. GVLIA3, in 6.22, emphasises the
importance of „sequential‟ views along key transport corridors and notes that
Development Committee
17
26 March 2015
viewpoints should account for „the full range of different types of people who may be
affected‟. In relation to this proposal, road users should include holidaymakers,
commuters and residents. The susceptibility of these receptors to the introduction of
a large scale feature such as a turbine will vary and this has not been accounted for
within the submitted LVIA.
OTHER LANDSCAPE/ARBORICULTURAL IMPACTS
Other landscape impacts relate to the transportation of turbine components to site.
The submitted Transport Report by Genatec concludes minimal disruption to road
users during the transportation of turbine components to the site. The proposed
route includes the requirement for sections of road widening, verge removal, hedge
removal and tree pruning/removal. Unlike the previous application, this submission
does not include an Arboricultural Implications Assessment to determine the lasting
impact of the preparatory route works on the existing vegetation. The Council‟s
Landscape Officer has indicated that the likely impacts will be similar to that as laid
out in the consideration of application ref: PF/11/0983. A Construction Traffic
Management Plan including detailed vegetation reinstatement should be imposed by
condition.
SUMMARY OF LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
It is evident from the representations received that the surrounding landscape is
attractive and highly valued by local residents as open countryside. It is inevitable
given the scale and location of the turbine that it would be a prominent feature in the
landscape. The smooth sleek lines of the turbine and somewhat utilitarian
appearance would create a degree of harm in this essentially rural location with its
smaller scale and more traditional forms of development which rely to a large extent
on local materials that are more easily absorbed by the natural vegetation.
The key policy test within CS Policy EN 7 is whether the proposal would have
„significant adverse effects‟ whilst CS Policy EN 2 suggests that development
proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will
protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance, amongst other things, the special
qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.
The LVIA concludes in 11.12 that the proposed turbine would be „compatible with the
local landscape and would not result in any unacceptable harm to either the
landscape resource or visual receptors‟. The Council‟s Landscape Officer indicates
that this demonstrates a lack of appreciation by the applicant of the significance of
the number of heritage assets that are such recognised land mark features of the
North Norfolk landscape that would be affected by this proposal, nor does it
recognise the value of this largely traditional landscape to both residents of the area
or to the numerous holiday makers who come to the area for these very reasons.
The Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that, contrary to the conclusions of
the submitted LVIA, the proposed 66m turbine would incur harm to the landscape
(particularly TF3 and WP5) and the numerous heritage assets and their settings that
are intrinsic to those landscapes and to receptors within these landscapes and
Officers would concur with this view. The proposal is therefore assessed as being
contrary to Policies EN 2, EN 7 and EN 8.
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB)
The Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is approximately
2.4km (1.5 miles) to the north of the proposed turbine site. CS Policy EN 1 (Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & the Broads) states:
Development Committee
18
26 March 2015
„The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast
AONB... and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted
where it;
•
•
•
is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the
area or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken
as they arise.
Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be
demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less
harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the special qualities
of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads and their settings will not be permitted‟.
In respect of national guidance, Paragraph 115 of the NPPF states:
„Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National
Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest
status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of
wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and
should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads‟.
The proposed turbine would be visible from a number of locations north of the A148
and within the AONB (including between High Kelling and Bodham, at the junction of
the A1082 (Sheringham) with the A148 and also from the Roman Camp).
A number of representations have raised concern about the potential adverse impact
on the AONB and clearly it is important that the Committee affords appropriate
weight to the importance of protecting nationally designated landscapes which have
the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
In respect of assessing the impact of wind turbines on such landscapes, the
Committee may be aware of an appeal decision from 1995 relating to application ref:
01 930648, which was a proposal for four turbines on land at Pond Farm, Bodham.
These turbines were proposed to have a hub height of 42m and a height to blade tip
of 66m. In considering the impact of that proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, the Planning Inspector considered:
„…although the turbines would be visible from certain vantage points on the southern
boundary of the AONB, views from within the AONB would be screened by the
woodland along the Cromer Ridge and I do not consider that the natural beauty of
the landscape of that area would be significantly harmed by the appeal proposal‟.
In this case, consultation was undertaken with the Norfolk Coast Partnership who
manage the Norfolk Coast AONB. In their consultation response, the Norfolk Coast
Partnership recognised that the turbine would be screened from many coastal areas
Development Committee
19
26 March 2015
of the AONB [due in part to the effect of the Cromer Ridge] and, having taken
account of the submitted viewpoints and having regard to the recent installation of a
3.6MW solar farm, have not raised objections to the proposal (A copy of their full
response is attached at Appendix 8).
However, some objectors consider the impact upon the setting of the AONB to be
significantly detrimental to the special character of the AONB. Officers are of the view
that there can be no doubt that the turbine would be readily visible from within
sections of the AONB including some locations immediately north of the A148 and
the impact could, in those areas, be considered adverse. However the Norfolk Coast
Partnership consider that the proposal would not necessarily detract from the special
qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB as a whole and the proposal would be broadly
compliant with the requirements of CS Policy EN 1. Refusal based on significant
adverse impact on the AONB could not, in the opinion of officers, be substantiated or
justified.
IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 8
(Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment), which states:
„Development proposals…should preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development
that would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest
will not be permitted‟.
The Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay “special attention” to the
“desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings, and the character and
appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of preserving the
settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas
are not mere material considerations to which any weight can be attached. When a
local authority finds that a proposed development would harm the setting of a listed
building or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm
considerable importance and weight. There is effectively a statutory presumption
against planning permission being granted. That presumption can, however, be
outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so, including the public
benefits of a proposal.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the NPPF,
which specifically addresses the need for conserving and enhancing the historic
environment at paragraphs 126 – 141.
In particular paragraph 132 states:
„When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset‟s conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should
require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II
listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of
designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade
Development Committee
20
26 March 2015
I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional‟.
Paragraph 133 states:
„Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of
significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse
consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary
to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the
following apply:
• the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
• no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term
through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
• conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership
is demonstrably not possible; and
• the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into
use‟.
Paragraph 134 states:
„Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use‟.
Although the NPPF is expressed in terms of balance rather than expressly referring
to issues of weight and significance, the High Court has held that local authorities
must approach the decision in a way that is consistent with sections 66(1) and 72 of
the 1990 Act, and therefore that the question should not be addressed as a simple
balancing exercise, but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in
favour of preservation.
The NPPF defines setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is
experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings
evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the
significance of an asset, and may affect the ability to appreciate the significance or
may be neutral. Significance is defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and
future generations because of its heritage interest. Significance derives not only from
a heritage asset‟s physical presence, but also from its setting.
The NPPF requires local plans to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of the historic environment. It recognises that heritage assets are an
irreplaceable resource and they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their
significance. The significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost through
alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.
English Heritage guidance, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), advises that
„setting embraces all the surroundings from which the heritage asset can be
experienced or that can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have
a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially
bounded area or as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset.‟ The construction
of a distant but a high structure such as a wind turbine may extend what was
previously understood to comprise setting. Development within the immediate or
extended setting may affect significance, particularly where it is large-scale,
prominent or intrusive.
Development Committee
21
26 March 2015
The English Heritage document Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for
the sustainable management of the historic environment articulates the value of
heritage for its evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. However, the
importance of aesthetic and communal value is not taken through into recent
Government policy in the NPPF.
There are many designated heritage assets within 5 km of the application site,
including 3 scheduled ancient monuments, 79 listed buildings, 6 conservation areas
and 3 registered parks and gardens. In particular these include:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe Hall) - Scheduled Ancient
Monument, Grade I listed building (Castle), Grade II listed building (Hall)
Barningham Hall – Grade I listed, Grade II* listed (adjacent buildings), Historic
Parks and Gardens registered Grade II
St Mary‟s - Barningham Winter Church – Grade II* listed
All Saints Church – Bodham – Grade II* listed
St Peters Church – North Barningham – Grade II* listed
St Mary‟s Church Baconsthorpe – Grade II* listed
St Michael‟s – Plumstead – Grade II* listed
St Marys Church – Bessingham – Grade II* listed
St Helen & All Saints Church – West Beckham – Unlisted
All Saints Church (Site Of) – West Beckham – Grade II listed
Conservation Areas of Baconsthorpe, Bessingham and Matlaske
In considering the impact on heritage assets, a number of consultations were
undertaken including with English Heritage (EH), Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Services (HES) and with the Council‟s appointed heritage consultants Beacon Planning (BP). Copies of consultation replies are attached in full at
Appendices 1, 4 and 6. The application is supported by a Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA), dated May 2014, undertaken by Grover Lewis Associates.
In respect of the proposed turbine site in relation to below ground archaeology, HES
have commented that „The HIA fails to address the impact of the proposed
development on undesignated heritage assets, including the below-ground impact of
turbine construction, and there is no evidence that the authors of the HIA have
consulted the Norfolk Historic Environment Record (contra para.128 of the NPPF).
The applicant has included the results of a magnetometer survey, which identifies a
number of archaeological features likely to be impacted upon by this development.
However, these are unlikely to be of national importance, and the mitigation of the
impact of development on them could be secured via a set of conditions, should
permission be granted.‟
Turning now to specific heritage assets:
Baconsthorpe Castle – The applicant has set out that, in their opinion, „…the
proposed turbine would have only very limited visual impact on the setting of
Baconsthorpe Castle. Whilst it is accepted that there would be some minor visual
impact on the setting of the monument as a result of the proposed wind turbine, it is
considered that this would not diminish significance of the monument, or its
understanding and appreciation by visitors to any substantial degree. Therefore, at
most, it would cause only minor harm to the setting and significance of the castle as
a designated heritage asset‟.
Development Committee
22
26 March 2015
EH have confirmed that Baconsthorpe Castle is in their Guardianship and is
considered to be popular with visitors. It is an extensive and highly valued heritage
asset which includes the remains of an impressive moated manor site, gatehouse
and associated gardens. EH have noted that the character of the landscape in this
area is an important consideration and contributes to the significance of the asset.
The landscape is for the most part unchanged and provides an important backdrop to
the site and enhances its historic and aesthetic values.
EH have expressed concerns about the impact of the turbine on the site and have
noted that the photomontages show that the turbine would be visible from a number
of locations from within the asset, and it would also be visible in conjunction with the
monument from important locations such as the public footpath to the south and west
of the site. EH consider the turbine, in particular the kinetic circular motion of the
blades and the modern form of the blades, would erode the rural character of this
location which contributes to the significance of the Castle. This would result in harm
to the significance of Baconsthorpe Castle.
HES considers that the degree of harm to the historic environment has been
considerably played down in the heritage impact assessment (HIA) produced by
Grover Lewis Associates, particularly with reference to the impact on Baconsthorpe
Castle.
HES notes that „The HIA states that in every case the turbine would be smaller than
the telecommunications mast – this is true. However, the turbine would be moving,
rather than static, and hence the eye would be drawn to it. It could be argued that in
this location, the presence of the turbine would also draw attention to the
telecommunications mast, thereby enhancing the feel of a modern industrialisation of
what is currently a very rural setting‟.
HES consider that „the claim that the turbine would have “some minor visual impact”
on the setting of the monument considerably plays down the impact that this
proposed development will have. The playing down of the impact, together with the
lack of appreciation of the effect of movement on the human eye lad the HIA to
greatly underestimate the harm done to the significance of this designated heritage
asset‟.
Beacon Planning (BP) notes that Baconsthorpe Castle „is a clearly a heritage asset
of extremely high significance. In paragraph 3.7, the Heritage Impact Assessment
(HIA) submitted by the applicant describes it as „a rare monument type with fewer
than 200 identified examples‟...
BP go on to note that „The HIA accepts that „the tranquil isolated rural setting
contributes to the significance of the monument, which has a long-established
relationship with its surrounding landscape‟ (para 3.9) though it feels that the
landscape has „changed markedly‟ since the construction of the Castle. English
Heritage agree that the character of the surrounding landscape is important and
contributes to the asset‟s heritage significance because it is „an important backdrop
to the site and enhances its historic and aesthetic values‟. Notably they also
describe this landscape as „for the most part unchanged‟ in direct opposition to the
views of the applicant‟.
BP are of the opinion that „whilst farming practices may have changed, trees and
other vegetation may have grown or been felled, none of this has affected the sense
of rural isolation and tranquillity which is an essential part of the asset‟s setting‟.
Development Committee
23
26 March 2015
BP go on to note that „The HIA accepts that the turbine is „clearly likely‟ to have an
impact on the setting of the Castle. These include „barely discernible‟ views from a
„limited number of positions‟ within the moated area; from outside the moated area
(the gardens beyond the moat, to the east of the outer gatehouse and from within the
car park) though the turbine „would not feature strongly‟; and from the footpath to the
west of the castle where glimpses would be seen in juxtaposition with the remains as
it would from the footpath to the SW towards the Castle from Baconsthorpe village‟.
BP note that „In English Heritage‟s view, these are important locations and the wind
turbine, with the circular kinetic movement of its blades, would harm the setting of the
castle and its heritage significance‟.
BP considers „It is important to remember that the land within the „scheduled area‟ of
this asset is quite extensive covering the remains, former gardens, land beside the
moated area and the car park. Visitors are encouraged to walk around the site with
the first interpretation board within the car park itself. It is likely that anyone reading
this board and then moving towards the path through the outer gatehouse would see
the turbine particularly due to its turning blades. This would inevitably jar with the
tranquil natural setting of the monument. As one then moved around the site, views
of the turbine would again be possible, further distracting the visitor. This harms the
setting of the asset and the contribution which this makes to its heritage significance‟.
BP accepts that „the turbine now proposed is smaller than was previously applied for.
However it will still be noticeable and the sense of movement will be unchanged.
The presence of the nearby mast is irrefutable, but the impact of this is less than that
of the turbine (despite its greater height) because of its filigree nature and the fact
that it is static‟.
BP considers that „The view from the footpath which runs immediately to the west of
the Castle is also important as, without a doubt, this would form one of the highlights
of a walk in this area and the path offers some good vantage points over the entire
site. The fact that the turbine would be seen in juxtaposition with the Castle, as is
accepted by the applicant (as shown in Heritage Viewpoint 3 [Genatec April 2014]),
causes clear harm to the asset‟s setting and the contribution which this makes to its
heritage significance‟.
BP considers that Baconsthorpe Castle is „an asset of very high heritage significance
and the importance of the tranquil, rural location to its setting appears to be accepted
by all. Whilst the harm caused to the setting, and to the significance of the asset is
„less than substantial‟, it is still significant‟.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, there is consensus that the
turbine would result in harm to the rural setting of Baconsthorpe Castle (which is a
Scheduled Ancient Monument and also includes Grade I (Castle) and Grade II (Hall)
listed buildings. Whilst this harm amounts to „less than substantial harm‟ under the
NPPF (paragraphs 133 and 134), the harm is still considered to be significant given
the impacts identified above. Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in
section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the
harm to the setting of Baconsthorpe Castle, and there is a presumption against
planning permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee
will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of
the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Development Committee
24
26 March 2015
Barningham Hall – The applicant has set out that, in their opinion ‘…the proposed
wind turbine would have, at most, a very minor visual impact on the setting and
significance of Barningham Hall, its associated parkland and Barningham Winter
Church’.
EH note that „Barningham Hall is a grade I listed house set in a registered parkland,
grade II. The most significant phase…was the remodelling of the house and park by
Humphry and John Adey Repton. Repton's red book images indicate how the main
southern approach to the building was adapted to specifically reveal the imposing
house….In our view, the turbine would be visible in the important approaches to the
house from the south, but also within the avenue and in a number of key views from
and to the north west of the Hall‟.
HES note that „The HIA discusses the significance of Barningham Hall and Park,
making reference to a number of watercolours by Humphry Repton. One of Repton‟s
trademarks was the creation of designed views that opened up suddenly (so called
“bursts”), and he published on the necessity of designing the entrance to a house
and garden to show it at its best advantage (see, for example, Repton (1803)
Observations on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening, chapter XI) It is
strange, then, that there is no viewpoint for the first moment that one sees the Hall,
and no discussion of this view in the HIA. It is the view depicted in one of the
watercolours mentioned in the HIA. It is therefore impossible to confirm the assertion
in 3.41 of the HIA that the view illustrated by Repton would be unaffected by the
turbine. Certainly the turbine would be visible in that view, and hence there would be
a degree of harm to the significance of the heritage asset, not only through alteration
to its setting, but also to its artistic significance‟..
BP note that „Barningham Hall, is a substantial country house set within a parkland
and with attendant stable block and consciously designed partly-ruined church.
Once again, in heritage terms, the whole site is of very high significance. This
significance is amplified by the involvement of the famous landscape architect /
architect Humphry Repton and the presence of some of his famous „before and after‟
images and other drawings adds considerably to its heritage values‟.
BP note that „The HIA suggests that „arguably the most the (sic) significant elements
within the designed landscape is the impressive west avenue‟. Outstanding as this is
as a device for focusing views to and from the hall, we feel that Repton‟s conscious
manipulation of the landscape so that the hall is hidden whilst travelling northwards
from the south entrance until it suddenly „bursts‟ into view is an extremely important
aspect of the building‟s setting and the heritage significance of the park itself. The
fact that turbine will be visible at times along this drive before the hall is reached
would therefore have a major impact on the heritage significance of the assets‟.
BP have referred to the fact that „The applicant suggests that Barningham Hall, like
some other historic parklands, was meant to be effectively „self-contained‟ by being
screened from the surrounding countryside by belts of trees‟. BP do not think that this
is the case here and consider that „some managed views into the surrounding
countryside were seemingly created by Repton. However, even if the parkland was
meant to be enclosed by trees, the visibility of a modern feature beyond the confines
of the parkland would harm this design intention to the detriment of the setting and
heritage significance of the asset. In our view the moving blades will create a clear
distraction from within the parkland and therefore there is clear harm, regardless of
whether the parkland was meant to be enclosed from or interact with the adjacent
countryside‟.
Development Committee
25
26 March 2015
However BP go on to note that „The applicant accepts that views of the turbine will
also be possible from within the western avenue and probably from some higher level
north-facing windows‟. In the case of the avenue BP considers, „this will have an
impact, by possibly distracting the viewer away from the principal east-west views,
but…feel that this is a relatively minor and localised distraction particularly as the
avenue was largely there to form a viewing „tunnel‟ from either end, rather than being
enjoyed from within. The main views from the hall face west and south and [BP] do
not therefore feel that views of the turbine from north-facing windows will harm the
hall‟s heritage significance‟
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, in respect of the impact on
Barningham Hall, there is a now a general consensus from consultees that the
turbine will be visible at times along the southern approach drive before the hall is
reached and that this would therefore have an adverse impact on the heritage
significance of the assets.
AS BP have noted, „Barningham Hall comprises a group of listed buildings of
considerable importance, their value amplified by their position within an historic park
and garden which was remodelled by one of the leading landscape architects of the
day. The turbine, although not so visible as previously proposed, will still attract
attention and this will work against how the parkland was intended to be experienced,
harming the setting of the house and… [its] …heritage significance and the parkland
and its significance. Although this harm is „less than substantial‟ it is still significant‟.
Officers concur with this view.
In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is
engaged by the harm to the setting of Barningham Hall, and there is a presumption
against planning permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary,
depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee
will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of
the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
St. Mary’s - Barningham Winter Church - EH have noted that „The partially ruined
grade lI * church of St Mary, Barningham Winter is also an integral structure within
the park [of Barningham Hall]. This medieval church formed part of the Reptons'
adaption of the park and it was incorporated into the designed landscape as an eye
catcher. The proposed turbine would also be visible from within the ruined church,
critically, in views to the north that include the church. The reduced height of the
turbine means it would not be as dominant at this location as earlier proposals but we
consider that the motion of the turbine blades would erode the significance and rural
character of the park and would result in harm to the wider setting of the Hall and
church.
HES have noted that „Barningham Winter church… was one of Repton‟s subjects, as
it features in his illustrations. It is fairly clear that the view from the north door is a
designed view, with the demolition of the nave, but retention of the south porch
leading the viewer into a “burst” at the north door. Whilst this view has, to a degree,
been compromised by static modern telegraph poles, it retains its artistic significance
as a vista of a rural scene. As can be seen form HVP18, in fact the turbine hub would
be visible above the trees, and so more than half of the blade sweep area would be
visible, and would introduce a rotating modern industrial element to an otherwise
static rural scene. As with the other assets listed above,… [HES considers there
would be]… harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, and that harm is
underplayed by the HIA‟.
Development Committee
26
26 March 2015
BP have commented that „The Church of St Mary, Barningham (the Winter Church)
is itself Grade II* with its C19 south gate separately listed Grade II and, as the entry
from English Heritage‟s Register of Historic Parks and Gardens states, „the whole is
visually important to the landscape scheme‟ and it acts as a focal point in views
northwards along the drive. Again, the HIA accepts that the turbine will be visible
from the main drive when approaching the church. This therefore serves to distract
the eye from what is meant to be the „eye catcher‟ and again causes harm to the
setting of the hall, the parkland and the building itself. The latter is further harmed by
the views of the turbine through the archway in the ruined part of the church which
acts as a „frame‟ to views as one walks up the path northwards before turning
eastwards into the church. The presence of the path up to the archway shows that
people are encouraged to look northwards from this point‟.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, there is consensus from
heritage consultees that the proposed turbine would result in harm to the setting of
St. Mary‟s - Barningham Winter Church particularly from views of the turbine through
the archway in the ruined part of the church which acts as a „frame‟ to views as one
walks up the path northwards before turning eastwards into the church. Although this
harm is „less than substantial‟ it is still significant. Officers concur with this view.
In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is
engaged by the harm to the setting of St Mary‟s – Barningham Winter Church, and
there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The strength of
the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed
building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy
benefits)
All Saints Church – Bodham – The applicant has set out that, in their opinion
‘…whilst it is accepted that there would be some impact on the setting of the Grade
II* listed church of All Saints‟, Bodham, in particular, when seen in tandem with the
proposed wind turbine from the vicinity of Manor Farm, it is considered that such
impact would constitute a modest degree of less than substantial harm, in NPPF
terms. The key attributes of the listed building, and understanding and appreciation
by visitors, together with the majority of views of the building in its setting, would not
be seriously diminished. Therefore, in overall terms, only minor harm would be
caused to the setting and significance of the heritage asset’.
EH have noted that „In addition to the Castle and the Hall, the landscape is notable
for the number of important medieval churches and small historic rural settlements‟.
EH „…are concerned about the impact upon the setting of a number of highly graded
medieval parish churches such as those at Bodham‟. EH are of the opinion that „The
impact of the development on the parish church.. in the landscape should be
considered from both close and distant viewpoints. The images provided by the
applicant do not allow a full appreciation of the turbine's visual impact on the
significance of the.. church.. but do give an indication of the likely scale of the turbine
in relation to the church… and show that the turbine would be visible
from…Bodham…church and churchyard. There would be a harmful impact on the
rural setting of the church and [it‟s] significance‟.
BP have noted that „The church and proposed turbine would be visible in the same
field of view from a number of locations, including from the A148. There will
therefore be some harm to the wider appreciation of the heritage asset in its
landscape setting‟
Development Committee
27
26 March 2015
BP are of the opinion that „One of the clearest views of church and turbine together
would be from the Grade II Listed Manor Farm and the adjacent lane. The
juxtaposition of manor and church is an aspect of the morphology of many villages
and here the lack of intervening and adjacent development serves to emphasise this
relationship and the rural, relatively isolated location. The view of the turbine with its
moving blades will harm this aspect of the setting of both buildings‟.
BP note that „The Heritage Impact Assessment suggests that recent hedge planting
along the lane will mitigate this effect but this would only be achieved by depriving
the viewer of sight of the church. In any case, for this to be effective, the hedge will
need some years to mature and then it would need to be appropriately maintained to
provide an effective screen‟.
BP also have noted that „The Heritage Impact Assessment suggests that the turbine
will have little impact on any views from the Church itself as it would be behind
anyone entering the church. Clearly however that means it could be visible to
anyone leaving the church, including standing in the porch or on the path to the gate
and whilst walking towards the car park. The rural surroundings would be apparent
to anyone leaving the church and congregating outside and the presence of the
turbine and the sense of movement will harm this aspect of the church‟s setting to the
detriment of its heritage significance‟.
BP „consider the harm [to All Saints Church – Bodham] to be less than substantial
and, although not so great as the harm to Baconsthorpe Castle or Barningham Hall
and its associated park and church, it is nevertheless of some significance. Officers
concur with this view. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the
statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of All Saints Church –
Bodham, and there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The
strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting
of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption
is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy
benefits).
St. Peters Church – North Barningham – The applicant has set out that, in their
opinion „…whilst it is accepted that some minor impact on the setting of the Grade II*
listed Church of St Peter, North Barningham when seen in tandem with the proposed
wind turbine from the vicinity of Wells Farm Cottage, it is considered that such impact
would constitute a modest degree of less than substantial harm, in NPPF terms.
Therefore, the significance of the heritage asset, and the ability of visitors to
understand and appreciate it, together with the majority of views of the building in its
setting, would not be seriously diminished‟.
EH comment only to state that the turbine would have a negative impact on the wider
setting of more distant churches including St. Peters Church at North Barningham.
BP note that „This redundant medieval church sits in a very isolated position some
distance from the nearest buildings. The HIA acknowledges that the undeveloped
surroundings and rural setting contribute to the building‟s heritage significance‟.
BP go on to note that „The churchyard is very tightly enclosed by substantial trees
and although the turbine is only around 1.5km from the church, there are unlikely to
be any views of the turbine from the church or churchyard‟.
Development Committee
28
26 March 2015
BP refer to the fact that „The HIA acknowledges that there will be a view of the
church and turbine in the same field of view from the SE and the turbine would be
taller on the skyline than the church tower. This will cause some harm to the
appreciation of the church in its rural setting and diminishes its role as a feature
within the rural landscape. A similar impact will occur in views from the churchyard of
St Mary‟s, Bessingham. However these views are relatively limited and as noted
above, more immediate views towards and from the church are screened by the
surrounding grove of mature trees‟.
BP conclude that „There is therefore some harm to the setting of the church but this
causes less than substantial harm to its heritage significance‟. Officers concur with
this view. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory
presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of St Peter‟s Church, and there is
a presumption against planning permission being granted. The strength of the
presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed
building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy
benefits).
St. Marys Church – Bessingham – The applicant has set out that, in their opinion
the proposed turbine ‘...would have only a very minor impact on the setting and
significance of the church as a designated heritage asset. The impact would amount
to a modest degree of less than substantial harm in NPPF terms’.
EH comment only to state that the turbine would have a negative impact on the wider
setting of more distant churches including St. Marys Church – Bessingham.
BP note that the church „stands, in any elevated position to the north of the rest of the
small village though it does sit within the village conservation area‟. BP go on to note
that „The HIA accepts that its isolated, undeveloped surroundings contribute to its
heritage significance. It also comments that from the western edge of the churchyard
there are clear views over the surrounding countryside and equally clear views of the
turbine would be possible from here‟.
BP consider that „The views of the turbine will be mostly from the rear part of the
graveyard behind the church. Due to the fall of the land, it appears unlikely that the
church and turbine would be seen in the same view, one would have to go past the
church towards the footpath before the turbine would become visible‟.
BP consider there would be „minor harm to the setting of Bessingham Church and its
heritage significance‟. Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section
66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by this minor
harm, and there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The
Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the
public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
BP also assess whether the views of the turbine from the western edge of
Bessingham Churchyard impacts on the character and appearance of the
Bessingham Conservation Area. They conclude that „the impact…is considered to
cause relatively little harm to the contribution which the rural setting makes to the
area‟s character and appearance.‟ Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty
in section 72 of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the
harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, and there is a
presumption against planning permission being granted. The strength of the
presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the character and
Development Committee
29
26 March 2015
appearance of the conservation area. The Committee will have to consider whether
this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including
renewable energy benefits).
St Mary’s Church Baconsthorpe – The applicant has set out that, in their opinion
‘...The combined effect of distance and partial screening by trees means that the
proposed turbine would not have a marked impact on the setting of the church, and
the impact on setting and significance would, at most, be minor….The impact would
amount to a modest degree of less than substantial harm in NPPF terms’.
EH have commented that „In addition to the Castle and the· Hall, the landscape is
notable for the number of important medieval churches and small historic rural
settlements‟. they ..‟are concerned about the impact upon the setting of a number of
highly graded medieval parish churches such as those at Baconsthorpe. The impact
of the development on the parish churches in the landscape should be considered
from both close and distant viewpoints… and show that the turbine would be visible
from…Baconsthorpe church and churchyards. There would be a harmful impact on
the rural setting of these churches and their significance‟.
BP have noted that „This substantial parish church… sits in the SE corner of the
village in a relatively large churchyard between the Manor House and Rectory. The
church is within the village Conservation Area‟.
BP go on to comment that „The HIA acknowledges that the rural setting contributes to
the building‟s heritage significance and accepts that there will be views of the turbine,
across relatively open flat land to the NE from the churchyard and across the modern
graveyard on the north side of the lane.‟
BP comment that „Trees and telegraph poles and wires will be seen in the same
views as the turbine but it will still be easily noticeable from the churchyard, the lane
and the modern grave yard. Importantly, it will be visible as one leaves the church
and walks down the path, out of the gate and into the lane. Unlike the previous
Inspector, I feel that this would not just be the case in winter, but at other times of
year too.‟
BP consider that „The presence of the turbine will cause harm to the contribution
which its setting makes to its heritage significance. This harm will be less than
substantial but still significant.‟
Officers are of the opinion that there would be some adverse impacts on the setting
of Baconsthorpe Church, although these impacts are considered to be less than
substantial. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory
presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of Baconsthorpe Church, and
there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The strength of
the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed
building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy
benefits).
St Michael‟s – Plumstead – BP have noted that, „despite being commented on by
the Conservation Officer in the previous application, the HIA does not assess any
potential impact on the setting of this medieval church which dates back to the C12.
The church which, although within the small village, is separated from the proposed
development by open, rising land. The previous Inspector commented that views of
the turbine would only be possible in winter‟.
Development Committee
30
26 March 2015
BP note that „Some views of the turbine on the skyline will be possible from the road
beside the church and from within the churchyard to the west of the tower and from
the seat in the graveyard to the rear. However, as the turbine will be over 3km away,
its impact is considered to be limited as at this distance it would appear as a fairly
minor incident on the skyline. Harm to the setting and the heritage significance is
therefore considered to be less than substantial but would likely occur throughout the
year, not just in winter‟.
Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act
1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of St Michael‟s
- Plumstead, and there is a presumption against planning permission being granted.
The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the
setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this
presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (including
renewable energy benefits).
St. Helens & All Saints Church – West Beckham and All Saints Church (Site Of)
– West Beckham– Officers are of the opinion that there would be limited impact on
the setting of these assets anywhere any impacts do arise those impacts are
considered to be less than substantial.
Other Heritage Assets - Felbrigg Hall – Officers do not consider that the proposed
turbine would have any adverse impact on the setting of Felbrigg Hall. It is
considered that the proposed turbine would be barely perceptible given the
separation distance of 5km+ and the existence of significant tree cover around the
extent of the boundaries of that asset provide further screening such that clear views
of the turbine would be unlikely and certainly would not occur within the main axis of
views from the main building and grounds.
Baconsthorpe Conservation Area – EH consider that the proposed turbine would
have a negative impact on the character and appearance of Baconsthorpe
Conservation Area.
BP note that „The Baconsthorpe Conservation Area encompasses the heart of the
village along The Street either side of the Jolly‟s Lane junction with a second nucleus
around the church and Manor House. It also includes a western spur around Pitt
Farm, a NE block formed by the L-shaped leg of The Street and part of New Road
and an eastern leg along Church Lane to Manor Farm House.‟
BP go on to note that „The consequence of this is that the open land in the heart of
the village, between The Street and School Lane forms the central core of the
conservation area, whilst the roads at the edges allow views out into the open
countryside and so highlight the rural nature of the place‟.
BP are of the opinion that „… there will be some views of the turbine from between
Pitt Farm and Ash Tree Farm at the western edge of the village, from the L-shaped
NE spur of the Street and New Street, from Plumstead Road and from Church Lane.
The latter will include views from the Churchyard as one leaves the church and
across the modern graveyard on the north side of Church Lane.‟
BP go on to conclude that „Further views will also be possible from the Plumstead
Road junction and from School Lane, across the open space at the heart of the
conservation area. The appearance of a modern, kinetic structure will be at odds
with the rural setting of the village conservation area and will have some impact on
Development Committee
31
26 March 2015
this designated heritage asset‟s setting and on its character and appearance. This
harm is considered to be less than substantial, but nonetheless of some significance‟.
Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section 72 of the LBCA Act 1990,
the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the character and appearance
of the conservation area, and there is a presumption against planning permission
being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of
harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Committee will
have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the
proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Bessingham Conservation Area - EH consider that the proposed turbine would
have a negative impact on the character and appearance of Bessingham
Conservation Area.
BP have commented that „Bessingham has an enclosed relatively intimate character
as the result of its position in the valley bottom and the enclosing tree and shrub
belts. The land rises towards the church at the northern end of the village. Despite
this, the only obvious views of the turbine will be from the western edge of the
churchyard, and the impact of this is therefore considered to cause relatively little
harm to the contribution which the rural setting makes to the area‟s character and
appearance‟.
Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section 72 of the LBCA Act 1990,
the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the character and appearance
of the conservation area, and there is a presumption against planning permission
being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of
harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Committee will
have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the
proposal (including renewable energy benefits).
Matlaske Conservation Area – BP have noted that „This attractive small village lies
to the south of Barningham Hall with the south drive to the Hall close to the centre of
the village Conservation Area. The presence of the trees within the parkland and
gardens of the hall and within the village itself, mean that at a distance of around
3.5km from the turbine, no clear views would be possible and no harm to the
character and appearance of the conservation area has been identified‟. Officers
concur with this view.
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
Having considered the applicant‟s Heritage Impact Assessment, as well as the
advice from English Heritage, County Council Historic Environment Services and the
Council‟s appointed Heritage Consultants (Beacon Planning) and having taken
account of other material considerations, it is considered that the proposed turbine
would result in a less than substantial, but yet significant, level of harm to:

the setting of Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe Hall), a
Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade I listed building (Castle), Grade II listed
building (Hall), an extensive and highly valued heritage asset. In officers‟
view, the harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a strong
presumption against the granting of planning permission. Officer advice
therefore is that there would need to be compelling public benefits in favour
of the turbine to override this presumption;
Development Committee
32
26 March 2015

the setting of Barningham Hall, Grade I listed and Grade II* listed (adjacent
buildings), and Historic Parks and Gardens registered Grade II. The whole
site is of very high significance, amplified by the involvement of the
landscape architect / architect Humphry Repton in its remodelling. In officers‟
view, the harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a strong
presumption against the granting of planning permission. Officer advice
therefore is that there would need to be compelling public benefits in favour
of the turbine to override this presumption;

the setting of St Mary‟s - Barningham Winter Church, Grade II* listed and
also an integral structure within the park of Barningham Hall, used by Repton
as an „eye-catcher‟ in his adaptation of the park. In officers‟ view, the harm to
the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a strong presumption against
the granting of planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that there
would need to be compelling public benefits in favour of the turbine to
override this presumption;

the setting of All Saints Church – Bodham, a Grade II* listed medieval
parish church. The location of the church and its juxtaposition with a Grade II
listed manor house is typical of many of the medieval churches in the area. In
officers‟ view, the harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a
strong presumption against the granting of planning permission. Officer
advice therefore is that there would need to be cogent public benefits in
favour of the turbine to override this presumption;

the setting of St Mary‟s Church Baconsthorpe, a substantial Grade II*
listed medieval parish church. In officers‟ view, the harm to the setting of this
heritage asset gives rise to a presumption against the granting of planning
permission. Officer advice therefore is that there would need to be cogent
public benefits in favour of the turbine to override this presumption;

the setting of St Peters Church – North Barningham, a Grade II* listed
redundant medieval church in a very isolated position. In officers‟ view, the
harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a presumption against
the granting of planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that there
would need to be public benefits in favour of the turbine to override this
presumption;

the setting of St Michael‟s – Plumstead, a Grade II* listed medieval church
within a small village. In officers‟ view, the harm to the setting of this heritage
asset gives rise to a presumption against the granting of planning
permission. Officer advice therefore is that there would need to be public
benefits in favour of the turbine to override this presumption;

the setting of St Marys Church – Bessingham, a Grade II* listed church. In
officers‟ view, the harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a
presumption against the granting of planning permission. Officer advice
therefore is that there would need to be public benefits in favour of the
turbine to override this presumption;

the character and appearance of Baconsthorpe Conservation Area, arising
from views of the turbine from the conservation area. In officers‟ view, the
harm to the character and appearance of this conservation area gives rise to
a presumption against the granting of planning permission. Officer advice
Development Committee
33
26 March 2015
therefore is that there would need to be cogent public benefits in favour of
the turbine to override this presumption;

the character and appearance of Bessingham Conservation Area, arising
from the view of the turbine from the western edge of St Mary‟s Bessingham
churchyard. In officers‟ view, the harm to the character and appearance of
this conservation area gives rise to a weak/mild presumption against the
granting of planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that there would
need to be public benefits in favour of the turbine to override this
presumption;
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The turbine would be sited in a predominantly rural area. There are no properties
within 500m of the turbine but 17 properties within approximately 1km, two of which
are within the control of the applicant.
The closest residential properties are located immediately north of the turbine
including (as the crow flies):
„The Pylons‟ at approximately 550m;
„Greenacres House‟ at approximately 635m;
„The Paddocks‟ at approximately 640m;
„Camp Farm House‟ at approximately 640m;
1 and 2 Camp Farm at approximately 650m; and
„Highland Farm‟ at approximately 770m (under the control of the applicant).
To the east are properties including:
„Beckham Palace‟ at approximately 790m,
„Red Barn Cottage‟ at approximately 910m; and
„Red Barn‟ and „Blue Bell Barn‟ at approximately 950m.
To the south are properties including:
„Willow Glen‟ at approximately 940m,
„Upwood Cottage‟ at approximately 970m; and
„Upwood Lodge‟ at approximately 980m.
To the west are properties including:
„Pond Farm‟ at approximately 670m (under the control of the applicant);
„The Cottage‟ at approximately 1,010m; and
„Mill Pightle‟ at approximately 1,030m.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY – VISUAL INTRUSION
At present there are a number of vertical masts within relatively close proximity to the
application site including a 65m high lattice tower immediately to the west of the
application site known as Cock Point Radio Mast (located at 98m AOD) and a lattice
telecommunications mast at Camp Farm approximately 35m high to the north of the
application site (located at approximately 94m AOD).
Notwithstanding the presence of the existing masts, the addition of a wind turbine
with a hub height of 40m and a height to blade tip of 66m would be clearly visible to a
number of immediate residents and its height would be likely to be „read‟ against the
existing mast structures. Notwithstanding the fact that the Cock Point Radio Mast sits
on higher land at 98m AOD compared with 90m AOD for the proposed turbine,
residents to the east of the turbine including residents at „Beckham Palace‟, „Red
Barn Cottage‟, „Red Barn‟ and „Blue Bell Barn‟ would read the maximum height of the
proposed turbine as being taller than the existing Cock Point Radio Mast as a result
Development Committee
34
26 March 2015
of perspective. In addition the prevailing winds would be likely to present a significant
proportion of the turbine blades to the closest residents to the north and east along
with the associated visual impact of rotating blades.
The closest residential property „The Pylons‟ is a single storey building and has a
boundary of mature leylandii trees which would be likely to screen the majority of the
turbine from views at ground floor level. However the turbine would be clearly and
fully visible from windows in the south elevation of 1 and 2 Camp Farm and also from
windows in the west elevation of „Red Barn Cottage‟. Many of the other properties in
the immediate vicinity would also see the turbine but this view would, in many cases,
be interspersed by existing trees or would comprise a partial view of the turbine.
Whilst the turbine would be clearly visible to many local residents as a tall structure in
the landscape and could interrupt existing views, it is considered that the proposal
would not result in significant overbearing impacts, particularly given the general
distances from the turbine base to residential properties, the closest resident being
approximately 550m away.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - NOISE AND GENERAL DISTURBANCE
When considering issues relating to noise and general disturbance, the Committee is
advised to take account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and
also advice within Policy EN 13 (Pollution and Hazard Prevention and Minimisation)
which states:
„All development proposals should minimise, and where possible reduce, all
emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise pollution…Proposals
will only be permitted where, individually or cumulatively, there are no unacceptable
impacts on [amongst other things] the natural environment and general amenity;
health and safety of the public; and the need for compliance with statutory
environmental quality standards.
Exceptions will only be made where it can be clearly demonstrated that the
environmental benefits of the development and the wider social and economic need
for the development outweigh the adverse impact‟.
In respect of noise, paragraph 123 of the NPPF includes the general aim that
planning policies and decisions should avoid noise from giving rise to significant
adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.
Paragraph 124 goes on to seek that planning policies sustain compliance with and
contribute towards EU limit values and national objectives for pollutants (which may
include noise). A footnote refers to the national Noise Policy Statement for England
(2010) (NPSE) which seeks to promote good health and a good quality of life through
the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on
sustainable development. Its aims seek to both avoid significant adverse impacts and
to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts. Its Explanatory Note refers to how
significant adverse effects might be defined but acknowledges that it is not possible
to have a single objective noise-based measure that is applicable to all sources of
noise in all situations. No such measure is offered and further research is advised. In
that context the main national policy on control of noise from wind farms was
previously set out in the former PPS22 and its Companion Guide. However this was
replaced in March 2014 with the online Planning Practice Guidance.
The Planning Practice Guidance sets out at Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 5-01520140306 that the ETSU-R-97 report – „The assessment and rating of noise from
windfarms‟ ETSU for the DTI (1996) (ETSU) should be used by local planning
Development Committee
35
26 March 2015
authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments. Good
practice guidance on noise assessments of wind farms has been prepared by the
Institute Of Acoustics. The Department of Energy and Climate Change accept that it
represents current industry good practice and endorses it as a supplement to ETSUR-97‟.
ETSU-R-97 gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of
protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind
farm development. The ETSU report recommended limits to turbine noise as
summarised below:
•
Normally, 5 dB above background subject to lower limiting values of:
o Daytime: 35 to 40 dBA in low noise environments (e.g. rural areas)
o Night time: 43 dBA, assuming bedroom window(s) open
(Limiting values defined as LA90,10mins,free-field)
It follows that compliance with ETSU recommended noise limits should avoid noise
from giving rise to significant adverse impacts.
Whilst a number of residents have raised concerns about noise impacts and the
validity of using ETSU, together with concerns about its effectiveness as way of
minimising noise impacts in relation to larger wind turbines, until such time as
government guidance indicates otherwise, the ETSU guidance remains valid and is
used by the Planning Inspectorate when determining wind turbine appeals
The applicant has submitted a noise assessment undertaken by Sharps Redmore
Acoustic Consultants. A copy of the Environmental Protection Officer comments are
available at Appendix 3. The applicant has also recently submitted the findings of a
further noise survey which takes account of the IoA Good Practice Guidance (as
recommended by the Environmental Protection Officer as part of her suggested
conditions). This additional report is currently being assessed by the Environmental
Protection Officer and the Committee will be updated orally.
As such, subject to the Environmental Protection Officer confirming acceptance of
the recently submitted noise details and subject to the imposition of conditions, the
proposal would be in accordance with the requirements of ETSU, in compliance with
CS Policies EN 13 and the relevant section within CS Policy EN 7 in relation to noise
impacts.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - SHADOW FLICKER
The Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 5-020-20140306)
states:
Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may
pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring
properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the impact is known
as „shadow flicker‟. Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to
the turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast long
shadows on their southern side.
Modern wind turbines can be controlled so as to avoid shadow flicker when it has the
potential to occur. Individual turbines can be controlled to avoid shadow flicker at a
specific property or group of properties on sunny days, for specific times of the day
and on specific days of the year. Where the possibility of shadow flicker exists,
mitigation can be secured through the use of conditions.
Development Committee
36
26 March 2015
Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, where proposals for wind
turbines could give rise to shadow flicker, applicants should provide an analysis
which quantifies the impact. Turbines can also cause flashes of reflected light, which
can be visible for some distance. It is possible to ameliorate the flashing but it is not
possible to eliminate it‟
The proposed Bodham turbine would have a maximum rotor diameter of 52m (based
on an EWT DW52 turbine) and therefore, using the guidance within the Practice
Guide, only properties within 520m (10 x 52m) of the turbine and within 130 degrees
either side of north would be likely to be affected. The closest property is „The Pylons‟
at approximately 550m due north and, even if the land did not feature any existing
trees or hedgerows, the turbine would be unlikely to result in adverse impacts from
shadow flicker due to the separation distance. In this case, „The Pylons‟ has a
southern boundary of mature leylandii trees which would be likely to screen the
majority of the turbine from view and therefore it would be the leylandii hedge rather
than the turbine blades which would be more likely to shade the property. Even if the
leylandii hedge were to be removed at some point in the future, it is not considered
that shadow flicker would occur given the maximum size of turbine proposed.
A Public Right of Way (Footpath No.9) runs to the east of the turbine and it is
therefore possible that small sections of this footpath could fall within the shadow
flicker area of the turbine blades under certain conditions. However the footpath
contains a number of trees and hedges which could shadow the footpath at the same
time that shadow flicker could occur from the turbine. Given that shadow flicker
affecting the public right of way would occur infrequently and users could pass along
the footpath through the shadow flicker area relatively quickly, it is not considered
that the impact of shadow flicker on the public footpath would constitute sufficient
grounds for refusal.
Officers therefore consider that the proposal would be unlikely to give rise to
instances of shadow flicker affecting neighbouring residential properties.
IMPACT ON TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
The Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 5-017-20140306)
states:
„Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions (e.g. radio,
television and phone signals). Specialist organisations responsible for the operation
of electromagnetic links typically require 100m clearance either side of a line of sight
link from the swept area of turbine blades‟.
In considering the impact of the turbine of television reception, the analogue signal
was switched off in this area in Nov 2011 and, in theory, the digital signal should be
stronger than the previous analogue signal. However, there is no information
available other than in relation to the analogue signal to assess the impact on current
television reception.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the impact on television reception, if the
Committee were minded to approve the application, Officers suggest that a suitably
worded condition should be imposed requiring the applicant to submit a scheme to
secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to TV
and radio reception caused by the operation of the turbine. This is common practice
in wind turbine decisions allowed at appeal.
Development Committee
37
26 March 2015
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY – OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Whilst the proposed turbine would be a significant addition to the skyline and would
be visible to a significant number of residents at a variety of distances from the
turbine base, given the distance from the closest residential properties it is not
considered that the turbine could be said to result in significant adverse overbearing
impacts, is not likely to result in significant adverse noise impacts nor is it likely to
result in instances of shadow flicker at the closest residential properties. In addition,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal is not likely to have a
significant adverse impact on television or radio reception. Therefore, in respect of
impact on residential amenity, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the
proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development Plan policies.
IMPACT ON OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION
In respect of the impact of the proposed turbine on fixed link operators, the applicant
has indicated within their submitted Planning Statement that 9 micro-wave links
operate from the two existing nearby masts and that care will needed in the siting the
proposed wind turbine so as to avoid interrupting the existing links. The applicant has
indicated that in their opinion a smaller mast will have fewer impacts than a larger
turbine scheme but there is no evidence to suggest that this will necessarily be the
case and therefore appropriate conditions would need to be included to ensure that
any interference caused by the turbine on existing links are remedied at the
applicant‟s expense.
In respect of Broadband provision, part of Cock Point Radio Mast is being leased by
Norfolk Constabulary to a private company (InTouch Systems) to provide ITSwisp
wireless broadband for domestic and business customers across the area. The
service is designed to cater for those premises for whom access to broadband
services via copper wire is not economically viable or where speeds are too low.
Norfolk Constabulary have raised concerns that the proposed turbine would affect
the provision of wireless broadband and will also adversely impact upon planned
police communications systems.
Officers consider that the Committee is entitled to afford some weight to the concerns
expressed by Norfolk Constabulary and InTouch systems in respect of impact of the
turbine on wireless broadband. Whilst the wireless broadband provided by InTouch is
a private commercial interest there are clearly wider public and economic benefits
through the availability of a decent reliable broadband service, particularly as this can
help support the creation of new businesses and economic growth through the ability
to undertake online transactions and/or reduce the need to travel by allowing working
at home.
The applicant has indicated a willingness to accept a planning condition requiring any
negative impacts on wireless broadband service being mitigated at the applicant‟s
expense.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to secure mitigation at the applicant‟s
expense, the proposed turbine would be unlikely to have significant adverse impacts
on other infrastructure provision.
IMPACT ON WILDLIFE/ECOLOGY
When considering the impact on wildlife/ecology, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy EN 7 (Renewable Energy) and Policy EN 9
(Biodiversity and Geology), which states:
„All development proposals should:
Development Committee
38
26 March 2015
•
•
•
protect the biodiversity value of land and buildings and minimise
fragmentation of habitats;
maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of
natural habitats; and
incorporate beneficial biodiversity conservation features where appropriate.
Development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect to
nationally designated sites [including AONB] or other designated areas, or protected
species, will not be permitted unless;
•
•
•
they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm;
the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features
of the site and the wider network of natural habitats; and
prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the nature
conservation interests of nationally designated sites will not be permitted.
Development proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance
biodiversity or geodiversity interests will be supported in principle.
Where there is reason to suspect the presence of protected species applications
should be accompanied by a survey assessing their presence and, if present, the
proposal must be sensitive to, and make provision for, their needs‟.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) which specifically addresses the need for
conserving and enhancing the natural environment at paragraphs 109 – 125.
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states:
„The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by:
−
protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation
interests and soils;
− recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
− minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where
possible, contributing to the Government‟s commitment to halt the overall decline
in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are
more resilient to current and future pressures.‟
In considering the application, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the likely
impacts of the proposed single wind turbine on wildlife and ecology are known and
understood to ensure that there are no likely significant adverse impacts on protected
species or other important flora and fauna either on the site or passing over the site.
The Ecological Assessment Report submitted by Wild Frontier Ecology dated March
2014, relies largely on survey data from the previous application of 2011, apart from
a fresh Phase One Habitat Survey, Badger Survey and desk study undertaken in
March 2014. The British Standard for Biodiversity (BS 42020:2013) advises that the
shelf life of any given survey depends on the type of survey undertaken,
environmental conditions at the time of survey and the degree to which the conditions
Development Committee
39
26 March 2015
have altered. The study notes that the most significant change in the habitats around
the turbine since the date of the last turbine proposal (2011) is the installation of a
7.9ha solar farm in the field immediately adjacent to the site of the current turbine,
which is the same location as the previous proposal. The consequences of this
changed habitat are predicted to be a reduction in use of the area by wintering open
field species such as golden plover and lapwing. However the management of the
land beneath the solar panels as grazed grassland may lead to net positive effects
on the local bird population.
Wild Frontier acknowledge that the ornithological survey data is out of date
(undertaken in Nov 2009 to Dec 2010 by Wold Ecology), but consider that the data is
still relevant and that changes to the surrounding habitat are not significant, as
revealed in the updated Phase 1 Habitat Survey. The Council‟s Landscape Officer
considers that the ecological data gathered is sufficient to conclude that there will be
no significant impacts on ecological receptors.
The previous application included Collision Risk Modelling to further consider impacts
on the limited number of pink-footed geese which were recorded over flying the site.
The Ecological Report is of the view that given the lowered turbine height that is the
subject of this proposal, the hazard area is reduced and collision rates would be
proportionately lower and the Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that this is
a fair assessment.
Several species of bats were recorded during the 2012 surveys at varying levels of
frequency. These surveys are just within the lifespan of recorded data in accordance
with BS 42020:2013. In line with Natural England‟s advice contained within
Technical Information Note TIN051, the Survey recommends siting of this particular
turbine model (Directwind 54) at least 67m buffer distance between the blades and
the nearest linear features in order to mitigate potential collision risks on the local bat
population. The Council‟s Landscape Officer notes that the proposed turbine position
is 83m from the nearest linear feature (bracken bank with mature trees) which is well
within this recommended threshold and is a significant factor in mitigating negative
effects on ecological receptors.
The Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that the specific mitigation and
enhancement measures proposed by the applicant which include timing of clearance
work, particular construction working methods, hedgerow planting and on-going
management of the site and are proportionate to the limited ecological impacts which
are predicted.
Natural England (NE) have raised no objections in respect of the proposed turbine.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) were consulted but no
response has been received.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, in respect of impact on wildlife
and ecology it is considered that the proposal would accord with Development Plan
policy and the wider aims of the NPPF.
IMPACT ON AVIATION
Consultations have been undertaken with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), National
Air Traffic Services (NATS En Route) and Norwich Airport. Subject to the imposition
of conditions, including the provision of aviation lighting, it is considered that the
proposed turbine would not give rise to safeguarding concerns nor would it cause
Development Committee
40
26 March 2015
interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. The proposal
therefore complies with relevant Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY & PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
The applicants have set out the proposed route for the turbine components which
would arrive at site from the west on the A148 turning right onto Selbrigg Road at
High Kelling, continuing through Lower Bodham, turning right onto New Road and
continuing up New Road to the site entrance. Having considered the proposed route,
subject to the imposition of conditions including conditions relating to construction
traffic management, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal,
albeit that they have questioned where the applicant intends to reload the generator
to transport it vertically for the last leg of the journey.
The Highway Authority has indicated that if permission is granted then consideration
needs to be given to the fact that the requirement to facilitate free passage along the
public highway would overrule any Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) protecting
overhanging branches. Committee will be aware that the Landscape Officer has
taken the advice of the Highway Authority into consideration, no trees likely to need
to be pruned are subject of TPO however the Landscape Officer is of the opinion that
an Arboricultural Implication Assessment would be required to fully assess that the
required clearance would not have a permanent detrimental visual impact on the
rural lanes and wider landscape along the specified route. This could be secured by
way of planning condition.
In order to ensure the turbines do not pose a distraction to highway users, the
associated road network was reviewed by the Highway Authority, with attention being
paid to the complexity of junctions, traffic flows and the possible presence of short
headways between vehicles. The Highway Authority has not raised any objection on
this point.
In respect of the impact of the proposed turbine on Public Rights of Way (PROW),
the closest footpath (Bodham Footpath No.9) runs to the east of the turbine
approximately 45 m away between „The Pylons‟ and North Barningham. In
considering a previous application for an 86m high turbine on this site the Ramblers
Association commented that „Although the blades of the turbines will not be passing
over the footpath, the path will be within the fall-over distance of 86m. This must
certainly give the public using the path some pause for thought especially in high
wind conditions. Even in benign conditions the presence of the tower and turbine will
be quite overwhelming. One‟s head would be well tilted back to look at the top of the
blades.‟
Whilst the Committee will note the previous comments of the Ramblers Association,
the likelihood of the turbine falling over or a blade shearing off is understood to be
very low and, in any event, turbines have to conform to set performance standards to
cope with extremes of weather. In such extreme weather conditions it is not only
man-made objects that could be affected but also trees, many of which are large in
size and are sited along designated footpath routes. Whilst the safety of members of
the public is clearly paramount, Officers consider that refusal on grounds of the
overbearing impact of the turbine on the adjacent footpath No.9 or the potential for
turbine failure to affect the footpath could not be substantiated or justified. It is
understood that the footpath would remain open throughout the construction phase
unless of course health and safety requirements dictate otherwise and the proposal
would not therefore have a significant adverse impact on public rights of way.
Development Committee
41
26 March 2015
In respect of matters relating to highway safety and public rights of way, subject to
the imposition of conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with Development
Plan policies.
IMPACT ON TOURISM & OTHER SECTORS
A number of representations have suggested that the proposed turbine would have
an adverse impact on tourism and this in turn would have an adverse economic
impact on the area. In addition it has been suggested that the addition of the turbine
in the landscape would significantly reduce the possibility of the area around the
North Norfolk coast being used by the Film and Television industry particularly for
historical works where an unspoilt landscape backcloth may be required. It has been
suggested that this could also have an adverse impact on the local economy.
Whilst there is no doubt that the addition of a turbine would have an adverse
landscape impact (see Landscape and Visual Impacts), a decision to refuse the
turbine based on its potential to reduce tourism in the area or to prevent the film and
television industry choosing this location in the future would be very difficult to
substantiate without hard evidence. Objectors have referred to the tourist industry of
North Norfolk having an estimated worth of £416m and employing over 9000 people
in 2012. Objectors have also suggested that various surveys show that between
20% and 40% of tourists could be put off visiting an area by the presence of wind
turbines and have implied that if only 10% were deterred this would result in a
devastating loss of 900 jobs and £40m each year to North Norfolk‟s
economy. Objectors point out that this compares to only £250,000 from Genatec‟s
turbine.
Officers have not been made aware of any clear or definitive evidence to support a
link between the introduction of turbines and a reduction in tourism numbers and, in
any event, there are many factors outside the control of the Local Planning Authority
which would influence tourism in the North Norfolk Area. The impact on the wider
tourism offer and the image of North Norfolk as an unspoilt area would be difficult to
accurately gauge.. In considering the impact on tourism and the film and television
industry, without firm evidence to substantiate a significant adverse impact, officers
would advise against refusal on those grounds.
GRID CONNECTION
The applicant has indicated the proposed turbine would be connected to the
electricity grid via an existing 11KV Overhead power line known as Back Barn which
runs from the West Beckham primary substation and which crosses the application
site approximately 100m from the base of the proposed turbine. The applicants have
been in discussion with the electricity network operator regarding the details of the
connection and it is understood that, subject to certain works being agreed with UK
Power Networks, there are no grid connection issues which would give rise
unacceptable adverse planning impacts.
BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Taking account of the requirement under CS Policy EN 7 that turbines above 15m
should „deliver economic, social, environmental or community benefits that are
directly related to the proposed development and are of reasonable scale and kind to
the local area‟ and taking account of the advice within the NPPF that, when
considering renewable energy proposals, any identified harm should be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal, the applicant has set out the following
benefits attributable to the proposed development.
Development Committee
42
26 March 2015
RENEWABLE ENERGY BENEFITS
In considering the renewable energy benefits of the proposal, the applicant has
submitted a document titled Pond Farm Energy Production Report dated May 2014
The Pond Farm Energy Production Report sets out the applicant‟s understanding of
the likely electrical energy to be generated by a wind turbine of the height proposed.
The applicant has indicated that the proposed wind turbine site and its immediate
surroundings are one of the most elevated locations within North Norfolk. Its
elevation and coastal proximity make it most suitable for generating electricity from
the wind with a mean wind speed of 7.58 m/s at hub height (40m); the site is a
particularly good location in renewable energy terms. The University of East Anglia
(UEA) Climatic Research Unit used the telecommunications mast situated 700m
north of the proposed wind turbine site to record wind data for over two and a half
years and based on that wind speed data the wind turbine manufacturers have
advised the applicant that the turbine would generate approximately 2,856880 kWh
of electricity each year. To put that figure into context, using the latest 2010
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) figures for the amount of
electricity consumed by an average UK household (4,359 kWh) the proposed wind
turbine would generate enough electricity to supply approximately 655 average
homes. That is sufficient electricity to power 99% of West Beckham, Baconsthorpe,
Bodham, Gresham, Matlaske, Plumstead & East Beckham, 50% of all houses within
5km of the site, or 1.51% of all North Norfolk‟s domestic electricity demand.
This would make a positive contribution towards renewable energy generation, and
could make a locally significant contribution. Significant weight can be afforded to this
in favour of the proposal.
OTHER ECONOMIC / COMMUNITY / LANDSCAPE BENEFITS
The applicant has set out within their Planning Statement a range of benefits
associated with the proposal.
Economic benefits include:
Construction Phase Benefits The applicant has indicated that the
construction of the proposed turbine would represent a large investment in
the local area. The construction cost of a wind project of the capacity
proposed is approximately £300,000. Of this sum, at least 50% (£150,000)
would typically be spent in the locality of the project, with contracts being
placed with electrical and civil engineering companies, as well as other
businesses such as fencers, electricians, plant hire, security contractors and
hoteliers, together with those supplying hedgerow and tree plants/planting for
the proposed environmental enhancement projects.
Operational Phase Benefits – The applicant has indicated that once the wind
turbine starts to supply electricity into the local electricity network, the
landowner directly involved in the project would benefit from an income from
electricity sales payments, thus presenting a viable diversification opportunity
and helping to maintain the viability of a significant local business. The
income generated by the proposed business diversification can be expected
to be recycled locally through the purchase of new agricultural equipment,
new infrastructure and other expenditures linked to business development.
When these landowner payments are combined with local authority rates,
community benefit payments and other on-going site maintenance expenses,
Development Committee
43
26 March 2015
the applicant considers that this project would represent an important longterm investment in the local area.
Community benefits include:

£1,000 per annum to Bodham Church maintenance Fund;

£3,000 per annum to the Bodham Parish Community Fund;

£5,000 per annum to the North Norfolk District Council Landscape
Enhancement Fund
Over the 25 year lifetime of the development the applicant would contribute a total of
£225,000 equating to £10,000 per megawatt of electricity generated per annum
Landscape benefits
The contribution of £5,000 per annum to the North Norfolk District Council
Landscape Enhancement Fund (as indicated above) would contribute towards the
planting of 1.7km of new native hedgerow and the planting of a 0.5 hectare
woodland, both of which the applicant states would create new habitat and contribute
to biodiversity. In respect of the proposed Landscape Enhancement Fund, the
Council‟s Landscape Officer has commented „Given the vertical scale of the
development and the high level topography, the beneficial effects of the proposed
planting in screening the turbine and reducing the negative effects on receptors,
assets and landscape will, in reality, be limited‟. To this end the Landscape Officer is
of the opinion that „little weight can be applied to these proposed mitigation measures
in consideration of the „planning balance‟.
Whilst these contributions may undoubtedly be welcomed by the local community
receiving the monies, consideration has to be given as to whether the suggested
contributions comply with Government advice at paragraph 204 of the NPPF and CIL
Regulation 122 tests in respect that section 106 planning obligations “should only be
sought where they meet all of the following tests:



Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
Directly related to the development; and
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”
Officers consider that Community Benefits fund outlined above cannot legally be
considered as a material consideration in the determination of the application and
therefore the Committee should not give any weight to the Community Benefits Fund
when determining the application.
ASSESSMENT UNDER POLICY EN7
The commitment to grant planning permission for renewable energy technology,
contained in Policy EN7, is not relevant to this proposal, since it will have significant
adverse effects on the landscape and historical assets. The Committee must
consider the benefits of renewable energy gain, including the contribution to
overcoming energy supply problems, and balanced these benefits against the
significant adverse effects outlined above.
Officers consider that the benefits of renewable energy gain, including the
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems are outweighed by the adverse
Development Committee
44
26 March 2015
effects of the proposal relating to landscape and historic asset impacts. As such it is
considered that the proposal does not accord with policy EN7.
OVERALL SUMMARY
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The proposal seeks to erect a single wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and a
height to blade tip of 66m on land at Pond Farm Bodham which is located at
approximately 90m AOD.
Officers have sought to set out the relevant policy tests within this report and having
considered all of the evidence available, it is considered that the key planning issues
hinge on an assessment of the impact of the proposed turbine on the wider
landscape and on heritage assets, balanced against any public benefits (including
renewable energy benefits) that might arise as a result of the proposal. The Council
is also required to apply the statutory presumption against a grant of planning
permission where the proposed turbine would adversely affect the setting of a listed
building or the character and appearance of a conservation area, and consider
whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal
(including renewable energy benefits).
Officers consider that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would
generally accord with Development Plan policy in relation to impacts on residential
amenity (including noise impacts), impacts on wildlife and ecology, aviation, highway
safety and tourism, as detailed above, such that refusal in relation to these matters
alone could not be substantiated or justified.
In relation to landscape impacts, there is no doubt that a turbine of the size proposed
would have an adverse impact on the wider landscape. The smooth lines of the
turbine and somewhat utilitarian appearance would create a degree of harm in this
essentially rural location with its smaller scale and more traditional forms of
development which rely to a large extent on local materials and are more easily
absorbed by the natural vegetation.
The Council‟s Landscape Officer is of the opinion that, contrary to the conclusions of
the submitted LVIA, the proposed 66m turbine would incur harm to the landscape
(particularly TF3 and WP5) and the numerous heritage assets and their settings that
are intrinsic to those landscapes and to receptors within these landscapes and
Officers would concur with this view. The proposal therefore does not comply with
Policy EN2, in that it has failed to demonstrate that its location, scale and design will
protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area
(including its historical character), visually sensitive skylines, hillsides and the setting
of and views from historic parks and gardens.
In relation to heritage assets, whilst the proposed development would not physically
result in loss of historic fabric it is considered that the proposal would result in a
significant level of harm to the setting of a number of highly-graded Listed Buildings.
The proposal would also result in harm to the character and appearance of
Baconsthorpe and to a lesser extent the Bessingham Conservation Areas.
Each listed building, and each conservation area, needs to be considered in order for
the Committee to fulfil its duty under sections 66(1) and 72 of the LBCA Act 1990 to
pay “special attention” to the “desirability of preserving” the setting of listed buildings,
and the character and appearance of conservation areas – ie apply a statutory
Development Committee
45
26 March 2015
presumption. This is not a simple balancing exercise, but a question of whether there
is justification for overriding the presumption in favour of preservation. Accordingly, in
relation to each listed building and each conservation area, the Committee will have
to consider whether it accepts that there is harm and whether the presumption
against planning permission which arises as a result of any harm is outweighed by
the public benefits of the proposal (including renewable energy benefits). Officer
advice is that, in relation to the harm that the proposal will cause to the setting of
Baconsthorpe Castle, Barningham Hall, St Mary‟s Barningham Winter Church, All
Saints Bodham and St Mary‟s Church Baconsthorpe, there would need to be
compelling public benefits in favour of the turbine to outweigh the presumption.
The applicants have indicated that a turbine of the size proposed would generate
enough electricity to supply approximately 655 average homes (or by comparison a
significant proportion of all the housing stock within the surrounding Parishes of
Bodham, Baconsthorpe, Gresham, Matlaske and West Beckham).
The applicant has also set out that over the 25 year lifetime of the development the
applicant would contribute a total of £225,000 equating to £10,000 per megawatt of
electricity generated per annum as part of a community benefits fund.
Officers consider that Community Benefits fund outlined by the applicant cannot
legally be considered as a material consideration in the determination of the
application and therefore the Committee should not give any weight to the
Community Benefits Fund when determining the application.
Officers consider that the benefits of renewable energy gain, including the
contribution to overcoming energy supply problems are outweighed by the adverse
effects of the proposal relating to landscape and historic asset impacts. As such it is
considered that the proposal does not accord with policy EN7.
Having regard to the proposal as a whole it is considered that there are insufficient
compelling public benefits to outweigh the identified harm.
RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL
The proposal does not comply with the Development Plan in that it does not
comply with the following policies:
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
EN 7 - Renewable energy
The proposed turbine would result in harm to setting of number of heritage
assets, some of which are of the highest designated category including
Baconsthorpe Castle (including Baconsthorpe Hall), Barningham Hall, St
Mary‟s Barningham Winter Church, All Saints Church - Bodham, St Mary‟s
Church – Baconsthorpe, St Peters Church – North Barningham, St Michael‟s
Church – Plumstead and St Mary‟s Church – Bessingham. Whilst this harm is
„less than substantial‟ in terms of the NPPF, it is still significant.
The statutory presumption in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Area) Act 1990 against planning permission being granted in
light of the effect of the proposal on the settings of the above identified listed
buildings is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, including
the renewable energy benefits. Furthermore, having regard to paragraph 98 of
Development Committee
46
26 March 2015
the NPPF, the harmful impacts of the proposal are not and cannot be made
acceptable.
In addition the proposed turbine would adversely impact upon the character
and appearance of Baconsthorpe Conservation Area and Bessingham
Conservation Area. Whilst this harm is „less than substantial‟ in terms of the
NPPF, it is still significant.
The statutory presumption in section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Area) Act 1990 against planning permission being granted in
light of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of
Baconsthorpe and Bessingham Conservation Areas is not outweighed by the
public benefits of the proposal, including the renewable energy benefits.
Furthermore, having regard to paragraph 98 of the NPPF, the harmful impacts
of the proposal are not and cannot be made acceptable.
In addition the proposed turbine would incur harm to the landscape
(particularly landscape character areas TF3 and WF5). Furthermore the
proposed turbine would incur individual and cumulative impacts on heritage
assets within the landscape and their settings that are intrinsic to those
landscapes and to receptors within these landscapes. These impacts are
considered to be significant and contrary to Policy EN2.
Having regard to the above identified significant adverse impacts on landscape
and heritage assets it is considered that the benefits of renewable energy gain
(including the contribution to overcoming energy supply problems) do not
outweigh the identified harm and, as such, the proposal would not accord with
Policy EN 7.
(2)
BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room;
Primrose Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr L Kidd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 December 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
Advertising Control
Countryside
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Enforcement Notice
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0495 PF
Use of land for storage and milling of timber and erection of storage/workshop
building (part retrospective)
Refused 26/06/2013
Adjacent site: The Hawthorns, Thornage Road, Sharrington
PF/14/0793 PF
Retention of timber buildings for use as storage
Development Committee
47
26 March 2015
Approved 17/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks a change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of horses
and the retention and conversion of a timber building to stables and tack room. The
footprint of the building would remain as currently constructed approximately 12m x
6.2m (74.4sqm). The proposal seeks to alter the appearance of the building by
providing a brick plinth, timber boarding to the walls with a shingle tile roof. The
highest point of the building would increase from approximately 3.4m to 4.4m with the
existing mono-pitch changing to an asymmetrical dual pitched roof with extended
canopies. The building would be enclosed on all sides with double doors to the
southern elevation.
The building is situated approximately 20m south of the northern boundary of the site
which benefits from a mature boundary hedge. Access to the site currently exists to
the north western and north eastern corners. The proposal seeks to utilise the access
to the north western corner and proposes screen planting along the eastern
boundary such that the access to the east would not serve the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Brettle for the following planning reason:
 Landscape impact
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects – [we] put forward a strong objection to the application which is considered to
be confusing and misleading. There are some inaccuracies as the applicant has
carried out work to the unauthorised building prior to the submission of this
application for a structure with a different appearance.
The Council objected to the application ref PF/13/0495 on 17 May 2013 as it was
considered to be contrary to national planning policy guidelines as well as the North
Norfolk Core Strategy. Permission was refused with reference being made to various
policies including EN2 (Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement
character). It is believed that this policy particularly affects the local distinctiveness of
the location and also applies to the current application. Grounds for the refusal also
included a statement that the erection of a storage building would detract from the
appearance of the site and fail to conserve the special qualities of the area. The
design, size and scale of the proposed building make it visually prominent and
contrary to policy EN4.
The road network serving the site is considered to be inadequate by reason of its
poor alignment, restricted width, lack of passing provision and restricted visibility at
adjacent road junctions to the overall detriment of highway safety. Non-agricultural
use is suggested in the application by reference to the keeping of horses, which is of
course different from mere grazing, and access to the site for this purpose via narrow
and winding country roads is very poor. If consent was granted there would be
problems with pedestrian safety and traffic congestion; e.g. with delivery of fodder
and with horseboxes having to pass, and perhaps reverse. No provision seems to
have made about the disposal of manure which is also likely to have to be removed
by using the road. A number of vehicles are already regularly seen on the site.
According to what appears on the planning portal, policy CT5 does not appear to
have been properly addressed by the highways planning officer.
The objection on access grounds is compounded by the likely need for parking
places and necessary hard standings. Access to the site is already shared with
Development Committee
48
26 March 2015
another property owner, and the land is also in shared use. Policy CT6 needs to be
properly considered as no details have been provided.
The mainly open sided, and pent metal sheet roofed, storage shed was already built
but in spite of the belated issue of enforcement notices (and the fact that the site was
purchased subject to the planning refusal for the building) it has since been cladded.
The application is for a significantly higher pitched roof, the necessity for which is
unclear. Notwithstanding the wish of this Council for the building to be removed it has
to mention the confusion caused by the submitted drawing showing that it is to be
covered with shingle tiles, whereas metal tin sheeting is stated on the application
form. It should be emphasised that the application is actually for the re-building and
extension of an existing unauthorised storage shed.
The Parish Council is concerned regarding the suitability of the building for the
purpose stated. A material change of use to the keeping of horses is considered to
be unacceptable. Only if there is to be no change of use of the land from agricultural
might it be appropriate for a timber field shelter for ponies to be placed on the site.
Nothing should prevent the removal of visual clutter and improvement of the general
condition of the field. The proposed changes to the existing unauthorised building,
with a pitched roof which is thought to be unnecessary for stabling, will make it even
more obtrusive and spoil the country views from the conservation village.
As well as being concerned about the suitability for the purpose for which it is
proposed the main reason for the Parish Council to request refusal of planning
permission in this case is the impact on the landscape of the building, which is out of
character, should not have been built, and should not be allowed to remain. It was
originally constructed to house a saw mill and for storage and the proposal for an
even larger structure is entirely inappropriate.
REPRESENTATIONS
61 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
 This lovely part of the Glaven Valley should be kept as agricultural land
 Access is via narrow lanes not suited to the extra traffic that will be generated
 By using the site for storage it will become a dumping ground for rubbish
 The applicants land in Briston resembles a scrapyard
 There are already unauthorised storage units on the site
 Proposal will not benefit the surrounding countryside
 Previous planning decisions have not been followed by the owners, concern
is that any future restrictions will be ignored
 Existing building is already a blight on the countryside, an even bigger
building is inappropriate
 Cannot understand how all that untidy mess is still blotting the landscape
when the Council refused permission in April 2013 and an enforcement notice
was issued for the site to be cleared
 Why is the Council even entertaining the ludicrous proposal
 Proposal would detract from the appearance of the area and fail to safeguard
its distinctive character
 Approval would set a dangerous precedent for use of agricultural field in open
countryside and start to corrode the very sensitive nature of our landscape
 Parking of vehicles on and around the site would adversely impact on the
countryside setting
 Scale and position of the building
 Increased height of the roof will be detrimental to the Glaven Valley which is
Development Committee
49
26 March 2015
an area of outstanding natural beauty
Concerned that the applicant‟s comment that the „barn was already
constructed when the field was purchased‟ is misleading. The applicant
acquired the lands with „a building‟ part constructed. This building had been
refused planning permission prior to the applicant‟s acquisition. He then went
on to carry out further building work on that building and has now submitted
an application for a building which is of greater scale than that already
refused
 Question whether the intended stables conform to all the basic standards
required for stables and perhaps would be more useable for future change of
use
 NNDC‟s failure to enforce the removal of the building and the eyesores that
go with it, has allowed a second application for a building with an increased
footprint which is totally unsuitable for the site
 We clearly enjoy gardening in our village and don‟t wish any eyesores erected
blotting the landscape and ruining our vista
 Would be better erected in open fields miles away from domestic living and
housing as this village is not a commercial, industrious town and was never
intended to be
 Previous refusal reason still applies
 No details submitted for the transportation of food stuffs and the disposal of
manure
 Proposal lacks safeguards against an already unsatisfactory situation being
made worse
 Building lies next to a watercourse that runs through Sharrington and drains
into the Glaven Valley. Potential pollution of this watercourse would be to the
detriment of the area
 Animal Welfare Act 2006 states if you store horse waste near to water, it can
be harmful to both the environment and human health
 Intention appears to be to keep a minimum of 4 horses which would appear to
be less than an acre per horse, would that provide adequate grazing?
 Have the Equine Industry Welfare Guidelines been considered
 Is the site for private use or to be used as livery stables for profit
 Application has all the hallmarks of an attempt to frustrate the enforcement
notice and should be considered invalid
 „keeping‟ as opposed to „grazing‟ is a material change of use which should be
resisted
 Design appears more like a general storage building
 By allowing Sharrington to become one of those villages with a sprawl of ugly
development that has no fit or respect for the village in which it is located, the
Council will be taking a decision that can only be detrimental to the local
economy up to the value of c£500,000which our calculations estimate that he
holiday cottages throughout Sharrington bring to the local economy
 Lack of windows means no light can enter which would be a welfare issue
which would concern the RSPCA
 It seems the intention is to achieve an objective by „mission creep‟ and that
the Committee ought to be alert to and take all necessary steps to ensure that
this is not achieved
 If this application was approved it would demonstrate to others how easy it is
to flaunt the planning rules
 Not sufficient infrastructure to support the stabling of horses
 A straggle of semi-industrial / agricultural buildings on different but associated
sites in the middle of an open arable landscape in totally inappropriate and no

Development Committee
50
26 March 2015
approval should be granted for any new buildings until it is agreed that the
single building now proposed will be the only one permitted
Supporting letter received from the applicant (See Appendix 9)
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: Request following condition E28 which is as follows: Disposal
of Manure - Prior to the bringing into use of the development hereby permitted
precise details for the disposal of manure shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved scheme for the
disposal of manure shall be strictly adhered to, to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect nearby residents from smell and
airborne pollution in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
County Council (Highways): No objection. I am able to comment that in relation to
highways issues only, with consideration that the proposed use has some synergy
with the existing agricultural use of the land, I do not consider that this proposal
would significantly affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic,
however, for the avoidance of doubt, subject to the use of the stabling being personal
use and not for commercial livery, Norfolk County Council does not wish to restrict
the grant of consent.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape): No objection subject to
approval of landscaping scheme to include removal of the close boarded fence at the
entrance of the site.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 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 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
51
26 March 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Landscape impact
3. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site lies with an area designated as countryside under the North Norfolk Core
Strategy. Policy SS2 limits development in areas designated as countryside to that
which requires a rural location and is for one or more types of development set out
within the policy. It is generally accepted that the appropriate place for the keeping of
horses is within a rural location and one of the types of development permitted under
Policy SS2 is recreation. It is considered that the proposal for keeping of horses and
the provision of stable and tack room falls within this definition and it is therefore
considered that the principle of this proposal is acceptable under Policy SS2 subject
to compliance with other relevant policies.
The partially constructed building that is proposed for retention and conversion to
stables and tack room was erected without the benefit of planning permission prior to
the applicant owning the site. This building previously formed part of a partretrospective planning application submitted by the previous owner, ref PF/13/0495,
for use of land for storage and milling of timber and erection of storage/workshop
building. That application was refused (26 June 2013) by the Council under
delegated authority (for a copy of the decision notice see Appendix 9) on several
grounds including that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that there was a
particular environmental or operational justification for a new build employment
generating use in the countryside and that due to the open landscape character of
the area it was considered that the use of the land, erection of a storage building and
siting of a storage container, would detract from the appearance of the site and fail to
conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. Highway safety
matters also formed part of the refusal reason. Subsequently two enforcement
notices have been served on this site (see Appendix 9), one in connection with the
operational development (the building) that described the breach of planning as
„without planning permission the erection of a storage building/workshop the laying of
concrete slabs and rubble and the excavation of a pit‟. The notice was served on 10
September 2014 with an effective date of 10 October 2014. The notice requires the
landowner to demolish the building and remove the resultant materials from the site;
lift the concrete slabs and rubble and remove the resultant materials from the site
and to fill in the excavated pit up to ground level the top 30 cm to comprise of top soil.
Date for compliance with this notice was 10 January 2015. The second notice was in
relation to a material change of use of the land from agriculture to storage (see
Appendix 9). No further formal enforcement action has been undertaken pending the
outcome of this application, however, some of the items referred to in the second
notice have been removed from the site, including the lorry container.
The Parish Council and many local residents have raised objection to the proposal
for the reasons set out above. Of particular note are the concerns raised in relation to
the impact of the proposed building on the landscape character of the area and the
assertions that as the building has previously been found to „detract from the
appearance of the site and fail to conserve the special qualities and local
distinctiveness of the area‟ the current proposal is also not acceptable for those same
reasons. However, each case must be assessed on its own merits and it is important
to note that Section 73A of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
specifically allows retrospective applications to be made and considered as if the
development has not already taken place.
Development Committee
52
26 March 2015
As discussed above, it is considered that, unlike the previous refused application, the
current proposal is acceptable in principle. Previously the landscape impact was
being considered in relation to a commercial building and use of the land and the
siting of a storage container; in addition highway safety matters were also specific to
that proposal. The building as proposed is considered to be acceptable in scale and
design for the location within which it would sit. It would be largely screened from the
road to the north and east due to existing boundary treatments and not prominent in
the distant view of the site from the village junction to the north west. Conditions are
recommended to be imposed on any consent in relation to materials to ensure that
the finish would be acceptable. In addition approval of a landscaping scheme is
recommended to further screen the proposed development.
On balance it is considered that the proposal would not significantly harm the special
qualities of the area and is of a suitable form and size such that a recommendation of
refusal could not be reasonably justified.
In respect of concerns raised regarding the suitability of the proposed layout of the
building in relation to horse welfare standards; it is considered that notwithstanding
those concerns, these are matters that are outside of material planning
considerations and are covered by other legislation. The applicant has been made
aware of the concerns raised and has advised that he is satisfied that the building
meets welfare standards. Other representations have raised concern that the building
may not be intended for its stated purpose. The Council cannot speculate and should
determine the application on its own merits. If approval is granted, then future use of
the land and or building for purposes other than those approved would require
investigation under the Council‟s enforcement procedures.
Concerns have also been raised in respect of highway safety; however in the
absence of objection from the highway authority it is considered that a refusal on
highway safety grounds could not be reasonably justified. In addition some concerns
have been raised in relation to parking provision at the site. The site is capable of
accommodating visiting vehicles at the site without the requirement for the provision
of a more formal hardstanding parking area which would appear out of keeping with
the nature of the site. However, a condition could be imposed, or the landscaping
scheme could include details of, parking at the site. An appropriate reinforced surface
could be achieved by using a grass reinforcement mesh for example.
Given the above, it is considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions the proposal complies with policies SS2, EN2, EN4, EN13, CT5 and CT6
of the development plan and is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
conditions listed below:
subject
to
the
imposition of
specific
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
1. Within four months of the date of this permission, the development to which this
permission relates shall be completed in strict accordance with the submitted and
approved plans, drawings and specifications except where otherwise required by
condition 2 below.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
53
26 March 2015
2. Notwithstanding the requirements of condition 1 above, no development shall be
commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the
external walls and roof of the building has been submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall then be constructed in full
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be used
will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter
10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
3. Within 2 months of the date of this permission, precise details for the disposal of
manure and litter shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Thereafter the approved scheme for the disposal of manure and litter shall
be strictly adhered to, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To protect the area from smell and airborne and ground pollution in accordance with
Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs
3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
4. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a landscaping scheme to provide
additional screening of the approved building shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall indicate the species, number and size of new trees and shrubs at
the time of their planting.
The scheme shall also include details of car parking arrangements including surface
treatments of all car parking and manoeuvring areas.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next available
planting season following the grant of this permission or such further period as the
Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the
requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. The development hereby permitted shall be used for private equestrian purposes
only and shall not be used in connection with any trade or business, including hiring
of horses, livery stables or as a riding school.
Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway safety, and in accordance
with Policies SS 2 and CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6. No building or other structure (other than those shown on the approved plans)
shall be erected or placed on the planning unit subject to this permission without the
prior formal approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Development Committee
54
26 March 2015
Reason:
In order to safeguard the character of the countryside in accordance with Policy EN 2
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification), no caravan shall be stationed on
any part of the planning unit subject to this permission at any time.
Reason:
In order to safeguard the character of the countryside in accordance with Policy EN 2
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(3)
BRISTON - PF/15/0122 - Installation of 300KW of ground mounted solar PV
array; Lawn Farm, Edgefield Road for RenEnergy
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 March 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19890500 PF Erection of turkey rearing sheds
Approved 22/05/1989
PLA/19821580 PF Erection of six turkey growing units
Approved 07/12/1982
PLA/19800126 PF Continued use of building for agricultural storage
Approved 25/03/1980
PLA/19820193 PF Continued use of building for agricultural storage
Approved 19/03/1982
PLA/19850369 PF Continued use of building for agricultural storage
Approved 10/05/1985
PLA/19750144 HR Continued use of building for agricultural storage
Approved 28/02/1975
PLA/19760028 HR Retention of agricultural store
Approved 27/02/1976
PLA/19810192 PF Continued use of building for agricultural storage
Approved 27/02/1981
PLA/19790255 PF Continued use of building for agricultural storage
Approved 06/04/1979
PLA/19770013 PF Continued use of building for agricultural storage
Approved 04/02/1977
PLA/19780032 PF Continued use of building for agricultural storage
Approved 10/02/1978
PLA/19782143 PF Erection of six turkey sheds
Approved 10/04/1979
PLA/19981177 PF Variation of condition numbers 5 and 7 on planning permission
reference 961343, to retain existing access and to permit emergency feed deliveries
Refused 19/10/1998
PF/11/0672 PF Installation of roof mounted solar photo-voltaic system
Approved 15/08/2011
Development Committee
55
26 March 2015
PF/15/0122 PF Installation of 300KW of ground mounted solar PV array
THE APPLICATION
The application proposes the instillation of 300KW ground mounted solar PV array at
Lawn Farm, Briston and would be used in connection Bernard Matthews Poultry
Breeding Farm. An amended plan has been received which illustrates the correct
land ownership of the site.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
All applications for solar PV to be determined by Committee resolution.
PARISH COUNCIL
No formal response at the time of writing the report. Members will be updated at the
meeting.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received at the time of writing the report. Site notice
expires 17 March 2015.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – No Objection. Advises that Norfolk County Council
does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.
Environmental Health – No Objection. Advises that a condition be attached relating
to the control of noise emanating from the plant room.
Landscape Officer – No objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2 - Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions)
Policy EN 4 - Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to,
including the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment)
Policy EN 7 - Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy CT 5 - The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure
the reduction in the need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Development Committee
56
26 March 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Impact on landscape
 Impact on highway safety
 Impact on residential amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of development (Policy SS 2 and EN 7)
The proposed area is situated in a large clearing of grassland within the site
belonging to Bernard Matthews as part of their farming and food productions
operations. It is situated within the Countryside policy area as defined under Policy
SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this area, proposals for renewable
energy installations are considered to be acceptable in principle. Policy EN 7 of the
Core Strategy refers specifically to renewable energy installations and requires that
they do not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding landscape nor upon
residential amenity or highway safety. This is further discussed below.
Proposal
The proposal is for the instillation of 300KW ground mounted solar PV array. The
solar array will be split in to two 150KW arrays to generate electricity for both parts of
the farm. The panels will be arranged in 5 and 9 rows respectively, situated on the
same area of grassland. The solar panels would be ground mounted on an east-west
axis frame and pitched at an angle of 30 degrees. The panels will be constructed of
galvanised steel and aluminium where the modules will have a blue/black finish of
glass over silicon, mounted 2 high in portrait orientation with the overall height being
2.25 metres. New buried cables will be laid to connect the solar PV to the electrical
connection points where the meter points and electrical services will be located in
separate buildings.
Design (Policy EN 4)
The design as described above is typical of ground mounted solar array installations
and is considered to be acceptable for this particular site. The nearest dwelling (The
Lawn) is located approximately 220m away to the west, so there should be no impact
in terms of the potential for nuisance caused by light reflection from the panels.
Landscape Impact (Policy EN 2)
The site is well screened by existing mature boundary hedgerows and trees and is
located within two banks of poultry sheds which are sited to the north and south of
the proposed solar array. There is no pedestrian or public access to the site and as
a result, the solar array will hardly be visible from the public domain or from the wider
landscape. As such, the proposal is compliant with Policy EN 2.
Transport Impact (Policy CT 5)
The Highway Authority has confirmed that due to the existing access from Norwich
Road being of suitable construction and layout, they have no objection.
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject
to:
(i) No new material issues being raised following receipt of (outstanding consultees
and expiry of consultation period)
Development Committee
57
26 March 2015
(ii) To include the specific conditions listed below:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the plans drawings and specifications first submitted with the
application (drawing numbers) PO2 and PO3 and the amended plan (drawing
number) PO1 received by the Local Planning Authority on the 27 February 2015.
3. Within six months of the solar PV array ceasing to be used for the generation of
electricity, all plant and apparatus shall be removed and the land restored to its
former agricultural condition.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a scheme shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which
specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the
plant room.
(4)
HOLT - PO/14/1509 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of two
detached two-storey dwellings; 59 Hempstead Road for Mr P W High
Minor Development
- Target Date: 02 February 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
C Road
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19901081 PF - Bungalow
Refused 31/01/1991
PLA/19890894 PF - To build a tractor shed
Approved 30/10/1989
PLA/19850648 PF - Proposed erection of bungalow
Approved 17/06/1985
PLA/19880480 PO - Development of part of land for housing
Refused 28/04/1988
PLA/19870504 EF - Storage of scrap vehicles prior to dismantling
Refused 21/07/1992
PLA/19841501 HR - Erection of bungalow
Approved 09/11/1984
PLA/19861447 PF - Garage
Approved 06/10/1986
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks outline consent for the demolition of a single storey dwelling
and the erection of two detached two storey dwellings. The access details only have
been submitted for approval. However an indicative layout has been submitted
illustrating the possible footprint of the two dwellings and position within the site.
Development Committee
58
26 March 2015
The application seeks determination of the proposed access with all other matters
reserved. An indicative site layout has been provided which indicates a two bedroom
dwelling and a single garage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is an elected Member of the District Council
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
1 letter of objection has been received on the following grounds:
 Development will not be in keeping with its surrounding area
 The bungalow next door was built in conjunction with this development and to
knock down one bungalow and change the buildings would not be in keeping
with the bungalow next door
Supporting letter submitted by the applicant in respect of access arrangements (see
Appendix 10).
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): Initial response – To fully appraise whether an additional
dwelling can safely be served from the proposed access position, I would request the
provision of a plan detailing the available visibility splays over the applicants and
highway land to ensure that suitable visibility splays are available in perpetuity.
Response to amended plans: The amended plans details the available visibility
splays from the proposed site access. The plan clearly shows that the visibility splays
runs over private land outside of the application site and therefore the applicants
control, without securing these splays, a change to the frontage area through
permitted means (planting) could remove their availability resulting in a development
without acceptable visibility splays, which would not be acceptable as it there would
be an intensification of use from the additional dwelling and without the security of
the visibility splays, the increases would impact upon highway safety.
Any visibility splays running over 3rd party land would be required to be ensured in
perpetuity through a binding legal agreement (Section 106). As the application
currently stands, the visibility is not secured, as such, I would request that this
response be considered to be a holding objection until such time that the visibility
splays are ensured in perpetuity through a S106 agreement with 57 and 61
Hempstead Road.
Environmental Health: Requests imposition of an informative note in respect of
demolition. The applicant also needs to provide specific details of the proposed
soakaway for managing surface water.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
59
26 March 2015
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
CT 6 - Parking provision
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
EN 4 - Design
HO 7 - Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 3 - Housing
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Highway safety
2. Impact on neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The site is situated within the designated residential area of Holt as defined by the
North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core, where subject to compliance with
Policies SS3, HO7, EN2, EN4, CT5 and CT6 the principle of residential development
is considered to be acceptable.
The proposal seeks to demolish the existing single storey dwelling and to erect two
detached two storey dwellings. The proposal is an outline application with only the
access for determination at this stage. Indicative plans have been submitted to
illustrate a possible layout.
Based on the indicative layout it is considered that it would be possible to design two
detached two storey dwellings the scale and proportions of which would sit relatively
comfortably within the site without introducing significant detriment to the amenities of
neighbouring properties. Notwithstanding this Officer‟s consider that the site may be
better suited to a proposal for a pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings.
The Highway Authority have raised objection to the proposal on the grounds that the
proposed visibility splay cannot be provided without the use of third party land. The
Highway Authority has advised that the visibility splays would need to be ensured in
perpetuity through a S106 agreement with 57 and 61 Hempstead Road in order for
the proposal to be acceptable in terms of highway safety. The applicant is aware of
this advice and has not provided any indication that such an agreement would be
forthcoming. The applicant‟s agent has instead submitted a supporting statement for
consideration by the Committee in respect of the proposed access arrangements
which is attached at Appendix 10. This refers, amongst other matters, to other
existing access arrangements along the Holt Road in the vicinity of the application
site that have limited parking to front gardens where vehicles either reverse into or
out of those gardens to the highway.
It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant has not addressed the
concerns of the Highway Authority. Therefore it is considered that the proposal fails
to comply with Policy CT5 of the Core Strategy by virtue that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that visibility splays required to support an intensification of use (from
an increased number of dwellings at the site) would be ensured in perpetuity. It is
therefore considered that the proposal does not provide safe access to the highway
network.
Development Committee
60
26 March 2015
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse for the reason specified below:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority inadequate visibility splays are provided
at the junction of the site access with the County highway and this would cause
danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway and as far as can
be determined from the submitted plans, the applicant does not appear to control
sufficient land to provide adequate visibility at the site access.
Accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the above
Development Plan policy.
(5)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/1505 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling (revised
access); Munbeck, 19 Marina Road for Mr Smith
Minor Development
- Target Date: 03 February 2015
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Coastal Erosion Risk Epoch (100 years)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19790050 PO
Erection of 2 dwellings
Approved 06/08/1979
PLA/20071733 PF
Erection of rear conservatory
Approved 19/12/2007
PF/14/0208 PF
Erection of one and a half storey dwelling
Refused 29/07/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to erect a one-and-a-half storey dwelling to the rear of Munbeck,
19 Marina Road. This application follows the refusal of application PF/14/0208 for a
similar scheme.
The previous application was served by a unadopted track running between 19 and
15 Marina Road. This application shows the driveway running along the side of 19
Marina Road and providing direct access on Marina Road.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillors Wyndham Northam and Barry Smith with regard to the
Development Committee
61
26 March 2015
level of accuracy possible for forecasting that far ahead for coastal erosion. In
addition the impact upon the applicant's residential amenity is considered acceptable.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
Support
REPRESENTATIONS
None received
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - no objection. Condition requested requiring the submission of
information relating to the disposal of surface water.
Norfolk County Council (Highway Authority) - no objection. Condition requested
relating to provision of adequate parking on site.
Coastal Management - object. Nothing has changed from the previous application;
the access is expected to be lost within the 100 year period. Without confirmation
that access can be provided from elsewhere the development is not deemed
appropriate.
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 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property and prevents proposals that are likely to
increase coastal erosion).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Risk of Coastal Erosion
Development Committee
62
26 March 2015
3. Impact upon applicant's residential amenity
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a Residential Area of Mundesley where new dwellings are
considered acceptable in principle, under Policy SS 3.
This application differs from the previous application PF/14/0208 in the location of the
access driveway only. Instead of giving direct access to an un-adopted
track/driveway between 19 and 15 Marina Road the access would be directly
alongside no. 19. This would enable the access to be outside of any coastal erosion
epoch. However the access would still be served by Marina Road. Marina Road is a
close and is linked up to the rest of the road network via the main coastal road. The
northern end of Marina Road and the coastal road at this point fall within the coastal
erosion epoch for 100 years.
The site is part of the rear garden of 19 Marina Road. The proposal is for a new oneand-a-half storey dwelling, with its driveway running alongside no. 19. An attached
garage on the northern gable end would have to be removed to make room for the
driveway. The dwelling would have 2 bedrooms within the roof space, with a further
bedroom on the ground floor together with living space. An attached garage would be
sited on the north elevation.
The area has a variety of dwellings, including both two storey and single storey
properties, and detached and semi-detached. Development has already occurred
within a neighbour's rear garden, to the rear of no. 23. In addition there is a group of
three dwellings to the rear of the dwellings fronting Marina Road. As such there is a
lack of uniformity in the siting of dwellings. In terms of the impact upon existing
dwellings the impact upon the applicants own dwelling is now considered to be
unacceptable. The driveway would replace an existing attached garage and run
within a space 3m wide, between the boundary and no.19‟s gable end. On this gable
end lies 2 windows, appearing to be secondary windows serving a living room
downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. In addition a conservatory sits very close to the
proposed driveway. Although the agent has indicated that the applicants would be
prepared to block all/some of these off, the proposal would be likely to result in an
unacceptable level of noise and disturbance by virtue of the comings and goings on
the driveway.
The Coastal Erosion 100 year epoch runs through the north east part of the site, and
further north east along the coastline. The dwelling itself is located just outside of this
area. The site would be accessed from Marina Road, which provides access to the
coast road. Both these roads fall within the Coastal Erosion 100 year Area. As such
the site is likely to have no access once the anticipated coastal erosion has occurred.
Although the agent has suggested that access could be available from Beckmeadow
Way (outside of the coastal erosion epochs), this is purely speculative. Policy EN 11,
together with the Development Control Guidance document for Development and
Coastal Erosion, advises that new residential developments within the 100 year area
are not appropriate as they are not sustainable. Whilst is it recognised that the
physical dwelling would lie outside of the risk area, it would not be able to be
accessed in the future. Therefore the proposal is not considered to be compliant with
Policy EN 11. Furthermore paragraph 106 within the NPPF states that LPAs should
avoid inappropriate development within vulnerable areas at risk from coastal change.
The size of the garage is not large enough to count as a parking space. Whilst the
required 2 spaces have not been shown (Parking Standards within the Core
Development Committee
63
26 March 2015
Strategy), the plot is large to enough to accommodate this parking. A suitable
condition could ensure sufficient parking is provided, in order to comply with Policy
CT 6. With no objection from the Highway Authority Policy CT 5 is considered to be
complied within.
A sustainability construction list hasn't been provided, however a condition would be
added to ensure compliance with Policy EN 6.
Refusal is therefore recommended due to non-compliance with both policies EN 4
and EN 11.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse, for the following reasons;
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
EN 4 - Design
EN 11 - Coastal erosion
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Supplementary Planning Document - Development and Coastal Erosion
Supplementary Planning Document - North Norfolk Design Guide
The construction of a new dwelling on this site, which is partially in an area
where the best available evidence indicates that it is likely to be affected by
coastal erosion within 100 years, would result in a significant and
unacceptable risk to life and property within the lifetime of the development.
Whilst the dwelling itself is located just outside of the risk area the site would
be accessed from Marina Road, which falls within the Coastal Erosion 100 year
epoch. As such the site is anticipated to have no access once the predicted
coastal erosion has affected the area. The proposed development would
therefore be contrary to the responsible long-term planning of the area, the
objectives of Policy EN 11 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core
Strategy and to the precautionary approach recommended in paragraph 106 of
the NPPF.
Furthermore the proposed driveway would have a significant adverse impact
upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of Number 19 Marina Road by
virtue of its proximity and the noise and disturbance resulting from the coming
and going of vehicles along it, contrary to Policy EN 4.
Development Committee
64
26 March 2015
(6)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/1559 - Demolition of buildings and erection of forty
dwellings, refurbishment of existing dwelling, contouring site, alterations of
the existing access and off-site highway improvements; Former Cherryridge
Poultry Site, Church Street for Lovell Partnerships Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 02 March 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
C Road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
Section 106 Planning Obligations
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071895 PO
Demolition of Buildings and Redevelopment of Site for Residential Development and
Retention of Two Units to Include Retail Convenience Store
Withdrawn 01/05/2013
PO/2013/0117 PO
Demolition of buildings and erection of up to 32 dwellings and conversion of frontage
building to 2 dwellings
Approved 30/04/2013
THE APPLICATION
The proposed development comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached and
terraced properties, mostly two storey with the exception of four bungalows. An area
of public open space is proposed centrally within the site. A single access road would
serve the development from Church Street. The proposals include off-site highway
improvements comprising improved pedestrian measures on Church Street (shared
surfacing, footway widening and dropped kerb crossing points) and formalised
passing bays along New Road (between the A149 and the village of Northrepps).
A parallel application has been submitted under the Council's Housing Delivery
Scheme. This proposes that 16 dwellings will be completed and available for
occupation (along with access, drainage and civil engineering works) within 18
months of planning permission being granted, in exchange for the number of
affordable dwellings being set at 8 units (20%) and a relaxation of Code for
Sustainable Homes and on site renewable energy requirements.
The planning application is supported by the following documents:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Transport Statement
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Ecology report
Land Contamination Report
Flood Risk Assessment
Development Committee
65
26 March 2015
Heritage report
Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Assessment
Viability Appraisal (confidential)
Draft S.106 Planning Obligation
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning in view of the objection raised by the Highway
Authority.
PARISH COUNCIL
Supports the application on the basis of 20% affordable housing provision in the
location shown on the submitted plans. 'Members keen to see the site developed as
soon as possible'.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from a local resident on grounds that the number of
dwellings is too many in terms of the additional traffic which the development will
generate. Comment that additional pedestrian access routes from the site should be
considered.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Advises that there is sufficient capacity in both the local waste
water treatment works and the sewerage network to accommodate the proposed
development.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions in
relation to surface water drainage and land contamination.
County Council (Planning Obligations) - Advises that there is sufficient capacity
at local schools to accommodate the proposed development. Seeks a S.106
contribution towards library provision.
County Council (Highways) - Strongly objects and recommends the application
is refused for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development does not adequately provide off-site facilities for
pedestrians /cyclists / people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or
others with mobility difficulties) to link with existing provision and / or local services.
2) The proposed development does not have adequate access to an appropriate
level of public transport provision as set out in the adopted Norfolk Bus Strategy
published by the Transport Authority.
3) All roads that lead to the site are country lanes that do not provide adequate
access to the route hierarchy, due to their width, alignment and lack in forward
visibility. Therefore, they are unsuitable to cater for the vehicular movements
generated by the proposal, which, if consented would be likely to give rise to
conditions detrimental to highway safety.
In reaching this recommendation reference is made to past concerns raised by the
Highway Authority to previous applications on the site in relation to poor visibility at
the junction onto Church Street, inadequacy of the surrounding highway network,
poor access to public transport and a lack of off-site provision for pedestrians. The
existing outline permission for 34 dwellings will generate more traffic on the
Development Committee
66
26 March 2015
surrounding highway network than the previous use on the site. An additional 7
dwellings as now proposed (which on their own would generate between 42-56 daily
movements) would result in a development that ultimately would generate more than
double the amount of traffic that the previous use of the site did.
In the event of the Council being minded to grant permission a number a technical
revisions are recommended to the proposed layout as well as changes / additions to
the package of off-site highway works offered with the application.
A copy of the Highway Authority's full response is attached in Appendix 11.
Strategic Housing
- Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in
Northrepps, there are 59 households on the Housing Register and in addition there
are a further 65 households on the Transfer Register and 442 households on the
Housing Options Register who stated that they require housing in Northrepps. The
proposed development would therefore assist in meeting some of the proven housing
need.
Notes that the applicants are applying under the Council's Housing Incentive Scheme
to reduce the amount of affordable housing to 20% (8 dwellings - 6 for rent and 2 for
shared ownership). Supports the types and tenure of the dwellings proposed but has
some concern that they are all shown to be located to the rear of the site and as such
not well integrated with the remainder of the development.
In the event of the Housing Incentive Scheme not being complied with the
requirement will be for 50% (20 dwellings) to be affordable. Seeks further information
from the applicants as to what the 50% dwelling mix would be.
If the application is to be approved, a S.106 Agreement will be required to secure the
affordable housing in perpetuity as well as to secure the phased delivery of the
affordable dwellings during development of the site.
In respect of viability, a thorough review has been undertaken of the viability
assessment information submitted by the applicant who has stated that it is not viable
to develop the site for the provision of 34 dwellings (including the conversion of the
existing property at the front of the site). The applicant does state that the proposed
development of 41 dwellings is viable. The viability information submitted by the
applicant includes the provision of 20% affordable housing for both the 41 and 34
dwelling schemes as this planning application has been accompanied by a Housing
Delivery Incentive Scheme application. The assessment of the viability information
was therefore carried out on the basis of testing whether it is viable to develop the
site to provide 34 dwellings.
The assessment of the viability information showed that it would not be viable to
develop the site to provide 34 dwellings as the scheme does not generate the
required level of financial return for a residential development. There are a number
of exceptional development costs associated with the development of this brownfield
site and the costs of these works only varies a small amount between the 34 and 41
dwelling schemes. It is clear that the cost of these exceptional development costs is
having a negative impact on the viability of the site. Whilst there were some areas
where the submitted viability for the 34 dwelling could be improved, the impact of the
exceptional development costs remained.
To conclude, the thorough assessment of the submitted viability information has
demonstrated that it would not be viable to develop this site for 34 dwellings.
Conservation & Design Officer - Comments that in terms of layout, the curved
access drive into the site and the loop road around the central area of open space,
Development Committee
67
26 March 2015
potentially offers a sound foundation to build an acceptable scheme. This is however
heavily dependent upon the quality of the house types, materials, surface treatments
and landscaping.
In respect of the house types a number of revisions are suggested. In addition
concerns are raised to the quality of the proposed materials and surface treatments.
Concludes by saying that whilst the principle of residential development on the site is
welcomed, the number of dwellings proposed, with the majority of plots being placed
'cheek by jowl', there is little space available for any design creativity or for any
relieving landscaping. The proposals fall short of enabling unequivocal support.
Landscape Officer
Refers to the fact that the site lies within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty where there is a need to soften the edge of new
developments bordering open countryside in order to ensure integration with the rural
surroundings. Recommends that the proposed 1.8m high close boarded fencing
along the adjoining field boundary should be replaced with a hedgerow and less
intrusive form of fencing.
In addition recommends conditions in respect of ecological mitigation and landscape
management.
Environmental Health - Recommends conditions in respect of land contamination
and drainage.
Norfolk Constabulary - Observes that some thought and care has been given to
the proposed development. particularly regarding the natural surveillance afforded to
the open space. Makes certain recommendations regarding boundary fence
treatment to certain plots.
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 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing 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 CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
68
26 March 2015
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development plan policy / relevant planning history.
2. Highway safety.
3. Amount of development / development viability.
4. Housing mix and type.
5. Layout and design
APPRAISAL
The site and surroundings
The site (1.4ha.) is situated within the established built up boundary of Northrepps
village. The front part of the site occupies a prominent position onto Church Street
within the village centre which also forms part of the conservation area. The site also
borders both existing residential development and open countryside. It was formerly
occupied by the 'Cherryridge' poultry business. The site, which contains a number of
buildings has been in an abandoned and derelict state for a number of years since
the poultry processing business closed down.
Development plan policy / relevant planning history
Northrepps is not a settlement designated for additional development in the adopted
Core Strategy. It falls within the 'countryside' policy area. Under Policy SS2 of the
Core Strategy housing development is not permitted in the 'countryside' (apart from
'exception' affordable housing developments and the re-use of existing buildings).
Housing development on this site therefore represents a departure from the
development plan.
The site however has a relevant planning history which is material to the
determination of this planning application. A Committee resolution dating back to
2008 (Application ref: PO/07/1895) was to grant permission for residential
development (33 dwellings and conversion of an existing cottage) subject completion
of a S.106 Agreement to secure affordable housing and to resolve highway issues.
The site subsequently went into receivership and that application was never formally
determined. At the time of considering the application Northrepps was a selected
village under the formerly operative Local Plan, but the majority of the site was
allocated for employment use.
Subsequently in 2013 outline planning permission was granted for 32 dwellings and
the conversion of an existing building into two dwellings (application ref:
PO/13/0117). The Core Strategy was in force at the time and accordingly the
decision represented a departure from the development plan. Material considerations
taken into account in the decision to approve the application were a combination of
factors, namely the previous planning history, the particular circumstances of the site
and the provision of off-site highway improvements.
As a consequence of this extant outline planning permission the principle of
residential development on the site is established. The current application is however
Development Committee
69
26 March 2015
for an increased number of dwellings than previously approved, which certainly
raises issues which are considered below.
Highway safety
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority 'strongly recommends that the
application be refused' (Appendix 11).
In essence the position of the Highway Authority (as with previous applications for
this site) is that Northrepps is not a sustainable location for further significant
residential development because it is remote from local services and does not have
adequate access to public transport. Consequently residents would be heavily
dependent on the use of private transport in a village which is served by an
inadequate network of narrow country lanes, and which as a result 'would be likely to
give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety'.
The view of the Highway Authority has always been that any re-development of the
site should not lead to an increase of traffic movements above that which was
generated by the former poultry business use. The authority considers that the
outline planning permission for 34 dwellings will already significantly exceed this
previous level and that the additional increase in dwellings now proposed would more
than double it. The authority's assessment of historical traffic movements has been
disputed by the applicants who contend that these figures were higher and point out
that previously many of the traffic movements involved heavy goods vehicles.
Notwithstanding what level of traffic movements did occur previously, the decision
which members now need to make in terms of traffic/highway safety now is how
significant are the additional 7 dwellings now proposed, compared to the figure of 34
dwellings established by the outline planning permission. The Highway Authority
equates 7 additional dwellings to represent between 42-56 daily vehicle movements.
A further factor to be considered are the off-site highway works proposed; and the
overall benefit these will to bring to the village, albeit at the expense of an overall
increase in traffic.
Amount of development / development viability
The response from the Highway Authority and to a degree the comments of the
Conservation and Design Officer raise the question of the amount of development
now proposed. The applicants' response to this is that the economic viability of the
proposed development is delicately balanced and any reduction in the number of
dwellings proposed could upset this balance, and for this reason they are not
prepared to reduce this number.
In order to demonstrate this the applicants have, on request, submitted a
development viability report (confidential). The report considers two scenarios. One
on the basis of 34 dwellings (the outline permission) which the assessment purports
to be unviable in terms of developer profit margin and the other based on 41
dwellings (the current proposal) which demonstrates that it would be viable subject to
meeting the Housing Incentive Scheme reduction of affordable housing to 20%.
The information provided by the applicant demonstrates that a scheme of 34
dwellings is unviable and this scenario is likely to remain, particularly in view of the
abnormal development costs associated with site clearance. However, a scheme of
41 dwellings, as proposed by the applicant, would be financially viable and the
applicant has indicated a willingness to start work on site as soon as possible once
permission is granted.
Development Committee
70
26 March 2015
Housing mix / Affordable housing provision
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. The proposed
development meets this requirement with 41% of the proposed dwellings comprising
2 or less bedrooms.
In terms of the Council's affordable housing policy, the previous outline planning
permission was treated on an equivalent basis to sites within selected small villages
whereby pursuant to Core Strategy Policy HO2 the requirement is for 50% of the
dwellings to be affordable, subject to viability. The S.106 Obligation attached to the
outline planning permission reflects this requirement. The 50% requirement for the
current application equates to 20 affordable dwellings.
As referred to above the applicants have also applied under the Council's Housing
Incentive Scheme to reduce the requirement of affordable housing to 20% which
equates to 8 units. The mix of affordable dwelling types proposed is considered
acceptable.
Details relating to the provision of the affordable dwellings together with compliance
with the Housing Incentive Scheme requirements will need to be subject to the
satisfactory completion of a further S.106 Planning Obligation.
Layout and design
The application site is irregular in shape and it also has a variation in levels. The
narrower front section dictates a central position of the access road with dwellings on
either side. This part of the site lies within the conservation area. Beyond this the site
opens up. As designed there will be a central area of open space, bordered by a loop
road with the plots arranged so that they back onto the site boundaries. This
arrangement is considered acceptable as are the relationships between the proposed
dwellings and existing properties bordering the site.
The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation and Design Officer who
has raised concerns regarding certain of the house designs as well as the quality of
the materials to be used. Discussions have taken place with the applicants to try to
resolve these areas of concern and amended plans have been received. The
Committee will be updated orally in respect of any further comments from the
Conservation and Design Officer.
Conclusions
The principle of residential development on this site is established by virtue of the
extant planning permission. In terms of the proposed layout, type of housing
proposed, design details and landscape treatment, subject to no further objections
from the Conservation and Design Officer, these elements are considered
acceptable.
The main matter for consideration therefore relates to the number of dwellings now
being proposed and the consequent impact upon highway safety. For its part the
highway authority has been consistent in its advice over recent years regarding this
site and their view that the road network is unsuitable to accommodate the scale of
development proposed. The highway authority's concerns are valid ones. However in
view of the number of dwellings established by the outline permission, the argument
for or against the additional number of dwellings now proposed is a narrow one
The site has been in a disused and derelict state for a number of years and its
Development Committee
71
26 March 2015
redevelopment has the support of the local community. It has now been acquired by
the applicants, a firm of housebuilders, who are committed to its early development.
Following assessment of the applicants' development viability report officers are
satisfied that any reduction in the number of dwellings proposed would potentially
impact upon the reasonable expectations of a developer to progress the
development or alternatively reduce the amount of affordable housing (in other words
this development would be highly unlikely to proceed with a lower number of units
and the site would therefore remain in a derelict condition and thus resulting in harm
to the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area).
It is ultimately a matter of planning judgment for the Development Committee in
weighing the merits of seeing the derelict poultry site cleared and new homes
constructed balanced against a greater increase in traffic travelling to and from the
village as a result of the development. Whilst acknowledging the nature of the
objection raised by the highway authority, on balance the application is
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the completion of a S.106 Planning
Obligation and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(7)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0887 - Partial demolition of hotel and erection of six
residential apartments and single-storey rear extension to hotel; Burlington
Hotel, The Esplanade for Mr S McDermott
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 October 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
This report is to provide an update to the Committee following the deferral of the
above application at the meeting on 27 November 2014.
Background
This application was considered by the Development Committee on 27 November
2014 following a site visit which took place on 20 November 2014. The application
was recommended for refusal on design grounds, significant harm to heritage assets
and impact upon privacy and amenities of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. A
copy of the full report from the meeting of 27 November 2014 is contained in
Appendix 12.
Members resolved to defer determination of the application in order for design
negotiations to take place in respect of the roof and windows and to address the
issues of overlooking and loss of privacy (see minutes of 27 November 2014 in
Appendix 12.).
Updates
In terms of report updates amended plans have been received from the agent which
alter the roof design of the proposal by following the same profile and ridge height of
the existing building, and turning the small square windows on the front elevation to
the lobby areas by 45 degrees so that they become square diamond shaped. The
agent has also provided further supporting information explaining the amendments in
detail and how they have arrived at the amendments proposed in emails dated 7
Development Committee
72
26 March 2015
January 2015 and 14 January 2015 contained in Appendix 12, along with the
supporting information originally submitted.
Re-advertisement and re-consultation has taken place in relation to the amended
plans. At the time of writing this report no representations had been received.
Sheringham Town Council accept the roof line improvements but still object to this
application on the grounds that the extension is unacceptable, as it is out of keeping
for this iconic building and not sympathetically designed and there should be better
use of the proposed materials.
Consultation responses have been received from the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Team Leader and English Heritage. These responses are contained in
Appendix 12 along with their comments in relation to the scheme as originally
submitted.
Appraisal
A recent site meeting has taken place between Officers, the agent and applicant in
order for the agent to explain the amendments made to the proposal. This was a
useful exercise. However, despite the significant time and careful consideration that
has been given to this proposal by those involved, Officers remain unable to support
the proposal for the reasons given in the consultation responses from Conservation
and Design and English Heritage.
Whilst it is considered that some improvements have been made to the design by the
alterations proposed to the roof, the majority of the comments made on the original
design regarding impact and compatibility still apply. Please see consultation
responses from Conservation and Design and English Heritage in Appendix 12.
English Heritage are maintaining their objection following the receipt of amended
plans and re-iterate that they do not consider that the information submitted fulfils the
requirements of paragraph 128 of the NPPF, which requires applicants to describe
the significance of any heritage assets affected by a development including any
contribution made by their setting.
In addition, in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy you will note from the agents
email of 14 January 2015 (see Appendix 12) that he is satisfied that they have
addressed all aspects of potential overlooking. This is not a view shared by Officers.
Whilst the agent is correct that no objections have been received from neighbouring
properties the distances between properties does not comply with the amenity criteria
as set out in the Design Guide. This is explained in the original Committee report, but
for clarification the reason why is because an additional 3m should be added to the
amenity criteria guidance for each additional storey when considering proposals for
flats. There would be a shortfall in the amenity criteria of between 6 – 8m.
Officers continue to maintain support in principle for an extension to the existing
building in order for funds to be raised to help maintain this important building in the
Conservation Area and to improve facilities in order to allow the hotel to continue to
function as a business and local employer.
However, despite some improvement to the roof design as shown on the amended
plans it remains the Officer's opinion that the proposal as amended would result in an
unacceptable and inappropriate form of development, would fail to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and would have a
Development Committee
73
26 March 2015
significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of
neighbouring dwellings.
Notwithstanding the amendments made the proposal is considered to be contrary to
Development Plan policies and the requirements of the NPPF as explained in the
original Committee report of 27 November 2014.
Recommendation: Refuse on the following grounds:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 3 - Housing
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would result
in an unacceptable and inappropriate form of development in this location.
By virtue of the design the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
proposal would not result in significant harm to the historic significance of the
Burlington Hotel and the Sheringham Conservation Area.
The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have
a significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the
occupiers of neighbouring dwellings to the south, south west and west of the
site.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development
Plan policies and paragraphs 128, 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
(8)
THURSFORD - PF/15/0028 - Erection of single-storey extension to side/rear of
existing annex accommodation; Heath House, Brick Kiln Road for Mr GrahamWood
- Target Date: 05 March 2015
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Development in the Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20091042 HOU
Conversion of Former Workshop to Annexe
Approved 15/12/2009
Development Committee
74
26 March 2015
THE APPLICATION
The plans seek permission to extend the existing annexe accommodation with the
erection of a single-storey extension to the side (east elevation) and rear (north
elevation). The plans indicate the proposed extension would be constructed of
materials similar to the existing structure. The proposed extension would measure
approximately 52sq.m., this equates to a 130% increase to the size of original
annexe accommodation.
Within the submitted details the applicant states: larger annexe accommodation is
required as the resident of the annexe (the son of the occupant of the host dwelling)
wishes to marry and start a family.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. A. Green with regard to the building remaining as an annexe
with continued dependency to the main dwelling.
PARISH COUNCIL
Thursford Parish Council: To date (6 March 2015) the Parish Council has not
responded
REPRESENTATIONS
There have been no representations
CONSULTATIONS
None
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
APPRAISAL
Heath House is a large two-storey detached dwelling set within substantial grounds.
An enclosed courtyard lies to the rear of the property. The courtyard comprises of
single storey buildings. To the rear of the courtyard area lies a three bay garage
block and the existing annexe. The existing annexe lies at a right angle to the garage
block and was formally a workshop. The former workshop was granted permission
for change of use to annexe accommodation in 2009 (PF/09/1042).
Development Committee
75
26 March 2015
Policy SS2
The site is located in an area defined by the North Norfolk adopted Core Strategy as
Countryside. Policy SS2 of the adopted Core Strategy states development in such a
designated area is limited to that which supports the rural economy and meets a local
housing need. The policy is designed to discourage the proliferation of dwellings in
areas where public services are limited, resulting in a dependency on travel by car to
reach basic services, in favour of more sustainable development in the designated
growth settlements. However, Policy SS2 does make provision for annexe
accommodation.
Residential annexe accommodation is accommodation within a residential curtilage
and ancillary to accommodation available in a main dwelling.
Ancillary
accommodation provides semi-independent living to a family member/relative or an
individual with some personal connection to the main dwelling. An annexe should
form part of the same "planning unit" by sharing the same access, parking and
garden so as to avoid the annexe becoming a self-contained dwelling, separate and
apart from the original dwelling.
The criteria for assessing an application for annexe accommodation concerns: the
physical relationship between the main dwelling and the annexe, the size/scale and
use of the annexe and could the annexe be used as part of the main dwelling once
the dependency need has ceased.
The existing annexe at Heath House has a relatively close physical relationship to
Heath House and its modest size suggests it would have some degree of
dependency upon the main dwelling. Furthermore, the annexe is currently being
used as a unit of accommodation by the son of the occupants of Heath House.
Whilst the proposed extension would not change the relationship between the
annexe and Heath House it would significantly increase the size of the annexe. The
floor space would increase from 40sq.m to 92sq.m equating to a 130% increase of
the original annexe. The annexe's increased size would enable it to accommodate
more facilities thereby reducing its dependence upon Heath House. In addition, its
use as a family residence suggests the annexe would be taking on the characteristics
of a separate dwelling.
Furthermore, the plans show the annexe as having its own amenity area and car
parking for two vehicles. Given the host property has two vehicle accesses off Brick
Kiln Road, one of which could serve the annexe without detriment to the host
property further suggesting the annexe's potential independence from the host
dwelling.
It is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy SS2 in that the proposed
extension to the existing annexe would constitute an unsatisfactory form of
development, tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside by
reason of its size, facilities, amenities and use as a family home.
It is also considered that the annexe's use as a family home would be in breach of
condition number 3 (PF/09/1042) which states,
"The annexe accommodation hereby approved shall not be occupied at any
time other than the purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling
known as Heath House, Brick Kiln Lane, Thursford".
Development Committee
76
26 March 2015
Policy EN4
The aim of Core Strategy Policy EN4; is that development should be designed to a
high standard, reinforce local distinctiveness and should not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupants.
With regard to Policy EN4 in terms of design: the 130% increase in the annexe‟s floor
space would result in a disproportionate increase in size and scale to the existing
building. In addition the proposal has a 'bulky/boxy' appearance which would form an
awkward relationship with the linear appearance of the existing annexe and garage
block.
With regard to Policy EN4 in terms of Basic Amenity Criteria: despite the substantial
size of the proposal it would not result in a significant negative impact on the
amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.
Although the design of the proposed extension lacks finesse, it is considered that
given the site is set back from the highway and screened from public view via mature
hedging and trees it would be difficult to sustain an objection to the proposal on
design grounds.
RECOMMENDATION: To Refuse for the reasons specified below:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning
purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed
development:
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would constitute an
unsatisfactory form of development, tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in
the countryside by reason of its size, facilities, amenities and use as a family home.
The proposed development would constitute a breach to condition number 3 of
planning permission PF/09/1042 which states, “the annexe shall not be occupied
other than for purposes ancillary to the dwelling known as Heath House, Brick Kiln
Road, Thursford. NR21 0BQ”.
(9)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1583 - Alterations to dwelling including the
erection of a single-storey front extension and installation of front balcony. The
erection of two-storey rear extension and the installation of render and
cladding to the front and rear of dwelling; East Quay House, East End for Mr S
Howe
- Target Date: 28 January 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Young
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Flood Zone 3
Development Committee
77
26 March 2015
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/14/1030 HOU
Alterations to dwelling including erection of second floor extension
Withdrawn by Applicant 06/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
Alterations to dwelling including the erection of a single-storey front extension and
installation of front balcony. The erection of a part single-storey and two-storey rear
extension and the installation of render and cladding to the front and rear of dwelling.
Amended plans received revising the design to incorporate retention of pitched roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred for a committee site visit. The application was originally referred to
committee at the request of Councillor Terrington on the following planning grounds:
The proposed building is not in keeping with its surroundings or the historic nature of
the East Quay.
TOWN COUNCIL
Original Comments - Objection. The Council strongly objects and doesn't want to see
a carbuncle on the East Quay.
Awaiting further comments in relation to the amended scheme.
REPRESENTATIONS
Currently re-advertising in respect of amended plans, to date there has been no
representations received.
CONSULTATIONS
Comments on original scheme With this resubmission according with pre-application advice, Conservation & Design
do not have any objections to this application.
 Firstly, in terms of scale, pre-application discussions focused on reducing the
overall mass of the building to ensure its compatibility with the tight confines
of the site. In this regard, the applicant's timeline below is actually very useful
in illustrating how the latest proposal would be smaller than the existing
building and all the subsequent iterations. This is considered important in
ensuring that the property does not overly exert itself within the street scene;
NB: it is arguable whether the existing building would be approved today
given its pitched roof and solid brick gables, and its close proximity of the
adjacent buildings - certainly it does not make a positive contribution to the
appearance and character of the conservation area in its current form.
 Turning to design, negotiations initially involved retaining the pitched roof as a
means of grounding the building on site. However, it quickly emerged that a
much „lighter‟ and more „honest‟ building could be created by removing the
roof. It was also apparent that the impact upon the property behind could be
significantly improved in the process. For this to be successful, however, it
was felt that the elevations needed to make better use of relief and materials
to move away from the original bulky and boxy proportions. This has been
reflected in the layered elevations now submitted which would not only offer
depth and visual interest, but which would also effectively break up the overall
mass. With the glazing and the balcony then taking advantage of its coastal
position, it is considered that the building as altered would sit comfortably on
its site and will continue the welcome trend of good contemporary architecture
within the town (which began with the superb Roundhouse, which continued
with the Shellfish Handling facility and which will perhaps best be illustrated
Development Committee
78
26 March 2015
when the re-worked proposals for the Maltings are submitted).
Whilst such buildings do not fit the conventional view of local distinctiveness, they
have been purposefully designed for their immediate context and are without doubt
distinct to each locality. Moreover, they not only add interest within the designated
area but also continue the tradition of each age making its own contribution to the
established form and character (the Quayside alone features a range of building
types and ages). Providing this is done in a complementary rather than a competitive
way, there need be no Conservation & Design objections.
In summary, it is considered that this amended scheme would produce a building
which: a) would now be compatible with the site in scale terms,
b) would not harm the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed East Quay House,
c) would offer a qualitative and bespoke design which would enliven and add
visual interest to the existing building, and
d) would enhance the appearance and character of this part of the Wells
Conservation Area.
In the event of an approval being issued, please condition the prior agreement of
the bricks, windows, balcony detail and render colour.
No objections to amended scheme.
Environmental Health –
There are no adverse Environmental Health concerns in relation to this proposal
therefore have no objections.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Committee
79
26 March 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring dwellings
3. Design
4. Impact on Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with this site after considering the application at the previous
committee meeting and after the committee site visit on Thursday 12th March 2015.
Subsequent to the committee site visit the applicant has formally submitted an
amended plan. The amended plan shows that the original dwelling including the
pitched roof will be retained, the application would include extensions to the front and
rear of the property and the installation of front balcony, along with cladding and
render to front and back of the dwelling.
The site falls within the residential policy area of Wells-Next-the-Sea as designated in
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, where alterations and extensions to
dwellings are permitted in principle provided they are in accordance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies. The site is also located within the designated
Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policy EN1 states that development will be permitted where it does not detract from
the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals, including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in
this case the Wells-Next-The-Sea Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings and
their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that would have an
adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
The existing building is a detached two-storey property which is approximately 574
square metres. The existing dwelling is not considered to be of any special
architectural interest or design merit and it makes little contribution to the immediate
context or the wider character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Given the
form and appearance of the existing dwelling, these changes offer the opportunity for
enhancement.
Whilst the original proposal was considered to be acceptable by officers, the
amended plan is also considered to be acceptable in design terms.
The proportions of the proposed extensions have been kept to a minimum with the
two storey extension to the rear projecting by approximately 1.3m and the single
storey extension measuring 3.1m by 3.7m with a height of 2.6m(a slight increase
from the original scheme). It is considered that the overall scale of the extensions
proposed would be acceptable and would not have an adverse impact on the
amenity of the neighbouring properties. The single storey front extension would
increase the size of the garage, it would protrude from the front by 1.3m. The
proposed balcony to the front elevation of the property would face over the Quay, it is
not considered that it would cause any adverse forms of overlooking.
Development Committee
80
26 March 2015
In terms of local distinctiveness, the Conservation and Design Officer considers the
amended design to be acceptable with the use of render and cladding. Whilst the
majority of buildings in the immediate area are of a traditional form and constructed in
brick and flint, there are a number of exceptions to this. In view of the context and
given that the proposed alterations would result in an improvement from the existing
dwelling, there is no objection. In fact Policy EN4 positively encourages innovative
design which reinforces local distinctiveness.
Paragraph 2.3.1. of the adopted North Norfolk Design Guide states that whilst
successful elevations respond to the materials seen on surrounding buildings this
does not imply slavishly copying existing materials, rather it can involve creating
interesting contrasts and textures between complimentary materials. It is considered
that the use of different materials of the extension including vertical cedar cladding,
render, red brick helps to break up the building elements on front elevation more
effectively, providing more depth and visual interest. The materials and joinery can
be conditioned in order to ensure that the materials proposed would be appropriate
for the site and its location.
Overall, it is considered that the building as altered would sit comfortably within the
locality. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm the appearance
and character of the Conservation Area and it would be compliant with Policies EN4
and EN8.
In terms of the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, although East
Quay House holds a prominent position, it is considered that the alterations would
not result in the dwelling having an adverse impact on the special qualities of the
area.
In conclusion, it is considered to adhere to the Development Plan policies as outlined
above.
RECOMMENDATION:
That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve subject to no new
grounds of objection being received following re-consultation and readvertisement of
the amended plans and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
BLAKENEY – PF14/1566 - Demolition of dwelling, barns and outbuildings and
erection of two and a half storey dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road
for Mrs Cargill
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning, in order to expedite proceedings.
Development Committee
81
26 March 2015
BLAKENEY – PF/15/0070 – Conversion of existing detached two storey
dwelling into 2 apartments, including construction of dormer window and
erection of 6 two storey dwellings and creation of new access; Greencroft
House, 22 Morston Road for London and Country Homes (Blakeney) Ltd.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle with regard to overdevelopment and impact upon
character of the area.
NORTH WALSHAM – PO/14/1668 – Erection of 4 single storey detached
dwellings and 4 detached two storey dwellings; land to rear of 45 Happisburgh
Road for Ashford Commercial Ltd.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Moore with regard to overdevelopment and impact upon
neighbouring dwellings.
ROUGHTON – PO/14/0986 – Erection of thirty dwellings with open space to
provide sports pitch, wetland habitat, space for community facility, car park
and footpath link to village
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr S Arnold with regard to highway safety. In addition, there are
concerns regarding the cumulative impact of this application, together with
applications PO/15/0058 and PO/15/0108.
ROUGHTON - PO/15/0058 – Erection of 10 dwellings; Roughton Motor Co,
Chapel Road for Dove Jeffery Homes
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold with regard to highway safety. In addition there
are concerns regarding the cumulative impact of both applications PO/15/0058 and
PO/15/0108, together with the allocated site ROU03/10 (planning reference
PO/14/0986).
ROUGHTON - PO/15/0108 - Erection of 19 affordable dwellings, infrastructure
and associated parking; land adjacent to Chapel Road for Dove Jeffery Homes
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Arnold with regard to potential drainage and flooding
issues, overdevelopment and highway safety. In addition there are concerns
regarding the cumulative impact of both applications, together with the allocated site
ROU03/10 (planning reference PO/14/0986).
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
Development Committee
82
26 March 2015
(11) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/0059 - Insertion of windows to ground floor north
elevations and door to north elevation; Woodstock Barn, Middle Hill, Alby,
Norwich, NR11 7PN for Mr & Mrs Chandler
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/15/0006 - Erection of one and a half storey detached
dwelling and detached double garage (revised design and larger footprint);
Land at rear of Arandora, Chapel Road, Thurgarton, NR11 7NP for Bronzewell
Management Co Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BARSHAM - NP/15/0082 - Prior notification of intention to excavate irrigation
reservoir; Land at Waterhouse Farm, Fakenham Road, Barsham, Norfolk, for M J
Goodley and Partners
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
BARSHAM - PF/14/1681 - Erection of single/two-storey rear/side extension and
insertion of dormer window; 122 Fakenham Road, Houghton St. Giles,
Walsingham, NR22 6AQ for Mrs Ross
(Householder application)
BARSHAM - LA/14/1682 - External and internal alterations and erection of
single/two storey rear/side extension and insertion of dormer window; 122
Fakenham Road, Houghton St. Giles, Walsingham, NR22 6AQ for Mrs Ross
(Listed Building Alterations)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/1670 - Conversion of detached garage to ancillary
annexe and erection of side extension; Cobble End Cottage, Pennygate Lane,
Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8BG for Mr & Mrs Copperwheat
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - HN/15/0013 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey
rear extension which would project from the original rear wall by 5.17m and
which would have a maximum height of 3m and would have an eaves height of
3m; The Old Rectory, Hall Road, Irstead, Norwich, NR12 8XP for Mrs Tidy
(Householder Prior Notification)
BARTON TURF - PF/15/0027 - Erection of agricultural general purpose building
with solar panels to south roof slope; Holly Cottage, Smallburgh Road, Barton
Turf, Norwich, NR12 8YT for Mr & Mrs Bullen
(Full Planning Permission)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0064 - Erection of 0.6m boundary picket fence; 59
Priory Close, Beeston Regis, Sheringham, NR26 8SL for Mr P Farquharson
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1434 - Installation of swimming pool and plant room; Lark
Cottage, 146 Morston Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7BG for Mr M Goff
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1498 - Erection of single-storey extension with verandah
above, insertion of railings and change to first floor gable windows to doors
Development Committee
83
26 March 2015
with Juliette balcony to south east elevation, and addition of three first-floor
windows to north elevation.; Blakeney Hotel, The Quay, Blakeney, Holt, NR25
7NE for The Blakeney Hotel
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0002 - Demolition of two rear extensions and erection of
replacement single-storey rear extension, insertion of 2 dormer windows and 2
rooflights to front elevation, insertion of 2 rooflights to rear elevation and
cladding to front elevation; Howden, 7A Morston Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25
7BD for Mr Chase
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0003 - Demolition part of existing boundary wall and
erection of replacement 1.7m boundary wall; South Granary, 9 The Quay,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NF for Mr Meddle
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/15/0004 - Demolition part of existing boundary wall and
erection of replacement 1.7m boundary wall; South Granary, 9 The Quay,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NF for Mr Meddle
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0033 - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of twostorey detached dwelling; Hartland, 57 New Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PA for
Swan Homes
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - DP/14/1621 - Demolition of disused coach depot/workshop; Neaves
Garage, The Street, Catfield, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5AA for H S Neave and Son
Ltd
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1541 - Insertion of two dormer windows to west
elevation roof slope and glazing to north elevation gable and installation of
access stairs and dormer window to existing detached double garage; Cley
House, The Fairstead, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RJ for Mr & Mrs Everett
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/0797 - Erection of detached cartshed/garage, 1.8m boundary fence and creation of new vehicular access;
Orchard House, Horseshoe Lane, Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QN for Mr & Mrs J
Angier
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/1662 - Installation of three replacement antennas and erection
of two radio cabinets with associated ancillary developments; Cromer Hall, Hall
Road, Cromer, NR27 9JG for Telefonica UK Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/14/1648 - External alterations to ground floor front windows cill
height; 53 Church Street, Cromer, NR27 9HH for Mackays Stores Ltd t/a M&Co.
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/14/1649 - Installation of replacement balcony and windows; 6
East Cliff Flats, Tucker Street, Cromer, NR27 9HA for Mr Harper
Development Committee
84
26 March 2015
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1679 - Erection of side extension for office and storage; Unit
4 Wymans Way, Fakenham, NR21 8NT for Bircham Electrical
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1671 - Change of use of restaurant/function room to two
retail units, office and one residential dwelling; 1-3 Oak Street, Fakenham, NR21
9DX for Mr P Parker
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - LA/14/1672 - Internal alterations to facilitate conversion of
restaurant/function room to two retail units, office and one residential dwelling;
1-3 Oak Street, Fakenham, NR21 9DX for c/o Claxton Hall Architectural Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
FIELD DALLING - NMA1/14/0310 - Non-material amendment request to alter size
of a rooflight, add two rooflights and sun pipe, reduce glazing to eastern gable
and add timber cladding, brick quoins added to all openings, curved arch over
opening replaced with straight brick course.; Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road,
NR25 7AS for Blue Tile Farm Barns Limited
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
GIMINGHAM - PF/15/0017 - Erection of single-storey side extension and front
car-port; Hall Farm, Hall Road, Gimingham for Mr Phillips
(Householder application)
GRESHAM - PF/14/1640 - Change of use of detached workshop/garage/storage
building to holiday accommodation (retrospective); Mill Farm House, Mill Road,
Gresham, Norwich, NR11 8RN for Mr T Keen
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/15/0010 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Chapel
Cottage, Chapel Lane, Hempstead, Holt, NR25 6LA for Ms Wood
(Householder application)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/1661 - Insertion of dormer window to rear north elevation
roofslope; 14 The Knoll, Hempstead, Holt, NR25 6TJ for Mr Summers
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/14/1581 - Erection of two-storey side/front extension, creation of
vehicular access and erection 1.8m boundary fence; The White House, Town
Street, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0AY for Mr Lombard
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/15/0055 - Erection of rear/side extension, side link corridor,
porch and canopy to garage; 13 Mill Close, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0YT for Mr
and Mrs Pigula
(Householder application)
HIGH KELLING - PF/14/1250 - Erection of detached timber building for use as
Bed and Breakfast unit; Bridge House, Bridge Road, High Kelling, Holt, NR25
6QT for Mr and Mrs Youngman
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
85
26 March 2015
HIGH KELLING - PF/14/1569 - Erection of 2.5 metre high fence; Thornleigh,
Cromer Road, High Kelling, Holt, NR25 6QD for Mrs Brannstrom
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/0008 - Part retention and erection of detached shed; 41
The Street, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0PR for Mrs Finch
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - HN/15/0142 - Notification of intention to erect a single-storey
rear extension which would project from original rear wall by 6.2 metres, which
would have a maximum height of 3.2 metres and eaves height of 2.2 metres;
Flint House, Moorgate Road, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0PT for Mr and Mrs
Phelps
(Householder Prior Notification)
HOLT - PF/15/0024 - Erection of single-storey side and two-storey front
extensions and basement below; East Grove, 85B Cromer Road, Holt, NR25 6DY
for Mr and Mrs Millsopp
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0050 - Installation of rendering to dwelling and erection of
replacement 1.1 metre front and 1.8 metre side boundary fences (part
retrospective); 3 Peacock Lane, Holt, NR25 6HA for BWM Creative Spaces
Limited
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0067 - Erection of garage; 1 Heather Drive, Holt, NR25 6AQ for Mr
J MacAlister
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0105 - Retention of replacement shop front; 11 Fish Hill, Holt,
NR25 6BD for A2S Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - NMA1/14/0539 - Non-material amendment request to replace bi-fold
doors in rear elevation with 3600mm wide bi- fold doors and 1200mm wide
window; Land adjacent 28 Waveney Drive, Hoveton for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
KETTLESTONE - PF/14/1677 - Demolition of existing conservatory and erection
of one and a half storey rear extension; Byfields, The Street, Kettlestone,
Fakenham, NR21 0JB for Mr Hall
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/14/1280 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to residential
dwelling; Field Barn, Binham Road, Langham for Grove Farm Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/1091 - Conversion of agricultural building to residential
dwelling; Church Farm, Coast Road, Lessingham, Norwich, NR12 0SG for Mr G
Anderson
(Full Planning Permission)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/1609 - Erection of two-storey front and side extensions
and first floor balcony to rear; 2 Star Hill, Lessingham, Norwich, NR12 0DL for
Development Committee
86
26 March 2015
Mr D Miller
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1599 - Conversion of single-storey outbuilding to
ancillary annexe accommodation; Heath Farmhouse, Heath Road, North
Walsham, NR28 0JA for Mr Lysaght
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1594 - Variation to condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 10/0682 to permit revised design; 13-21 Bacton Road, North
Walsham, NR28 9DR for Artemis Estates Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA2/13/1326 - Non-material amendment request to reorientate garage and increase its size and height; 45 Happisburgh Road, North
Walsham, NR28 9HB for Mrs Y Bullimore
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/1494 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 4 Craft
Lane, Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 0LL for Mrs Coleby-Hurley
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0023 - Erection of two-storey side, single-storey rear
extensions and detached double cart shed garage; 73 Crossdale Street,
Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 9LB for Mr and Mrs G Last
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/1675 - Installation of a 150kW ground mounted PV array
and associated electrical equipment; Manor Farm, Crossdale Street,
Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 9LD for Abel Energy
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/0049 - Erection of single storey extension; 5 Meadow
Cottages, 14 High Street, Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0AB for Mr Simms
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/14/1178 - Change of use from D1 (place of worship) to holiday
accommodation; Methodist Chapel, The Street, West Raynham, Fakenham,
NR21 7AD for Central Norfolk Methodist Circuit
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0048 - Erection of two storey rear extension; The Willows,
Thorpe Market Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8TA for Mr Ward
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/14/1665 - Change flat roofed detached double garage to pitch to
facilitate storage in roofspace and installation of external stairs; Brackenhurst,
Shawcross Road, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9NA for Mr and Mrs D Foreman
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - PF/14/1598 - Installation of swimming pool; Salthouse Hall, Purdy
Street, Salthouse, Holt, NR25 7XA for Mr Gayfer
(Householder application)
Development Committee
87
26 March 2015
SHERINGHAM - HN/15/0111 - Notification of intention to erect garden room
which would project from the original rear wall by 4.5m and which would have a
maximum height of 4m and an eaves height of 2.6m; 16 Shepherd Close,
Sheringham, NR26 8AS for Mrs H Salter
(Householder Prior Notification)
SHERINGHAM - HN/15/0126 - Notification of intention to erect rear extension
which would project from the original rear wall by 6 metres, which would have a
maximum height of 4 metres and which would have an eaves height of 2.35
metres; 30 Uplands Park, Sheringham, NR26 8NE for Mr S Baker
(Householder Prior Notification)
SLOLEY - PF/14/1613 - Erection of two-bay extension to existing garage and
installation of garage doors to openings; The Stables, High Street, Sloley,
NORWICH, NR12 8HJ for Mr A Deans
(Householder application)
SMALLBURGH - PF/14/1571 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions,
raising of roof to provide additional living accommodation, insertion of dormer
windows and roof light and erection of detached double garage; Sunny Field,
Workhouse Road, Smallburgh, Norwich, NR12 9NL for Mr G Bates
(Householder application)
SMALLBURGH - PF/14/1596 - Extension of former agricultural building with
permission to form dwelling; Fen Lodge, Fen Lane, Smallburgh, NORWICH,
NR12 9GB for Mr and Mrs Jefferies
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/1685 - Erection of detached single-storey garden
room/studio ancillary to 4 Warren Road, Lower Southrepps; 4 Warren Road,
Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8UN for Mrs J Brooks
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/0062 - Demolition of front porch and erection of singlestorey front/side replacement extension; Apple Tree Cottage, Lower Street,
Southrepps, Norwich, NR11 8UL for Miss J Hatton and Mr A Dale
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/0021 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission ref:
94/1491 to permit residential occupancy of extension; Woodmill Lodge, Warren
Woods, Brewery Road, Trunch, North Walsham, NR28 0PX for Mrs A Way
(Full Planning Permission)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/0083 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 88/2390 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Woodmill Lodge,
Warren Woods, Brewery Road, Trunch, North Walsham, NR28 0PX for Mrs A
Way
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/14/1458 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and first floor
window on side elevation; Ashleigh, St Johns Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12
9BG for Mr & Mrs Ford
(Householder application)
Development Committee
88
26 March 2015
STALHAM - NMA1/10/0354 - Non-material amendment request to omit lobby area
and extend covered walkway; Stalham Post Office, 41 High Street, Stalham,
Norwich, NR12 9AH for Mr K Nicholls
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
STALHAM - PF/15/0012 - Variation of conditions 2 and 9 of planning permission
ref: 14/0837 to permit revision to design and re-location of three dwellings; Land
adjacent to Holly Grove, Yarmouth Road, Stalham, NORWICH, NR12 9SQ for
East Anglian Property Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - DP/15/0147 - Prior notification of intention to demolish garages;
Garage Site, Camping Field Lane, Stalham, Norfolk NR12 9DZ for Victory
Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
STIBBARD - PF/14/1597 - Demolition of two dwellings and erection of two
detached replacement dwellings; 13 & 15 Wood Norton Road, Stibbard,
Fakenham, NR21 0EY for Benton Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
STIBBARD - LA/14/1676 - Internal and external alterations and insertion of
French doors to rear ground floor and rooflight to rear roof slope; The Grove
Farmhouse, Bells Lane, Stibbard, FAKENHAM, NR21 0EW for Mr Spencer
Ashworth
(Listed Building Alterations)
SUSTEAD - PF/14/1573 - Demolition of single-storey side extension and erection
of replacement two-store/single-storey side/rear extensions; Green Cottage, The
Street, Sustead, Norwich, NR11 8RU for Mrs M Draper
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/0066 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 13/1499 to permit retention of render to existing walls; 37 St
Giles Road, Swanton Novers, Melton Constable, NR24 2RB for Mr P Smithers
(Full Planning Permission)
TATTERSETT - PF/14/1588 - Erection of side/rear extension; 3 Rose Walk,
Wicken Green Village, Fakenham, NR21 7QG for Mr Towers
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/0032 - Erection of side single storey extension; Bracken
House, Anchor Street, Tunstead, Norwich, NR12 8HR for Mr Atthowe
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/14/1664 - Installation of a ground mounted solar PV system;
Place UK, Church Farm, Church Road, NR12 8RQ for Place UK
(Full Planning Permission)
WARHAM - PF/14/1616 - Installation of recessed balcony and erection of side
extension; The Keep, Wells Road, Warham, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1NG for
Mr M Buckingham
(Householder application)
Development Committee
89
26 March 2015
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1408 - Alterations to outbuilding (including
balcony) to ancillary studio accommodation; Barn Close House, High Street,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EN for Mr & Mrs Finkemeyer
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0044 - Erection of 2.2m boundary flint wall and
gate; 2 Russell Close, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1BX for Mr & Mrs Underwood
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0054 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 13/0799 to permit alterations to window design, balcony size,
support structure and glazing details; Captains Table, Freeman Street, Wellsnext-the-Sea, NR23 1BQ for Mr J Higginson
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1546 - Erection of attached pergola, extension to
front and alterations to existing garage/store outbuildings; Burnt Farm, Burnt
Street, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HW for Mr Smithers
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1552 - Demolition of rear boundary wall and
outbuilding, internal alterations, erection of two-storey extensions, erection of
replacement rear boundary wall and outbuilding; Sunny Side, The Buttlands,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EY for Mr S Bournes
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/1562 - Demolition of rear boundary wall and
outbuilding, internal alterations, erection of two-storey extensions, erection of
replacement rear boundary wall and outbuilding; Sunny Side, The Buttlands,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1EY for Mr Bournes
(Listed Building Alterations)
WOOD NORTON - LA/14/1209 - Retention of both window to side extension &
alterations to windows on south elevation; Lyng Hall Farmhouse, Lyng Hall
Lane, Wood Norton, Dereham, NR20 5BJ for Mr & Mrs Boyne
(Listed Building Alterations)
WORSTEAD - PF/14/1642 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 55 Station
Road, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9RX for Mr S Mallett
(Householder application)
(12) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - PF/14/1504 - Demolition of two agricultural buildings; Roper Farm,
Saxthorpe Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2BD for Knole Estate Trustee
Co. Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - LA/14/1678 - Demolition of two agricultural buildings; Roper Farm,
Saxthorpe Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2BD for Knole Estate Trustee
Co Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
90
26 March 2015
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1617 - Variation of condition 40 of planning permission
ref: 10/0920 to permit reduction in the provision of cycle parking to twelve
spaces in total; Tesco, Cromer Road, Sheringham, NR26 8RS for Tesco Stores
Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
(13) NEW APPEALS
BRISTON - PU/14/1390 - Prior notification of intention of change of use of
agricultural building to three dwelling houses (C3); Barn at Boundary Farm,
Reepham Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JN for Mr & Mrs Berwick
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
ROUGHTON - PF/14/0677 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Woodlands, Cromer Road, Roughton for Mr D Sayer
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
(14) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM – PF/11/0983 – Erection of single wind turbine (maximum hub height
86.5m), associated infrastructure, single-storey substation building, access
track and crane hardstanding for Mr David Mack
PUBLIC INQUIRY 9 June 2015
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0785 - Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two
and a half storey replacement dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PD for Mrs K Cargill
INFORMAL HEARING 17 March 2015
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0120 - Formation of caravan park to provide pitches for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area with office/warden
accommodation and amenity building; Land South of North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh for Happisburgh Estates
INFORMAL HEARING 12 May 2015
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY 28 July 2015
(15) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road, Aylmerton
for Mr D Oliver
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park
and ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27
9JJ for Crematoria Management Ltd
Development Committee
91
26 March 2015
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road, Hempstead, Holt, NR25 6LD for
Mrs V Purkiss
SITE VISIT:- 10 March 2015
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8JU for Mr & Mrs J Bonham
SITE VISIT:- 17 March 2015
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0626 - Use of land for siting six mobile units (4 caravans, 2
pods) for residential accommodation for family and friends and use of the
existing dwelling for shared facilities (amended description); 67 Cromer Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8DF for Mr & Mrs G Malone
SITE VISIT:- 17 March 2015
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0450 - Continued use of land as camp site and retention of
amenity block; The Barn, Bolding Way, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7SW for Mr C
Harrison
SITE VISIT:- 10 March 2015
(16) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
SUTTON – PF/14/0216 – Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage at Fairfield Church Road Sutton Norwich NR12 9SA
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
The Inspector found the main issue in this appeal to be “whether or not the proposal
represents an appropriate location for new housing, having regard to the principles of
sustainable development.” The relevant policies in the Council‟s adopted Core
Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework were summarised and the
Inspector then assessed the location of the application site and the availability of
local services and facilities. The Inspector found that whilst not remote, the appeal
dwelling “would be sufficiently detached from nearby settlements to be visually,
physically and functionally isolated from them.” As such the proposal would not
accord with Core Strategy policy SS2 nor the aims of paragraph 55 of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
Although the proposal offered some benefits (limited contribution towards housing
needs, local economic benefits, sustainable materials and removal of an existing
swimming pool) these were outweighed by the harm resulting from an isolated new
dwelling in this rural location in the Inspector‟s view.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
WALCOTT – ENF/14/0020 – Two Metre High Fence Adjacent to Highway at
“Desamy,” Lynton Road Walcott NR12 0NA
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED – NOTICE VARIED AND UPHELD
An Enforcement Notice („the Notice‟) was issued alleging that a breach of Planning
control had taken place, comprising the erection of a fence over one metre in height
adjacent to a highway. The notice required the fence to be reduced to a maximum
height of one metre with the period for compliance stated to be two months from the
effective date of the Notice.
Development Committee
92
26 March 2015
An appeal was made against the Notice on the grounds that the appellant was not
properly served, that there had been no breach, that the requirements of the Notice
were excessive and that a longer period should be allowed for compliance . Part of
the Appellant‟s case was an allegation that she had received advice from the Council
that Planning Permission was not required for the fence.
The appeal Inspector considered the cases put forward on behalf of the Appellant
and the Council and found as follows

the evidence suggests that the Appellant was served with the Notice but
refused to accept it.

Lynton Road is unmade but open to traffic and is therefore a highway. The
Appellant suggested that the road is private so not a „highway‟ but had
submitted no documentary evidence. The fence exceeds one metre in height
and is close to the edge of the road.

the Notice required the fence to be lowered to comply with the „permitted
development‟ right to erect a fence of up to one metre height adjacent to a
highway; this was not excessive.

the Council had no record of any advice being given (that the fence would
not require planning permission).
The Inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld the Notice subject to the extension to
the period for compliance from two months to four months.
(17) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
93
26 March 2015