OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 26 MAY 2011
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
CROMER - NNDC TPO (CROMER) 2010 No. 28 - Land at Compit Hills
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site that
would replace two older Orders.
Background
Two Area Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) were served at Compit Hills in 1951 and
1974 to protect the amenity value of the trees at that site and maintain the woodland
landscape. Under the current review of all the TPOs it was considered that the two
Compit Hills TPOs could be merged and updated to create a single Woodland Order
in line with Government guidelines since Area Orders are now seen as inappropriate.
Representations
One letter of objection was received from one resident (see Appendix 1), raising the
following concerns:
1. The height of the trees is causing shade and erosion to the banks in the area.
2. To protect every tree in the woodland would be detrimental to the quality of life of
residents.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s Human Rights, and the
general interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order
would be proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Appraisal
In response to the objection letter it is considered that appropriate management of
the trees along the edge of the woodland would reduce any detrimental impacts on
neighbouring properties. A TPO does not prevent appropriate management.
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the Woodland covered by the Order makes a significant
contribution to the setting and character of the site and the surrounding area.
Development Committee
1
26 May 2011
Officers consider that not confirming the Order would be detrimental to the amenity
of the area and would not meet the Government guidelines in relation to the TPO
review.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed
(Source: Simon Case Landscape Officer Ext 6142)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
CROMER - NNDC TPO (Cromer) 2011 No. 1 - Land at Burnt Hills
To determine whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site that will
replace an older Order.
Background
An Area Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was served at Burnt Hills in 1969 to protect
the amenity value of the trees at that site and maintain the woodland landscape.
Under the review of all the Council’s TPOs it was considered that the Burnt Hills TPO
could be updated to create a Woodland Order in line with Government guidelines as
Area Orders are now seen as inappropriate.
Representations
One letter of objection was received from one resident (Appendix 2) on the following
grounds:
1. The height of the trees is causing shade and damp to houses and gardens.
2. Lack of woodland management
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to Article 8:
The right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Appraisal
In response to the objection it is considered that appropriate management of the
trees along the edge of the woodland would reduce any detrimental impacts on
neighbouring properties. A TPO does not prevent appropriate management. The
current woodland management plan has been designed to protect the long term
health of the woodland for landscape and biodiversity.
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council's adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
Development Committee
2
26 May 2011
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
Officers consider that the Woodland covered by the Order makes a significant
contribution to the setting and character of the site and the surrounding area.
Officers consider that not confirming the Order would be detrimental to the amenity of
the area and would not meet the Government guidelines in relation to the TPO
review.
Recommendation:That the Order be confirmed
Source: (Simon Case Landscape Officer Ext 6142 )
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
3.
BLAKENEY - LA/11/0326 - Insertion of replacement windows and door;
Quayside Barn, The Quay for Mr Ewing
Target Date: 09 May 2011
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Listed Building Alterations
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/09/1144
HOU - Erection of replacement single-storey extension with roof
terrace above
Approved 12/01/2010
LA/09/1145 LA
Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of replacement extension
Approved 12/01/2010
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the replacement windows and doors to the eastern elevation of
the property.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issue:
Previous approvals at the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
No comment or objection
Development Committee
3
26 May 2011
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) Quayside Barn is Grade II Listed circa 17th Century. The barn by virtue of its age,
form, construction and detailing makes a significant contribution to the character and
appearance of the area.
With regard to the proposal, the existing windows are not original to the building and
are believed to date from the 1960s. They therefore, have little real intrinsic value
and are certainly not sacrosanct from replacement. This said, the leaded lights within
their frames do provide real subtlety and visual interest within the existing openings.
As such, they make a meaningful contribution to the building's overall appearance
and architectural quality. As they are also specifically mentioned in the list
description, it is considered that their loss would dilute the overall significance of the
heritage asset.
Therefore, whilst Conservation and Design have no objection to the principle of
replacing the existing windows, it is considered that the new windows should seek to
replicate the existing as far as is practical (given the desire for double glazing). This
should involve repeating the existing pattern of leaded lights rather than having the
relatively plain glazing shown. It would help to preserve the overall coherence of the
building which retains its leaded lights across the different ownerships.
Until such time as this amendment is made, Conservation and Design must object to
the application under Policy EN 8 of the Local Development Framework.
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 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 EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on historic character of the listed building and its setting.
APPRAISAL
Quayside Barn is a Grade II listed building and forms one property in a row of listed
cottages. In accordance with Policy EN 8 of the Core Strategy, proposals for
alterations to listed buildings are expected to preserve or enhance the character of
the historic building and their settings through high quality, inclusive design.
Furthermore, works that would have an adverse impact on their special historic or
architectural interest will not be permitted.
Development Committee
4
26 May 2011
Listed building consent was granted in 2010 under reference LA/09/1145 for the
demolition of a single-storey extension and erection of a replacement extension.
Simultaneously, planning permission was granted under reference PF/09/1144 for
the erection of a replacement single-storey extension with roof terrace above. The
plans submitted with the above applications indicated that the proposed window and
door would be leaded to match existing doors and windows on Quayside Barn and
neighbouring properties.
A condition was included on both of the above permissions requiring the submission
of a 1:10 scaled drawing of the proposed window and door, including a section
through the joinery, prior to their first installation. When the scaled drawing of the
window and door was submitted, it was overlooked that the leaded element of the
door and window had been removed from the proposal and, as such, the condition
was discharged with plain glazing.
Notwithstanding that permission exists for one plain glazed window and door, it is
considered that the scheme as proposed would further dilute the overall significance
of the heritage asset and the existing coherence of the building across the row of
cottages. Approval of this application would make it harder to resist similar alterations
to the neighbouring properties and would erode visual interest within the existing
openings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refusal on the basis of harm caused to the character and appearance of the
listed building and conflict with Policy EN 8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4.
BODHAM - PF/10/1469 - Continued siting of caravan for agricultural purposes
and 4 mobile animal shelters and erection of polytunnel; Windrush Farm, Hart
Lane for Mr D Gay
Minor Development
Target Date: 16 March 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
See also PF/11/0190 below.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20051159 PF - Retention of field shelter as commercial log store
Refused 06/09/2005
PLA/20070522 PF - Erection of three agricultural buildings and retention of 2.2m
high gate
Refused 10/07/2007
PF/09/1269 PF - Erection of agricultural building
Refused 06/10/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the continued siting of a caravan for agricultural purposes and four mobile
animal shelters and the erection of a polytunnel.
Development Committee
5
26 May 2011
The caravan proposed for retention measures approximately 10.6m long x 3.65m
wide and 3m high. This has recently been removed from the site as a result of
enforcement action to comply with a previous enforcement notice but still forms part
of the application to be determined.
The proposed polytunnel measures 18.2m length x 4.6m wide and 2.4m high and
would be constructed from a metal frame and covered with clear plastic. It would be
sited adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.
Four mobile animal shelters are proposed for retention although only three are
complete and in use, one is still in the form of a wheeled base and has no structure
above as yet.
Two of the four mobile animal shelters are located along the southern boundary of
the site and are of a timber construction and raised off the ground on a metal base.
The third shelter to be retained is located along the front, western boundary of the
site and is a metal storage container raised off the ground on a metal wheeled base.
It has a painted blue finish and double doors facing east into the application site.
The fourth structure yet to be erected would be sited on along the southern boundary
of the site and would be to the east of the existing timber buildings to be retained.
The four mobile animal shelters are indicated to house livestock although whether
this is for the pigs or chickens is not indicated.
Access to the proposed building would be as existing via Hart Lane.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control as the application is subject
to an appeal for non-determination and the decision that the Committee would have
made were it able to determine the application needs to be reported to the Planning
Inspectorate.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application. It is unsuitable for the site and the occupant has no right
to be there as there is no planning permission given for anything already there.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection received on the following grounds:
1. There is a history of a breach of planning on this site including enforcement
notices.
2. The mobile home is large and not suitable for agricultural use. There is no doubt it
will be used for non-agricultural purposes.
3. The siting of a polytunnel of the size proposed would be an eye sore and add to
the mess on the site.
4. Smell and unsanitary nature of the site and use of the buildings.
5. The structures give the site a shanty-town appearance which is detrimental to the
appearance of the countryside.
The applicant has indicated that the caravan would be used for the storage of straw,
animal feed, for pigs as a sick bay and during the winter months and also as a rest
area for a warm dry space and for sanitation for himself.
Development Committee
6
26 May 2011
The applicant indicates that the polytunnel would be used for growing fruit and
vegetables in the spring/summer but could be used to keep pigs in during the winter
months.
The applicant has indicated in writing that should application 11/0190 be approved he
would remove the buildings subject to this permission from the site as he would not
need both.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection
County Council (Highways) – Subject to the use of this building being ancillary to the
existing agricultural uses of the land and there being no commercial use whatsoever
being carried out from the site, there is no highways objection to the proposal.
Environment Agency - No objection to the proposals but would wish to add the
following advisory comments:
1. Pollution Prevention: The areas surrounding the livestock shelters can pose a
diffuse pollution risk to the nearby watercourse. These areas should not drain
directly to the watercourse. Manures from the livestock housing must be stored and
spread at least 10metres from any watercourse or ditch.
2. Foul Drainage: The applicant should ensure that the proposed septic tank is kept
in a good state of repair, regularly de-sludged and maintains sufficient capacity.
Please note that septic tanks must soakaway at least 10 metres from any
watercourse and that it is illegal for a septic tank to discharge into any watercourse,
including ditches.
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (Regulation
38(1)) makes it an offence to cause or knowingly permit poisonous, noxious or
polluting matter to enter inland freshwaters, groundwater, coastal waters and relevant
territorial waters except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental
permit or an exemption as provided for in the Regulations.
The proposed septic tank associated with this development will require an
Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010, from
the Environment Agency, unless an exemption applies.
Natural England - comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection subject to
conditions requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme illustrating adequate
planting to help screen the buildings and a condition requiring that the hedgerow on
the western boundary is maintained at a minimum height of 3m.
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 on an individual's Human Rights, and the general interest of the public,
approval of this application as recommended is considered to be justified,
proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
7
26 May 2011
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
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
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 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of this development in countryside.
2. Impact on character of the area.
3. Impact on residential amenity.
4. Highway safety.
5. Impact on the River Glaven
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where agricultural development
is permitted in principle providing it accords with other relevant Core Strategy
policies.
In terms of the siting of the mobile animal shelters, they are located along the
southern boundary of the site and are fairly well screened from the highway. The
boundary treatment to the south is delineated by trees and hedging plants. In
addition, to the south of the site there is a bund on the neighbouring property to
approx 2m in height with trees planted on top to screen the site from the property to
the south. In respect of the caravan and polytunnel sited towards the northern side of
the site, the northern boundary is well screened by mature planting and so provides a
good level of screening for the development to the wider area. The site is therefore
relatively enclosed by mature hedging and trees, and is not readily noticeable within
the surrounding rural landscape. However, despite not being easily visible in the
wider landscape, the cumulative impact of the buildings proposed to be retained
and/or erected and their type and poor construction materials (the timber buildings
and caravan being very domestic in appearance and the metal storage container
very commercial) result in unacceptable visual clutter which would be detrimental to
the rural setting of the site and would harm the visual amenity of the area.
Furthermore, the buildings proposed do not appear suitable for their intended
purposes.
In terms of the relationship with the nearby residential caravan to the east (at Drakes
Patch), Environmental Health have no objection to the scheme as the mobile shelters
and caravan are mobile and so, should an odour nuisance result, they could be relocated on the site to address the odour nuisance.
Development Committee
8
26 May 2011
The relationship of the buildings proposed/to be retained to neighbouring residential
properties to the north and south is considered to be acceptable. The
proposed/retained buildings would be approximately 110m from Franklins Farm to
the south and approximately 290m from the dwellings to the north. Given these
distances to the dwellings to the north and south the proposal is not considered likely
to result in any detrimental impact on the amenities of those dwellings in terms of
noise or odour.
The Committee will note that no objections have been raised by the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager, subject to a condition requiring the submission of a
landscaping scheme illustrating adequate planting to help screen the buildings and a
condition requiring that the hedgerow on the western boundary is maintained at a
minimum height of 3m.
In respect of highway safety, subject to the use of the buildings being ancillary to the
existing agricultural uses of the land and there being no commercial use carried out
from the site, County Council Highways have confirmed no objection subject to the
imposition of conditions.
With regard to potential impact on the tributary to the River Glaven from effluents
from the site, the Environment Agency has confirmed that it has no objection to the
proposal subject to the addition of advisory notes advising the applicant how to deal
with manure disposal, foul drainage and septic tanks to prevent pollution into the
River Glaven. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the requirements
of Policy EN13 in respect of pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation.
Therefore whilst the scheme is considered to be satisfactory in respect of a number
of issues it is still considered to be contrary to Development Plan policies EN2 and
EN4, with a fundamental objection based on the adverse impact on the visual
amenity of the area and the inappropriateness of the buildings by virtue of their
number and construction for the use of the land. It is therefore recommended that
the Committee indicates that it would have refused the application had it had the
power to do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the application would have
been refused for the following reason:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the cumulative impact of the
type and number of the buildings to be retained or erected would have a
significantly adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area, to the detriment
of the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. Furthermore
the proposed buildings to be retained/erected are not appropriate for the
proposed uses or area of the land in terms of number of buildings and their
construction. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of policies EN2
and EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Development Committee
9
26 May 2011
5.
BODHAM - PF/11/0190 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Windrush
Farm, Hart Lane for Mr D Gay
Minor Development
Target Date: 11 April 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Full Planning Permission
See also PF/10/1469 above.
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20051159 PF - Retention of field shelter as commercial log store
Refused 06/09/2005
PLA/20070522 PF - Erection of three agricultural buildings and retention of 2.2m
high gate
Refused 10/07/2007
PF/09/1269 PF - Erection of agricultural building
Refused 06/10/2010
PF/10/1469 PF - Continued siting of caravan for agricultural purposes and 4 mobile
animal shelters and erection of polytunnel
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of an agricultural building for the storage of straw and farm
machinery.
The proposed building would measure approximately 6.7m x 15.2m. It would have a
shallow pitched roof with an eaves of 3.2m and a ridge of 4.5m.
The steel frame building would have green painted finish tin box section cladding to
the roof and walls. The building would have two openings on the northern, front
elevation.
Access to the proposed building would be as existing via Hart Lane and an additional
hard surface would be laid on the site around the proposed building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issues:
1. Impact on the countryside.
2. Previous history of refusals for similar proposals on the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that the usage of the barn and activities on site may be a
possible cause of contamination at the source of the River Glaven.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection received on the following grounds:
1. The large scale of the building would be detrimental to the appearance and
character of the surrounding countryside.
2. There is a history of enforcement on this site.
3. There is no agricultural justification for such a large building on this site.
Development Committee
10
26 May 2011
4. Concern with animal welfare on the site currently. Allowing a structure to be built
would encourage more animals to be kept on the site leading to even greater animal
welfare issues.
5. Potential harmful impact on the River Glaven from effluents from the site.
6. Increase in farm traffic on highway.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – Subject to the use of this building being ancillary to the
existing agricultural uses of the land and there being no commercial use whatsoever
being carried out from the site, there is no highways objection to the proposal.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions which
include restricting the installation of any extractor or ventilation system unless a
scheme has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
and secondly that the building should not be used for the accommodation of
livestock.
Environment Agency - No objection to the proposal but would like to offer the
following advisory comments to ensure the protection of water quality in the River
Glaven system (summarised):
As there is a watercourse close to the proposed barn, care must be taken that only
clean, uncontaminated water is allowed to be discharged. It is unclear whether oils
will be stored within the shed as well as farm machinery, if this is the case advice is
given to ensure pollution is prevented.
Natural England - comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - 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 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy 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 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).
Development Committee
11
26 May 2011
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of this development in countryside.
2. Impact on character of the area.
3. Impact on residential amenity.
4. Highway safety.
5. Potential impact on the watercourse.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where agricultural development
is permitted in principle providing it accords with other relevant Core Strategy
policies.
In terms of the siting of the proposed building it would be located adjacent to the
southern boundary of the site, would be set back from the road, and would be fairly
well screened from the highway. The boundary treatment to the south is delineated
by trees and hedging plants. In addition, to the south of the application site on land in
the ownership of the neighbouring property, there is a bund some 2 metres in height
with trees planted on top to screen the site from the property to the south. The site is
therefore relatively enclosed by mature hedging and trees and is not readily
noticeable within the surrounding rural landscape. The design and materials are
considered to be acceptable for its agricultural use, subject to a condition ensuring
the colour finish is an appropriate green colour. In terms of scale, whilst the building
would be fairly large for the intended use, it would not be disproportionately large for
an agricultural building within a rural landscape of this nature. It is not therefore
considered, given the appropriate scale and screening of the site to the surrounding
area, that the proposal on its own would have a significantly detrimental impact on
the rural character of the area.
The Committee will note that no objections have been raised by the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager.
When assessing the impact on the rural landscape for this application the impact of
the proposed building alone has been considered and its cumulative impact if built in
addition to those already on the site. However, the application site is currently also
subject to an application and appeal for non-determination for the retention and
continued siting of a caravan for agricultural purposes, 4 mobile animal shelters and
for the erection of a polytunnel (10/1469) (also for consideration by the Committee at
this meeting). Also currently at appeal is the refusal of an agricultural building
proposed for the north west boundary of the site (behind Drakes Patch), under
reference 09/1269. The impact on the rural landscape of the proposed building is
only considered acceptable subject to the removal of all of the existing buildings on
the site. The cumulative impact of the existing buildings and that subject to this
application would not be acceptable. Furthermore the number of buildings that would
result should this application be approved and the others allowed on appeal, would
not be appropriate for the proposed uses and area of land which they would serve. It
is therefore considered, should the application be approved, that a Section 106
Obligation would be required to ensure that it is not implemented if any part of the
development for which planning permission may be granted at appeal (planning
applications 09/1269 and 10/1469) is begun or is in existence.
The relationship of the proposed building to neighbouring residential properties to the
north and south is considered to be acceptable. The proposed building would be
approximately 130m from Franklins Farm to the south and approximately 320m to the
dwellings to the north. Given these distances and subject to conditions suggested by
Development Committee
12
26 May 2011
Environmental Health regarding details of any mechanical ventilation installed, the
proposal is not considered likely to result in any detrimental impact on the amenities
of occupiers of those dwellings in terms of noise or odour.
In terms of impact on the amenities of the residential caravan to the east (Drake's
Patch), subject to a condition ensuring that the proposed building is not used for the
accommodation of livestock and the submission and approval of any scheme for
extraction or ventilation prior to its installation, Environmental Health have confirmed
no objection. In addition, the proposed building would be sited approx 50m to the
south east of the residential caravan and this distance would be sufficient to ensure
that no adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of the caravan, in terms of loss
of light or overbearing impact, would result. The relationship of the proposed
agricultural storage building with the residential caravan to the east is therefore
considered to be acceptable.
In respect of highway safety, subject to the use of the building being ancillary to the
existing agricultural uses of the land and there being no commercial use carried out
from the site, the Highway Authority has confirmed no objection, subject to the
imposition of conditions.
The proposal is considered to accord with the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to the applicant completing a Section 106
Obligation restricting the implementation of the permission should either
appeal for 09/1269 or 10/1469 be allowed, and to the imposition of conditions
including submission of external colour finish, restricting use to agricultural
storage only and not for the accommodation of livestock.
6.
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/11/0173 - Erection of replacement garage;
Riverside Cottage, The Street, Little London, Corpusty for Mr J Bannister
Target Date: 05 April 2011
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone 3
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a replacement garage measuring approximately 9.4m in length by
4.65m in width and 2.3m to eaves and 4.6m to the ridge.
The garage would be constructed of red/brown bricks and red roof tiles.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
issue:
Loss of light to the neighbouring property.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objections or comments
Development Committee
13
26 May 2011
REPRESENTATIONS
Objections received from the neighbour to the north on the following grounds:
Loss of light, in particular afternoon light to a living room window.
CONSULTATIONS
National Grid UK Transmission - comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on neighbouring property
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where this type of development
is considered acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant Development
Plan policies.
The proposals seeks to erect a replacement garage, with the gable ends facing
south-east and north-west. The garage would be built along the boundary with the
neighbouring property to the north. An existing, smaller garage would be removed.
In terms of the impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property, whilst the
proposed garage would be larger and approximately 1.35m taller than existing, it is
not considered that it would result in a significantly detrimental impact in terms of loss
of light to the neighbouring property. The roof would slope away from the
neighbouring property which would help to minimise any impact.
No windows have been proposed in the north-east elevation of the garage facing the
neighbouring garage and garden.
It is considered that the design of the proposed garage would be acceptable in
design terms and compliant with the aims of Policy EN4 of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including
restricting the use of the garage to ancillary use to Riverside Cottage and
removing permitted development rights for the insertion of windows in its
south-west elevation.
Development Committee
14
26 May 2011
7.
CROMER - PF/11/0387 - Construction of rear dormer window, installation of
side roof light and erection of replacement rear extension; Exton House, 1
Surrey Street for Mr R Price
Target Date: 26 May 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Householder application
See also LA/11/0388 below
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/10/1376 HOU - Erection of replacement rear extension, installation of dormer
window and introduction of gable end
Withdrawn by applicant 01/04/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a replacement rear extension, construction of a dormer window
to the rear elevation and the installation of two conservation roof lights, one to the
rear roof slope and the other to the northern hipped end of the roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a Member of the District Council
TOWN COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) – Whilst not objecting to the
replacement rear extension or rear dormer window considers that the roof light to the
hipped end, due to its position high up on the apex of the roof would constitute a
alien addition within the original roof structure which would be visible from various
vantage points and could only harm the significance of the listed building and wider
Conservation Area. For more detailed comments see response to application
LA/11/0388 below.
English Heritage - see response to application LA/11/0388 below.
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 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.
Development Committee
15
26 May 2011
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on historic character of listed building and surrounding Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
Exton House (formerly Cliffside) is a Grade II listed building situated on the southern
corner of The Gangway and Surrey Street and forms the northern end of the row of
attached listed properties, with The Gangway itself also being Grade II listed from the
north of Exton House to the sea.
The property is located within the designated Town Centre for Cromer as defined by
the adopted Core Strategy and is also within the Cromer Conservation Area where
extensions to domestic dwellings are considered acceptable in principle.
As far as the rear extension is concerned the existing extension is in a dilapidated
state and there is little historic material left to save - it is largely constructed from
block work and has a section of roof constructed using corrugated plastic. As such it
is considered that the replacement rear extension is of an appropriate design and
style for the dwelling and would mirror the extension to Newstead House which
adjoins to the south. Furthermore the extension would have no impact upon the
residential amenities of neighbouring properties.
In respect of the proposed dormer window to the rear elevation, in addition to its
overall scale and proportions being acceptable, it is not considered that it would give
rise to any significant issues of overlooking of neighbouring properties. Similarly the
roof light to the rear roof slope would be placed behind the chimney stack and would
therefore not be visible or result in any overlooking issues.
In terms of the proposed Conservation roof light with central bar to the northern
hipped end of the roof it is intended that this would be fairly high up on the hip and
would measure in the region of 1.18m x 0.66m and be flush with the roof tiles. Given
its position on the roof the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that it is considered that this would result in an alien feature which would be
visible from a number of vantage points and could only harm the significance of the
listed building and wider Conservation Area.
Therefore whilst it is acknowledged that the scheme would offer a good deal of
valuable repair and restoration work on balance it is considered that the introduction
of the roof light to the hipped end would harm the significance of the listed building
and wider Conservation Area and would not accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on the grounds that the roof light to the hipped end would harm the
significance of the listed building and wider Conservation Area.
Development Committee
16
26 May 2011
8.
CROMER - LA/11/0388 - Demolition and re-building of rear extension,
construction of rear dormer window, installation of rooflight, rendered plinth,
jib door, window to replace entrance door, new entrance door, uncover flint to
rear and internal refurbishment; Exton House, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
Target Date: 26 May 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Listed Building Alterations
See also PF/1/0387 above
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19970504 LA - Replacement roof
Approved 28/08/1997
LA/10/1377
LA - Internal alterations, door and window alterations, erection of
replacement rear extension, installation of dormer window and introduction of gable
end
Withdrawn by Applicant 01/04/2011
THE APPLICATION
The application is for several elements relating to the renovation and improvement of
the property. Externally these include the erection of a replacement rear extension,
construction of a dormer window to the rear elevation and the installation of two
conservation roof lights, one to the rear roof slope and the other to the northern
hipped end of the roof. In addition work would be carried out to remove the existing
cement render to the rear elevation, exposing the original brick work, re-point and
course the flint work and carry out minor repairs to the ashlars and other features.
To the front elevation it is proposed to introduce a jib door formed under the sash
window to provide access to the garden. Additionally to the side elevation to Surrey
Street the current front door would be replaced with a window and the former front
door reopened. The plastic rainwater goods would be replaced in cast iron.
Internally it is proposed to move the staircase from the second to third floor inwards
to improve headroom, convert a bedroom into a bathroom, create a shower room at
second floor level and remove the tongue and groove panelling, the secondary
double glazing and defective plaster work.
Amended plans have been received which clarify the detailing of the proposed rear
extension where it would abut the neighbouring property.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Applicant is a Member of the District Council
TOWN COUNCIL
No comment.
REPRESENTATIONS
Cromer Preservation Society
Strongly objects to the application on the grounds that in terms of the external
alterations the application fails to adequately demonstrate that the need for the
proposed application of render to the area of flintwork wall beneath the front sash
Development Committee
17
26 May 2011
window, or the necessity for sectioning the window sill in order insert a jib door. Not
aware of a precedent which would justify the removal of historic fabric in order to
create a garden entrance. In addition, although to a lesser extent, remains opposed
to the insertion of a dormer window to the rear roof slope due to its position close to
the chimney.
In respect of the internal alterations the application suggests that this does not clearly
identity the historic fabric which is to be removed and replaced within the internal
structure of this listed building. In addition no detailed architectural drawings of the
alterations have been submitted. Strongly opposed to the removal and replacement
of the upper portion of staircase which understand to be an original feature of the
listed building.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C&D) - As with the previous scheme
it can be concluded that a good proportion of the repairs and alterations are in the
best interest of this Grade II Listed Building; e.g. the re-pointing of the external
masonry, the removal of the rear elevation render, the replacement guttering and the
restoration of the front bay window. Also as before, the reconstruction of the rear
extension and the internal reordering at low level should not harm the significance of
the heritage asset. Similarly, despite initial reservations, it is also now considered that
the new dormer on the rear elevation (as reduced) is acceptable on balance.
However despite these positive aspects, the latest application still gives rise to some
genuine Conservation & Design concerns for the following reasons: 1. The jib door on the front elevation would constitute an inappropriate and
inauthentic feature on the building’s most important façade.
2. In its proposed position high up in the apex of the hip, the roof light would
constitute a somewhat alien addition within the original roof structure. It would also
presumably mean cutting through the principal hipped truss in the process.
3. The wholesale removal of the existing stair, and the cutting through of the floor
structure to form the new stair would in tandem result in the loss of a significant
amount of historic fabric. As it now appears (on the balance of probabilities) that the
third floor was only ever intended as an attic space (rather than for accommodation),
it is not considered that the justification for the work outweighs its impact.
Therefore whilst there is general support for all of the elements which seek to
positively conserve its special interest and character as with all listed properties,
there are always constraints and limitations on how much change a building can
support without harming its significance. A balance therefore has to be struck
between individual circumstances and the wider public interest in protecting the
heritage asset. For the reasons identified above, it is not considered that the balance
has been correctly struck. As a result refusal of the application is recommended.
English Heritage – Whilst not objecting to the principle of improving the attic
accommodation considers that moving the stairs would result in the loss of significant
historic fabric and the insertion of the roof light to the hipped end would result in a
discordant addition to a prominent roof slope adversely affecting the appearance of
the building. Furthermore the creation of a jib door would unbalance the front
elevation and change the circulation within the house.
Development Committee
18
26 May 2011
Georgian Group - Have serious reservations regarding both the quality of the
information provided in order to justify the proposal and the impact of the proposal
themselves on the appearance and significance of the listed building.
Ancient Monuments Society - Awaiting comments.
Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings - Awaiting comments.
Victorian Society - Awaiting comments.
Council for British Archaeology - Awaiting comments.
Twentieth Century Society - Awaiting comments.
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service - No objection subject to
conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
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 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 EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on historic character of listed building.
APPRAISAL
Exton House (formerly Cliffside) is a Grade II listed building situated on the southern
corner of The Gangway and Surrey Street and forms the northern end of the row of
attached listed properties, with The Gangway itself also being Grade II listed from the
north of Exton House to the sea.
The property is located within the designated Town Centre for Cromer as defined by
the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy where Policy EN8 is
applicable. This requires that development proposals, including alterations and
extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated
assets, in this case the listed building and wider Conservation Area and their settings
through high quality, sensitive design. Furthermore development that would have an
adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
Development Committee
19
26 May 2011
It is generally accepted that at the present time Exton House is in a fairly run down
condition and that significant works are required to upgrade its appearance and
secure its future. To that end it is considered that there are many positive elements to
the scheme, including the replacement of the rear extension, removal of the hard
cement render to the rear elevation and replacing the plastic rainwater goods in with
cast iron. However these positive elements have to be balanced against the more
damaging changes to the appearance of the building, loss of historical features and
fabric, in particular moving the staircase between the second and third floor,
introduction of the roof light and jib door to the front elevation and the insertion of a
roof light to the hipped end of the roof to which English Heritage and the Council’s
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager have objected.
Therefore whilst it is acknowledged that the scheme would offer a good deal of
valuable repair and restoration work given the concerns raised by consultees it is
considered that the works would harm the significance of the listed building and
would not accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on the grounds that the removal of the existing stair, introduction of the
new staircase, together with the roof light and jib door would result in the loss
of historic fabric and harm the significance of the listed building.
9.
FAKENHAM - PO/10/1468 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land at
Rudham Stile Lane for Fakenham Town Council
Minor Development
Target Date: 01 March 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/10/1208 PO - Erection of two semi-detached single-storey dwellings
Withdrawn by applicant 30/11/2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of one single-storey dwelling on land at Rudham Stile Lane which
is currently used as a public play area and green space.
Approval of means of access, layout and scale are sought at this stage, with
appearance and landscaping being reserved for a further application.
The application has been amended, including removal of an oak tree from the north
western corner of the site, to be replaced by a new oak tree on the south-eastern
corner of the site.
A new footpath would be created along the western boundary of the site to maintain
public access from Rudham Stile Lane through to North Park.
A new vehicular access to the site would be created on to Rudham Stile Lane.
The Design and Access Statement indicates that the proposed dwelling would have
an attached garage and two parking spaces on site.
Development Committee
20
26 May 2011
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
The Committee of the Town Council is discussing the application as no Councillors
have a pecuniary or other interest in this application. The Council as a corporate
body wish to obtain outline planning permission on this piece of land to raise funds to
improve services to the community i.e. new play equipment, new machinery, add
facilities to the cemetery chapel. The Town Council agrees to remove the Oak tree
and plant a new Oak.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection have been received from 5 residents on the following grounds:
1. The removal of the tree is unnecessary as is healthy and is a roosting point for
various birds.
2. Highway safety concerns with the new access to the development on this heavily
used road junction at the summit of a hill and on a bend.
3. New footpath alleyway could become area for anti-social behaviour.
4. An application for Village Green status has been made.
5. The area was designated as a children's playground and green space when North
Park was built.
6. Loss of views across fields from properties to the south.
The applicant has provided details and their reasoning behind the proposed
development in the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application.
This is attached as Appendix 3.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) With reference to the consultation received recently to the above development
proposal, this site has been the subject of informal advice and a previous application
10/1208.
The current proposal for a single dwelling proposes that the footpath is continued
along the edge of the proposal site to ensure safe passage for the residents. This
maintains the current situation.
Subject to certain criteria I can confirm that I do not wish to raise an objection to this
proposal; therefore should your Authority be minded to approve, I would request that
conditions are appended which include submission of full details to illustrate surface
water drainage, visibility splays, parking provision in accordance with adopted
standard, turning areas and footway construction details. In addition the vehicular
access should be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan, the
construction specification should be in accordance with details to be approved and
arrangement should be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and
disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway
carriageway.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Original comments - The proposed new footway will be in direct conflict with the Oak
tree on the site and will need specialised construction so that it does not harm the
tree or the tree does not damage the new path in the future.
The tree is a poor specimen and has a large cavity in the main stem that will increase
the risk of structural failure in the future. The tree is to the west of the dwelling and
therefore will cast shade in the late afternoon reducing the liveability area of the plot.
Development Committee
21
26 May 2011
It is suggested that given the position and quality of the tree that it be felled and a
new standard tree be planted to the eastern edge of the plot.
Comments on amended plans (removal and replacement of tree):
I can confirm that the CD&L section accepts the amended plan in relation to the Oak
tree on the site.
Community Safety Manager - Comments awaited.
Sustainability Co-ordinator In order to comply with Policy EN6 permission should only be approved with a
condition requiring that the dwelling achieves a Code Level 3 rating or above in
accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
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
Comments are awaited from the Community Safety Manager in respect of concerns
raised regarding potential anti-social behaviour at the new footpath link.
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 HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of the development.
2. Highway safety issues.
3. Neighbours' amenities.
4. Amenities for future occupiers of proposed dwelling.
5. Removal of tree.
6. Community safety issues.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting for a site visit.
Development Committee
22
26 May 2011
The site is located within the Development Boundary for Fakenham, a Principal
Settlement as defined by the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core
Strategy in an area designated as residential, where, subject to compliance with Core
Strategy Policies EN4, CT5 and CT6, the principle of development is considered to
be acceptable. Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high
quality, reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. In addition proposals should have regard for the North
Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
The site at present is used as a small area of public open space. Policy CT1
designates important open land areas within settlement boundaries in order to retain
and protect these open spaces from the pressure of development to protect the
visual and amenity contribution they make. This particular site has not been
designated as an open space area under the Core Strategy and it is not therefore
considered an important land area for its recreation or visual amenity. The site lies
within the designated residential area in which the principle of residential
development is acceptable.
The Committee will note that an objector has confirmed making an application to
Norfolk County Council for the registration of the land as a Village Green. Clearly, if
the Village Green application is granted by County Council this would have
implications on the applicants' ability to carry out the development. However, this is
a separate matter from the consideration of the planning application.
With regard to the highway impact of the proposal, the Highway Authority has raised
no objection to the proposed development, considering that appropriate visibility
splays, parking and turning provision and surface water drainage can be achieved
and subject to conditions requiring submission of plans and details that satisfactorily
demonstrate these that the proposal would not result in any highway safety issues.
Additional plans received satisfactorily indicate the required visibility splay and
parking and turning areas in accordance with highway standards. The proposal
therefore accords with Policy CT5 of the Core Strategy.
Whilst the application does not indicate how many bedrooms are proposed, Policy
CT 6 requires two parking spaces for a 2/3 bed property, which it is considered, given
the single storey nature of the proposal and proposed footprint, the development
would not exceed. The Design and Access Statement indicates that the design
would include an attached garage, but the internal dimensions of the garage would
not be large enough for the garage to be counted as a parking space. However there
is sufficient space to the front of the site to accommodate parking for two cars and for
turning within the application area. It is therefore considered that a satisfactory
parking and turning layout could be achieved to comply with the parking standards in
accordance with Policy CT 6.
In terms of neighbours' amenities, given the single storey nature of the proposed
dwelling, it is considered that a scheme could be delivered at reserved matters stage
which complied with the Council's Basic Amenity Criteria which would protect the
amenities of the adjacent dwellings in terms of privacy and scale.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plot, a sufficient private garden
area of adequate size and shape to serve its intended purpose is achieved and, in
line with North Norfolk Design guide recommendations, the area of the plot given to
private amenity space is no less than the footprint of the dwelling.
Development Committee
23
26 May 2011
Whilst landscaping has been reserved for consideration at a later stage, it is
considered that a suitable landscaping scheme could be achieved which would
protect the visual amenity of the area and would protect the residential amenities of
adjacent properties. Furthermore, whilst some concern has been expressed by local
residents regarding the removal of the existing Oak tree on the site, the Council's
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has advised, given that the tree is a
poor specimen and has a large cavity and its position would cast shade in the late
afternoon reducing the liveability area of the plot, that the tree should be removed
and a new tree planted to the eastern edge of the plot. The applicant therefore
amended the application in line with this recommendation. It is therefore considered
that the removal of the existing tree would not result in any adverse impact on the
visual amenity of the area and the replacement tree at the other end of the site would
be in an appropriate location.
The proposal complies with the housing density requirements in accordance with
Policy HO 7.
In respect of sustainable construction and energy efficiency, suitable conditions are
required to ensure that the Code for Sustainable Homes requirements are met, in
accordance with Policy EN 6.
The Community Safety Manager has been consulted concerning crime and disorder
issues but no response has been received to date.
In summary, the proposed dwelling is considered to raise no highway safety
implications. In addition, the scale and layout would accord with Core Strategy
policies, having no adverse impact on the amenities of nearby properties or on the
visual amenity of the area. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the
Development Plan subject to conditions and the amended plan detailed above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of conditions including those requested by
the Highway Authority regarding submission of details of surface water
drainage and footway construction, vehicular access, visibility splay and
parking/turning areas being constructed in accordance with the approved plan,
and compliance with Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
10.
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0361 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Briar
Patch, 8 Sculthorpe Road for Mrs K Harris
Minor Development
Target Date: 13 May 2011
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090661 - Erection of one single-storey dwelling and two semi-detached twostorey dwellings
Approved 01/09/2009
Development Committee
24
26 May 2011
PM/10/0144 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and two semi-detached two-storey
dwellings
Approved 01/04/2010
PF/11/0063 - Erection of detached one and a half-storey dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 10/03/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a split level dwelling having a total floor area of some 115
square metres, within part of the front garden area of No. 8 Sculthorpe Road.
The dwelling which would be "L" shaped in form would abut the western boundary of
the site and consist of a two storey element to the north, closest to No. 8 Sculthorpe
Road, which would provide a bedroom at first floor whilst the remainder of the
accommodation which would incorporate a second bedroom, kitchen sitting room and
hallway would be single storey. The dwelling would be 'semi barn like' in its
appearance, utilising a mix of red brick and timber boarding to the external walls,
under a clay pantile roof.
To the frontage of the site the existing access driveway serving No. 8 Sculthorpe
Road would be blocked and a new central access created closer to the junction with
the Wells Road which would serve both properties, with separate car parking and
turning areas.
A new garden area would be created to the front of the proposed dwelling having an
area of some 106 sq metres and a frontage hedgerow would be planted to match the
remainder of the boundary with Sculthorpe Road. To the north of the proposed
dwelling there would be a small walled patio area. The garden to the rear of No. 8
Sculthorpe Road which has an area of some 200 sq metres would be retained for
use by that property.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in the light of objections
raised.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and the design not
being in keeping with other properties in the area. In addition, they suggest that the
infrastructure of the area is inadequate for both surface water and sewage and
another dwelling would only exacerbate the problem.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of objection have been received from local residents which raise the
following concerns (summarised).
1. Overdevelopment of the site and out of character with the area.
2. The development would necessitate the excavation of a considerable amount of
earth which could adversely affect our property.
3. The proposed dwelling would have a major and detrimental impact on an existing
property and would cast a shadow on the rear garden area, where there is
currently a patio and sitting out area.
4. Moving the access closer to the junction with Wells Road, which is heavily used
by HGVs, buses and other vehicles would adversely affect highway safety,
5. Could result in increased car parking problems in the area with guests and
visitors parking on Sculthorpe Road.
Development Committee
25
26 May 2011
6. The proposed dwelling would not enhance the appearance of Sculthorpe Road
and would be a carbuncle on the landscape.
7. The development would put extra demands on the existing water and sewage
systems.
8. The proposed dwelling would considerably reduce the land around the existing
dwelling.
9. Lack of turning space for No. 8 Sculthorpe Road.
10. This area of Sculthorpe Road consists mainly of large houses with mature
gardens and open vistas and the erection of the proposed dwelling would not site
comfortably with the building lines and adjacent properties.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions and considers that a
new, relocated shared access, would result in significant improvement to visibility
over the current access to No. 8 Sculthorpe Road.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy 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. Design/impact on character and appearance of area.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Parking and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the development boundary for Fakenham as defined by the
adopted Core Strategy in an area primarily in residential use, where in principle the
proposed development would be acceptable subject to compliance with Policies EN4,
CT5 and CT6.
Development Committee
26
26 May 2011
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, have regard
to the North Norfolk Design Guide, and be of a scale and massing that relates
sympathetically to the surrounding area in terms of its density and character and at
the same time makes efficient use of land. In addition, innovative and energy efficient
design will be particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local
context and does not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will
not be acceptable. Proposals should also not have a significantly detrimental effect
on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide
acceptable residential amenity.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that adequate vehicle parking facilities will be provided
by the developer to serve the needs of the proposed development and that the
proposal is capable of being served by safe access to the highway network without
detriment to the amenity or character of the locality.
This area of Fakenham consists of a mix of architectural styles and periods of
buildings with dwellings to either side of the Wells Road being set in fairly large plots
with extensive gardens. At the eastern end of Sculthorpe Road, until the recent
development of the rest of the site, No. 8 Sculthorpe Road was also situated in a
fairly large plot. However as a result of that development there are two semidetached two-storey dwellings to the east, adjacent to Wells Road, with a bungalow
to the north. To the west of the site is a modern two storey dwelling, No. 10
Sculthorpe Road. However on the southern side of the Sculthorpe Road there is a
mix of cottages and other buildings dating from the 19th Century, some of which abut
the back edge of the footpath, and which have fairly modest rear gardens. Almost
directly opposite the site is a barn-like building which runs parallel to the road which
is on the frontage of No. 1 Sculthorpe Road.
Given the mix, scale and period of buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site, it is
considered that although the dwelling would be set some 4 metres forward of No. 10
Sculthorpe Road it would not be out of keeping in the street scene, especially as it
would have a 15 metre deep garden area to the frontage of the site. In addition, in
the longer term its impact would be softened by the proposed hedgerow on the
frontage. Furthermore, due to the combination of a single storey hipped roofed wing
to the frontage, two storey pitched roof element to the rear and utilisation of levels
across the site, when compared to the adjoining properties the overall height of the
dwelling would be some 2.5 metres lower. As such the overall scale and massing of
the proposed dwelling are considered to be acceptable. Elevationally the use of a mix
of red brick and timber cladding to the walls under a clay pantile roof, although
presenting a building having a barn like appearance, would it is considered, make a
positive contribution to the mix of architectural styles in the area.
In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, with the exception of No. 8
Sculthorpe Road, the only other dwelling potentially affected is No.10 Sculthorpe
Road. This two storey property is situated immediately to the west and has a gable
end with a ground floor lounge window situated approximately 3.4 metres from the
boundary which is formed by a double row of Leylandii, some 2.5m in height, which
extend back some 28 metres into the site from the edge of the carriageway. The rest
of the boundary to the north which encloses the rear garden of No. 10 is formed by a
close boarded fence some 1.8m in height.
The scheme as proposed would involve the removal of the row of Leylandii within the
site and their replacement with a close boarded fence. Although the proposed
dwelling at its closet point would be within 700mm of the boundary the eaves height
of the single storey element due to the levels would only be 1.8m. Given the height of
Development Committee
27
26 May 2011
the existing Leylandii and the fact that the roof would slope away from the boundary
at an angle of 30 degrees it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would
increase the incident of loss of light to the ground floor window.
Furthermore, given that the overall height of the two storey element would only be
some 6m and the roof would slope north/south and the dwelling would be to the east
of the neighbouring property, it is not considered that there would be any significant
loss of light to the rear garden area of No 10. The only roof lights which would have
the potential for overlooking the rear garden of the neighbouring property would
serve the stairs and shower room. However again, due to the levels within the
building, these would be set at a high level. As far as the issues raised by the
neighbours regarding damage to their property from the excavation of the site are
concerned, although the development would involve the removal of soil within the
area of the building this is likely to be no more than 1 metre at the maximum point.
As far as the relationship between the proposed dwelling and No. 8 Sculthorpe Road
is concerned, due to the proposed layout combined with the change in levels the only
possible overlooking of the site from No. 10 would be from the front first floor
windows, but from here the main view would be of the car parking and turning area. It
is therefore considered that the dwelling as proposed would not result in any adverse
amenity issues to either property. In terms of the amenity area for the proposed
dwelling a garden area in the region of 106 sq metres would comply with this amenity
criterion in the North Norfolk Design Guide.
As far as the car parking and turning area is concerned, in the case of both the
existing and proposed dwellings this would comply with the parking standards
contained in the Core Strategy and it would be possible to turn within the site and
enter the highway in a forward gear. In respect of the proposed new access the
Highway Authority has indicated this to be an improvement in terms of visibility.
It is therefore considered that whilst this is a close-knit form of development, in this
particular case it would not be out of character with the area and would provide an
interesting and innovative style of development which would contribute positively to
the street scene. Furthermore the development would not significantly affect the
amenities of neighbouring properties, and would provide adequate amenities and
parking for both dwellings. The development would therefore accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including the
removal of permitted development rights restricting any further extension of
the dwelling.
11.
HICKLING - PM/11/0176 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land between
Golden Gables and Harrow Weald, Staithe Road for Mr Newman
Minor Development
Target Date: 06 April 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Reserved Matters
CONSTRAINTS
Flood Zone
Countryside
Development Committee
28
26 May 2011
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20080690 PO - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Approved 24/06/2008
THE APPLICATION
Is for a three bedroom, single-storey dwelling, including access, appearance,
landscaping, layout and scale for determination.
Amended plans received reducing the depth of the dwelling by 4 metres and
redesigning the front elevation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control in the light of the objections
received.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objected to the original plans.
Support the amended plans but also comment that the plot is still being overbuilt
considering the surrounding properties.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection were received from the adjoining properties objecting to the
original proposal for reasons of design, length of the new dwelling and loss of light
One letter of objection received to the amended plan from the residents of an
adjoining property agreeing that it was an improvement but still concerned about the
amount the new dwelling projects beyond the rear of the neighbouring dwellings.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - no objection subject to conditions.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - no comments received.
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
29
26 May 2011
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
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. Design
2. Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Countryside policy area where new dwellings are not normally
permissible. However, this site has an extant outline planning permission and so the
dwelling has already been approved in principle.
Although narrow the plot is deep and the proposal would use the depth of the plot to
maximum effect by the linear design of the proposed dwelling. The ridge height of
the proposed bungalow would be marginally lower than that of the bungalow to the
north-west, and with the bulk of the building projecting rearwards, its scale within the
street view is not considered intrusive.
Originally, there were concerns over the scale and layout of the proposed dwelling in
relation to the adjoining dwellings. However, the amended plans would reduce the
depth of the dwelling by 4m at the rear and indicate a redesigned front elevation.
Both of these changes would significantly improve relationships with the properties
on either side. Whilst the proposal would not comply with the Residential Amenity
Criteria, this is unavoidable given the location and spacing of the side windows in the
neighbouring property. Moreover, the amended scheme is considered to provide a
better relationship than could be achieved with a conventional full frontage design.
This area of Hickling includes a mix of traditional and modern dwellings with no
particular character or style prevailing. The design proposed is a modern approach
with feature glazing, stained vertical larch boarding and external walls in a mix of light
render finish and quality bricks under a clay pantile roof. Given the lightness of the
design and the quality materials combined with the scale and layout of the design it is
considered that the proposed dwelling would preserve the existing form and
character of the village.
The issue of flood risk was satisfactorily dealt with as part of the outline planning
application.
On balance, it is considered that the new dwelling is an acceptable addition to this
part of the village and the proposal generally complies with the policies of the
Development Plan. Consequently, the proposal is recommended for approval but
given the amount of plot coverage it is considered necessary to remove permitted
development rights for extensions to the dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including access,
car parking and turning requirements and the removal of permitted
development rights.
Development Committee
30
26 May 2011
12.
NEATISHEAD - PF/10/1353 - Construction of 5 mw solar generating facility;
RAF Neatishead, Irstead Street for PV Farms 04 Ltd
Major Development
Target Date: 23 May 2011
Case Officer: Mr P Rhymes
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Contaminated Land
Scheduled Ancient Monument
Listed Building Grade II
Listed Building Grade II*
Countryside
Airbase Technical Area
THE APPLICATION
Construction of a 1.5mw solar generating facility at RAF Neatishead. The site covers
a total area of 12.9 hectares, 3.5 hectares of which would be utilised as part of the
solar installations.
The application has been amended to reduce the extent and location of the
installation. The Solar Panels would cover an area of approximately 3.5 hectares,
accommodating between 6,500 and 7,000 panels which would generate between
1.5MW and 1.75MW of electricity. The panels themselves measure 1.65m in height
by 0.95m wide and are positioned at an angle of 37 degrees. The panels are
mounted on a metal frame and piled into the ground. The total height once mounted
would be approximately 2.8m.
The proposed photovoltaic array is designed to absorb sunlight for conversion to
electricity and then this is exported back to the National Grid with the period of
generation expected to last 25 years. The application is accompanied by a Heritage
Statement.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments on the original proposal. Objection, insufficient information, impact on the
rural landscape and nearby houses.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising the following
points:
Impact upon landscape character and fixing the panels to highest building on the site
increasing visual impact.
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage (Original Plans)
The installation of solar panels is likely to have a direct impact upon a number of
heritage assets within the compound of the former RAF Radar Station. This
development is also likely to have a detrimental impact on the setting of these assets.
Development Committee
31
26 May 2011
The assets are of national importance and in some cases have international
significance. The surviving Type 84 radar for example was one in a chain which
existed across Europe, of which this is the only surviving example. These assets
have in some cases been designated they are the only surviving examples, others
because they represent unusual technological developments from the 2nd World War
and Post War Periods.
The economic future of the site is likely to be best served by a variety of approaches
of which each constituent part provides value, but does not itself damage the site.
This could include the use of the bunker for secure storage, data deposition and
retrieval systems as well as a variety of business uses for other buildings on the site
including storage, leisure, and tourism.
We are also concerned that this development would restrict options for future
economic use of the site. In particular by taking away space that could form part of
the future plans to re-use the ancillary buildings and so jeopardise both their longterm conservation and the wider sustainability of the site. We also consider the
proposals contrary to policies HE9.2 and HE10.1 of PPS5 and would object to the
granting of permission.
Re the amended plans - comments awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Concerning the amended plans, in terms of designations and recognised heritage
assets RAF Neatishead represents the full spectrum, having one Grade II* Listed
Building, two Grade II Listed Buildings and one Scheduled Ancient Monument. Due
to its rarity, completeness and relatively unaltered condition the site is recognised as
being of international significance.
RAF Neatishead is a unique survival from an era of fast changing technology and
innovation, the site portrays the full development of a radar station from the 1940s
through to the present day. Indeed it is an exemplar site, representing the last of its
kind.
With regard to the current proposal, any future use for the site needs to respect and
complement the existing buildings and their inter-relationships. The revised scheme
shows significantly reduced site coverage of PV installations and achieves some
balance between the amount of PV installations and the historic environment. The
primary concern must be however the setting of the various heritage assets and the
impact of the solar panels. The revised scheme does now take into account existing
views and inter-relationships of structures within the base. The panels have also
been removed from the most sensitive areas and away from the designated assets
which alleviates some of the heritage concerns.
There are obvious merits in having the site back in permanent use, hence securing
the long-term viability of the site.
It will be important for the site to be managed and maintained properly. The
applicants have indicated a desire to fulfil this objective. A Section 106 Agreement is
recommended requiring that funds are retained for the ongoing maintenance of the
whole site over the next 25years.
Taking all relevant policies into account and given the technological nature of the site
together with the reduced coverage of panels, it is considered that the application is
acceptable.
Development Committee
32
26 May 2011
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) In respect of the amended plan
The significant reduction in the number of proposed solar panels across the former
RAF base will help alleviate the perception that a change in character is occurring at
the site. The principal heritage assets and RAF buildings will remain largely
unaffected by the solar panels, and with the exception of the south-west corner of the
site the solar panels will generally be obscured from public view.
I remain concerned that solar panels are still shown illustrated on the plans in the
south-west of the site where there is significant tree and shrub cover. This is an
important part of the landscaping of the site and the retention of the trees in this area
is required in order for the application to proceed satisfactorily from a landscape
perspective.
Subject to the retention of the hedgerows on the south, north, east and west
boundaries of the former RAF base, and subject to the removal of solar panels and
the retention of the trees and shrubs in the south-west corner of the site, it is
considered that the application would be in accord with the requirements of Policy
EN2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.
Sustainability Co-ordinator We support this application which will deliver a significant increase in the supply of
renewable energy production in the District, as well as helping to diversify the energy
mix in the district. The development would also represent a significant investment in
an emerging renewable technology (solar photovoltaics).
Environmental Protection - No objection
Horning Parish Council Comments on original plans - solar units should not be positioned on the roofs of
listed buildings. Concerned about glare and visual nuisance.
Comments awaited on amended plans.
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology Original comments The impact of the development on the setting of the designated heritage assets
needs to be addressed. We therefore ask that the application is re submitted with a
heritage statement which should consider the impact of the proposed development
on the significance of the heritage assets in accordance with PPS5.
Comments awaited in respect of the amended proposal.
Broads Authority - No objection
Ministry of Defence - No objection
Ancient Monuments Society - No comments received.
Council for British Archaeology - No comments received.
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings - No comments received.
Twentieth Century Society - No comments received.
Victorian Society - No comments received.
Development Committee
33
26 May 2011
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 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 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 EC 4: Redundant defence establishments (specifies criteria for development at
redundant defence establishments).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on character and setting of designated heritage assets and the historic
environment
2. Impact on landscape character/screening
3. Sustainability
4. Economic value
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the last meeting for a site visit.
RAF Neatishead is the longest-running operational radar base in Britain. It is also
recognised as being the most complete surviving decommissioned airbase
demonstrating technological developments from 1940s and throughout the post war
period. The majority of the site was decommissioned in 2006.
The adopted Core Strategy identifies RAF Neatishead as Airbase Technical Area 4,
to which Policy EC4 directly relates.
Following in-depth discussions including the applicant, Officers and English Heritage
the revised scheme is considered to represent a compromise, balancing the
economic feasibility of the scheme against the impact on the historic environment
and landscape character. This revised scheme concentrates the panels in the northeastern and south-western peripheries of the site. The location of the panels on the
boundary of the site would allow the most important internal views and inter-
Development Committee
34
26 May 2011
relationship of historic structures to remain intact. Panels have also been removed
from the most sensitive locations on the site, the raised ground to the north, the
bunker, Listed buildings and Ancient Monuments reducing the visual impact of the
development. At the time of writing this report the formal views of English Heritage
on the amended proposal were awaited.
In terms of direct impact on the existing buildings, the panels would only be sited on
structures which date from the 1990s including pre-fabricated constructions, none of
which are designated or considered to be of particular heritage significance. This
said, the installations would affect the setting of the eight designated heritage assets
on the site. The relative openness of the site contributes to its significance and allows
for the ability to see the various elements of site together, this being the key
characteristic of the base.
Policies EN2, EN4 and EN8 require that proposals for development should be
informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas identified in the
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment. Development proposals should
demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve
and, where possible, enhance the character and appearance of the area.
Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) states
that there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated
heritage assets and the more significant the designated asset, the greater the
presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Policy HE10.1: When
considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset,
local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those
elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the
significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local
planning authorities should weigh any such harm against wider benefits of the
application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset,
the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.
Given the 'technological' character of the site and the introduction of a reduced
number of photovoltaic panels over only part of the site, it is now considered that an
acceptable balance has been achieved. However there are issues relating to
landscape and historic setting that still need to be addressed. It is advised that
conditions be attached to any permission in respect of landscaping. A Section 106
Obligation for long-term maintenance and management of the site and its heritage
assets is also recommended, the detailed terms of which will require further
negotiation. Subject to this the proposal is considered to accord with the adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new grounds of objection being
received on expiry of the period for advertisement of the amended plans, and a
Section 106 Obligation covering maintenance of buildings/structures on site
and the imposition of appropriate conditions to include the retention of the
hedgerows on the south, north, east and west boundaries of the site.
Development Committee
35
26 May 2011
13.
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/0171 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; Land off Weston Terrace for Mr R Hall
Minor Development
Target Date: 08 April 2011
Case Officer: Miss T Lincoln
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area (adjacent)
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling and detached garage on land off
Weston Terrace. The parcel of land subject to the application runs to the rear of nos
73-91 Beeston Road. Only access is to be considered at this stage, which would be
from Weston Terrace.
Whilst only indicative the submitted Design and Access Statement indicates that the
proposed dwelling would be two storey and would have approx 200sqm floor area
over the two storeys.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Hannah having regard to the following planning issue:
Contribution to housing need in Sheringham.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of comment and one letter of objection received on the following grounds:
1. Vehicular access from Weston Terrace on to Beeston Road is very poor with bad
visibility, is single file and unmade.
2. Any permission granted would have to ensure that the access road would be made
up to highway standards and that passing places were included and development
was limited to only one house.
3. Concern with construction vehicles required for any development damaging
access track and properties along the track.
4. Concern with potential loss of light.
5. Concern with overlooking.
6. Loss of view to Beeston Bump.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (C&D) Although it could be argued that the proposed dwelling would not really be in keeping
with the form and character of the surrounding area, this is not a development which
raises any real conservation or design implications. No substantive observations or
comments are therefore offered.
Sustainability Co-ordinator No objection subject to compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes code level
3 or above.
Development Committee
36
26 May 2011
County Council Highway Authority Introduction and Local Context
The application proposes the erection of one new two storey family dwelling to the
rear of 77 Beeston Road, with access gained via an unadopted track, Weston
Terrace.
Weston Terrace is a gravelled unadopted cul-de-sac, providing access to 15
dwellings and garaging for 69 and 77 Beeston Road. It forms an access onto
the adopted highway network, the C507 Beeston Road, some 35m to the west of
the application site
The C507 Beeston Road is street lit and subject to a 30mph speed limit. The
C507 Beeston Road provides a link between the town centre and the A149
Coast Road, whilst also providing access to the sizeable residential area to the
east of Sheringham Town Centre.
Site History
This site has been the subject of informal advice DE21/09/0478 in March and
September 2010, where the Highway Authority commented as follows:‘the proposed development would either increase the use of a substandard access,
increased on-street parking or lead to an increase in reversing on the highway, all of
which would be considered detrimental to highway safety and subsequently raise an
objection.’
Visibility
The access which will serve this proposal onto the C507 Beeston Road is narrow at
between 2.6 and 3.6m in width, which is unsuitable for two way movements at any
point.
The visibility requirement as given in ‘Manual for Streets’ (DfT and C&G 2007) is that
for where vehicles are travelling at 30 Mph, visibility splays measuring 43m are
required in both directions from a 2.4m setback distance, measured at a point 1.05m
above ground (the assumed eye height of a car driver).
At its junction with the C507 Beeston Road, Weston Terrace has severely limited
visibility in both directions, due to the existence of the roadside boundary hedges to
71 and 73 Beeston Road.
Visibility is restricted to approximately 2m in the trafficked direction to the North and
only 2.5m to the south at the required setback distance of 2.4m. Accordingly, the
available visibility only provides 4.6% of this requirement to the North and 5.5% to the
South.
Even when measured from a reduced minimum distance of 2.0m (where the front of
a car protrudes into the carriageway) visibility to the north improves marginally to 4m,
due mainly to the frontage footway, which ceases at the junction, whilst visibility to
the south is 2.7m.
Visibility is clearly very substandard, with a maximum of 9%, of the required distance
of 43m being available to the north and only 6.2% to the south.
Development Committee
37
26 May 2011
Assessment & Highway Safety Issues
This proposal seeks to develop land to the rear of 77 Beeston Road, taking access
into the substantial site from an unadopted track.
Extrapolation of data from the TRICS database (Trip Rate Information Computer
Services) indicates that a residential dwelling will typically generate 8-10 vehicular
trips per weekday. This proposal, in addition to the existing movements from the 15
properties already served via this access track, would if permitted, equate to an
increase of 8-10 (7%) vehicular trips per weekday via the existing severely substandard access.
It has to be concluded that the situation is potentially dangerous and that the lack of
personal injury accidents at the access is down to good fortune.
Whilst Manual for Streets Volume 2 states that a reduction in visibility will not
necessarily lead to a significant problem, taking into account the local context of the
C507 Beeston Road, a reduction in visibility of the magnitude available (i.e. just 9%
of the requirement in the critical direction) is clearly not acceptable.
Given that it is clearly evident the existing access has severely sub-standard visibility,
this raises significant road safety concerns, therefore an increase in usage of the
access onto the C507 Beeston Road must be avoided.
Therefore, I recommend refusal of this application for the following reason:
Inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the access with the County
Highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining
public highway. In addition, as far as can be determined from the submitted plans,
the applicant does not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility
improvements at the site access. The proposed development would therefore be
detrimental to highway safety, contrary to North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy CT 5.
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 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):
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements)
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Development Committee
38
26 May 2011
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Highway safety.
3. Housing density.
4. Neighbouring amenity.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Development Boundary for Sheringham, a Secondary
Settlement as defined by the adopted Core Strategy in an area designated as
residential, where, subject to compliance with Core Strategy Policies which include
EN4, HO7, CT5 and CT6, the principle of development is considered to be
acceptable. Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. In addition proposals should have regard for the North
Norfolk Design Guide and should not have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new dwellings should provide acceptable
residential amenity.
Access would be gained via Weston Terrace which is a gravelled unadopted cul-desac, providing access to 15 dwellings and garaging for 69 and 77 Beeston Road. It
forms an access onto the adopted highway network, the C507 Beeston Road, some
35m to the west of the application site.
A passing bay would be provided to the front of the site for users of Weston Terrace
which is currently narrow and single file only.
In terms of the transport impact of the new development the existing access to be
used for the new development has severely sub-standard visibility and this raises
significant road safety concerns. The Highway Authority advises that an increase in
usage of the access onto the C507 Beeston Road must be avoided and has
objected, advising that inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction of the
access with the County Highway and this would cause danger and inconvenience to
users of the adjoining public highway. In addition, as far as can be determined from
the submitted plans, the applicant does not appear to control sufficient land to
provide adequate visibility improvements at the site access.
The proposed
development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to North
Norfolk Core Strategy Policy CT 5.
Policy HO7 seeks to ensure development optimises the density of the site in a
manner that protects or enhances the character of the area and in Secondary
Settlements, which Sheringham is designated, the density is not less than 40
dwellings per hectare. The proposed development is a clear underuse of the site at
only 4 dwellings per hectare on a site where the immediate context is of a greater
housing density. As such a greater housing density would be more in keeping with
Development Committee
39
26 May 2011
its immediate context, would not be restricted by an on-site constraints and would
deliver a greater number of houses including house types and sizes to meet the
community's needs. Should a more appropriate vehicular access to the site be
found then clearly a greater density of dwellings on the site would need to be
secured. The erection of one dwelling on the site is therefore an inefficient use of the
land where greater densities are required to help improve access to, and sustain,
local services and public transport and minimise the need to travel. Equally the
approval of a single dwelling on the existing highway network would clearly set a
damaging precedent for further applications which would be difficult to resist and
would further exacerbate the highway safety situation.
With regard to neighbouring amenity, it is considered that a scheme could be
delivered at reserved matters stage which complied with the Council's Basic Amenity
Criteria which would protect the amenities of the adjacent dwellings in terms of
privacy and scale.
With regard to the amenity space requirements of the plot, a sufficient private garden
area of adequate size and shape to serve its intended purpose is achieved and, in
line with North Norfolk Design guide recommendations, the area of the plot given to
private amenity space is no less than the footprint of the dwelling.
With regard to parking and turning, clearly the site is sufficient in size to
accommodate on-site provision in accordance with the requirements of the North
Norfolk Parking Standards, in accordance with Policy CT 6.
Whilst landscaping has been reserved for consideration at a later stage, it is
considered that a suitable landscaping scheme could be achieved which would
protect the visual amenity of the area and would protect the residential amenities of
adjacent properties.
In terms of sustainable construction, subject to a condition requiring compliance with
Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, the proposal would comply with
Policy EN6.
In terms of impact on the adjacent Conservation Area, whilst the proposal would not
really be in keeping with the form of development in the area, the setting of the
Conservation Area would be preserved and it is not a development to which the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has objected.
Overall, the proposal fails to comply with policies CT5 in respect of impact on the
highway and HO7 regarding housing density and therefore conflicts with the aims of
the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reason:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority inadequate visibility splays are
provided at the junction of the access with the County Highway and this would
cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining public highway. In
addition, as far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the applicant
does not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate visibility
improvements at the site access. The proposed development would therefore
be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to North Norfolk Core Strategy
Policy CT 5.
Development Committee
40
26 May 2011
Furthermore approving a development for a single dwelling on the site without
improvements to the highway network in terms of visibility, would set a
damaging precedent for further residential development of this underused area
without adequate highway infrastructure, to the further detriment of highway
safety.
In addition, the proposed development fails to make the most efficient use of
the land in terms of housing density contrary to the aims of policy HO7 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy policies CT5 and
HO7 and the applicant has failed to provide sufficient material considerations
to outweigh the identified policy conflicts.
14.
STALHAM - PO/11/0422 - Erection of two dwellings; Broadside Chalet Park for
Stalham Chalets Limited
Minor Development
Target Date: 25 May 2011
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Is for two detached dwellings and garages on a site of approximately 0.053ha, which
is currently grassed amenity land in association with an existing chalet park. All
matters of layout, scale, landscaping, access and appearance are reserved for later
determination. Illustrative plans indicate a possible 1.5 storey development.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning and Building Control because of objections
received.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on grounds of highway safety because of the position on a bend, height of
proposed properties opposite and adjacent to bungalows. Would prefer proposed
dwellings also to be single storey.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters have been received from local residents objecting on grounds
(summarised):
1. This would lead to other grassed areas being developed.
2. Site is located on a dangerous bend
3. Noise and disruption
4. Loss of privacy.
CONSULTATIONS
NCC Highways - No objection subject to a condition requiring full details of visibility
splays, access arrangements and parking.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - No objection subject to the imposition of a condition
requiring the development is built to Code for Sustainable Homes level 3.
Development Committee
41
26 May 2011
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 13: Stalham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies
housing densities).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development
Highway safety
Relationship with neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The application site is located inside the Development Boundary for Stalham where
new residential development is in principle acceptable providing the scale and
appearance as well as the relationships with neighbouring properties are acceptable.
Apart from the adjacent two-storey shop building to the south of the site, the
prevailing form of development in the area is single-storey (including the existing
chalets). Given this, the introduction of one-and-a-half storey chalet style dwellings
as proposed may be unacceptable without further details. Moreover, there are
changing ground levels within the site making it unclear as to the eventual height of
1.5 storey dwellings. The agent has been requested to submit additional information
regarding the proposed land levels within the site and the Committee will be updated
orally concerning this matter. However, in the interests of preserving the form and
character of the area it is considered necessary to impose a condition restricting the
dwellings to a ridge height of 5m above street level which would be broadly
equivalent to a single storey dwelling but could permit a very modest level of
accommodation wholly inside the roof space.
As regards the concerns about highway safety, the site is located on the inside of a
bend in the road, but allowing for clear visibility in either direction from a central
access/egress point to serve both plots. Furthermore, the Highway Authority is
satisfied that an access can be constructed to Department for Transport standards
and has therefore raised no objection.
Development Committee
42
26 May 2011
In summary, it is considered that the site is of an adequate size to accommodate two
small scale dwellings without undue loss of privacy to adjacent properties, subject to
clarification of levels, as well as having the space to provide enough parking and
private amenity space in compliance with the Council's parking standards and
Residential Amenity Criteria. Consequently, if the height of the dwellings is suitably
restricted the proposal would comply with the policies of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to the receipt of satisfactory information from the
agent concerning levels and to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
including those concerning the height of the dwellings, access and parking,
and Code for Sustainable Homes.
15.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning applications are recommended by officers for a site inspection
by the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the applications will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the applications are
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0201 - Installation of Automated Teller Machine; 2
Church Road for Bankmachine Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control to expedite the
processing of the application following referral of the application to Committee and
request for a site visit by Councillor Peter Moore, for the following planning reasons:
Safety in relation to junction location and width of adjacent footpath
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0456 - Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit,
three flats and one maisonette: Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/11/0458 - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged
building; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control to enable the
Committee to visit this and the adjoining site in view of the significance of this
development for Wells Quay.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0509 - Erection of 2 A1 retail units, 1 A1 retail
unit with ancillary first floor office/store and 9 flats; Festival Amusements, The
Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0510 - Demolition of buildings to facilitate redevelopment for retail and residential purposes; Festival Amusements, The
Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0513 - Demolition of fire damaged buildings;
Festival Amusements, The Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
Development Committee
43
26 May 2011
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control to enable the
Committee to visit this and the adjoining site in view of the significance of this
development for Wells Quay.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
16.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
AYLMERTON - NP/11/0481 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Land off Holt Road for Mr Wright
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
BINHAM - PF/11/0355 - Erection of single-storey extension (extension of period
for commencement of planning ref: 08/1398); 6 Hindringham Road for Mr Heeps
(Householder application)
BODHAM - PF/11/0369 - Removal of Conditions 5 & 6 of permission reference:
99/1317 to permit consulting rooms/workshop to be occupied as ancillary
residential accommodation and to allow unrestricted occupancy of dwelling;
Walnut Barn, The Street for Mr K Gosden
(Full Planning Permission)
BODHAM - PF/11/0378 - Erection of first floor side/rear extension and rear
conservatory; 3 Street Farm Cottages, The Street for Mr Rumsby
(Householder application)
BRINTON - PF/11/0199 - Erection of single-storey extension and installation of
dormer windows; Sharrington Hall, Lower Hall Lane, Sharrington for Mrs K
Bassford-King
(Householder application)
BRINTON - LA/11/0200 - Erection of single-storey extension, installation of
dormer windows and general refurbishment; Sharrington Hall, Lower Hall Lane,
Sharrington for Mrs K Bassford-King
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRINTON - LA/11/0257 - Internal alterations including replacement of concrete
floor and installation of 4 flue terminals; Cottages 1 - 4, Sharington Hall, Lower
Hall Lane, Sharrington for Mrs Bassford-King
(Listed Building Alterations)
CATFIELD - PF/11/0281 - Erection of rear extension; Nuholme, Ludham Road for
Mr D Lowe
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/11/0223 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
installation of two roof lights and first and second floor windows and balconies;
1 Beau Rivage for Mr A Livsey
(Householder application)
Development Committee
44
26 May 2011
COLBY - PF/11/0265 - Raising height of rear wall/roof, erection of single-storey
rear extension and detached garage; Magnolia Cottage, Church Road for Mr A
Blackburn
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0239 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and attached
carport; Applecroft, 2 Prior Bank Orchard for Mr & Mrs Stevenson
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0241 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 11 Connaught
Road for Mr & Mrs Ingram
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0251 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling (extension of
period for commencement of planning ref: 08/0235); Land between 27 Norwich
Road & 30 Cliff Avenue for Mr A R Hams
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/11/0255 - Erection of two-storey front extension and single-storey
side extension (revised design); 2 Newhaven Close for Mr & Mrs S Heels
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0314 - Construction of front dormer window; 8 Rosebery Road
for Mr A Banning
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/11/0316 - Removal of glazed panels and installation of louvres;
Telephone Exchange, Louden Road for British Telecom
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/10/1180 - Non-material amendment request
repositioning of chimney; Jordans Yard, Norwich Road for Mr J Longe
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
for
ERPINGHAM - PF/11/0370 - Erection of first floor rear extension and
replacement side extension; Woodbine Cottage, School Road for Ms Stevenson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0192 - Change of use from A3 (Restaurant) to a mixed use
of A3 (Restaurant) and Adult Gaming Centre/Family Entertainment Centre; 2
Market Place for Mr D Brooks
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0274 - Change of use from B1 (light industrial) to B2 (motor
vehicle repair workshop); Unit 2 Garrood Drive for A & B Management Services
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/10/0040 - Non-material amendment request for revised
position of rear wall; 58 Queens Road for Mr T Crane
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FELMINGHAM - PF/11/0300 - Erection of two-storey side extension and singlestorey rear extension; Grooms Cottage, Hyltons Crossways, Suffield Road for
Mr & Mrs Whiting-Smith
(Householder application)
Development Committee
45
26 May 2011
FULMODESTON - NMA1/10/1165 - Non material amendment request to alter the
fenestration in west elevation by removing a window and door and replacing a
window with a door, insertion of window and door in north elevation, insertion
of additional window and combining two windows into one window in east
elevation, additional roof light in south elevation and change appearance from
painted brick to cladding; 11-13 Barney Road for Mr Taylor
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FULMODESTON - PF/11/0188 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions with
link to outbuilding; Croxton House, Croxton Road, Croxton for Mr A Walton
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - LA/11/0189 - Demolition of utility room, internal alterations,
erection of extensions and replacement of door canopy; Croxton House,
Croxton Road, Croxton for Mr A Walton
(Listed Building Alterations)
GRESHAM - PF/11/0315 - Erection of replacement agricultural building; Land at
Sustead Road, Lower Gresham for Mr R Pigott
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - PF/11/0216 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 5 The
Common for Mr & Mrs M Barclay
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0267 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Lingfield
House, Whimpwell Street for Z Fuller
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/11/0268 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 34
Coronation Close for Mr Elgie
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PM/11/0376 - Erection of three dwellings; Land adjoining 3
Melton Road for Mr N Beckett
(Reserved Matters)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0187 - Conversion of existing outbuilding to two-storey
annexe and reconstruction of single-storey detached store; 35 Wells Road for
Mr & Mrs Atkinson
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/11/0347 - Erection of front porch; 26 The Elms for Mr & Mrs
Dickens
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/1482 - Conversion of garage to one and a half-storey living
accommodation; Bay Tree House, Obelisk Plain, High Street for Mrs Blair
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/11/0273 - Internal alterations including installation of staircase,
formation of first floor doorway and upgrading of party wall; 5A Market Place for
Mr M Lane
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
46
26 May 2011
HORNING - PF/11/0297 - Installation of gable window; Rosedene, 59 Lower
Street for Rev I Johnson
(Householder application)
KELLING - NMA1/09/0750 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
roof light to west roof slope of garden room; 3 Weynor Gardens for Mr A
Knowles
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
KETTLESTONE - NMA1/11/0058 - Non-material amendment request for reduction
in size of extension; 59 The Street for Mr T O'Donnell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
KNAPTON - PF/11/0368 - Erection of front porch extension and insertion of bay
window; Beech Acre, Mundesley Road for Mr & Mrs Harris
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/11/0288 - Erection of detached annexe with garage and
stables/hay stores; 1 Moat Cottages, East Ruston Road for Mr Renouf & Miss
Beck
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LA/11/0350 - Installation of louvred
opening and panel; Hall Farm, Church Lane for Mr and Mrs R Carter
(Listed Building Alterations)
LUDHAM - PF/11/0242 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling; The
Sedges, Norwich Road for Mr & Mrs Martin
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/0503 - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings
and garages; Land at Burgh Beck Road for Mr and Mrs M Sherwood
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PO/11/0284 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space (extension of period for commencement of
planning ref: 08/0320); Land to rear of The Stables, 43 High Street for Ms Straw
& Ms Cockayne
(Outline Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0298 - Erection of first floor side extension, single-storey
rear extension, front porch, pitched roofs to front dormers and replacement
garage; Cumbrae, Cromer Road for Mr D Howard
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/11/0306 - Erection of first floor rear extension (extension of
period for commencement of planning ref: 08/0162); 2 Old Coastguard Cottages,
Victoria Road for Mr & Mrs P Winwright
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0049 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey side
extension; Birchwood Medical Practice, Park Lane for Birchwood Medical
Practice
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
47
26 May 2011
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0210 - Retention of fire escape doors; Black Swan
Hotel, Black Swan Loke for Black Swan Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0294 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
59 Station Road for Mr B Findlay
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0308 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
91 Mundesley Road for Mr and Mrs J Fagan
(Householder application)
POTTER HEIGHAM - LA/11/0220 - Erection of replacement porch; Dove House
Farm, Dove House Lane for Mrs D Whyatt
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - PF/11/0206 - Erection of two-storey agricultural worker's dwelling;
Land at Trees Field Farm, Heath Road, West Raynham for Mr S Agnew
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/11/0304 - Erection of front porch; 6 Renwick Park East, West
Runton for Mr T McAfee
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/11/0319 - Erection of workshop; Jonas Seafood, The Fisheries,
Mill Lane, East Runton for Jonas Seafood Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - NMA1/08/1153 - Non-material amendment request for revised
conservatory design; 15 Sandy Hill Estate, Bard Hill for Mr & Mrs P McKnespiey
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SCULTHORPE - PF/11/0218 - Erection of garden shed; Barn 8, The Grange, Lynn
Road for Ash Property Maintenance
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/11/0231 - Erection of shed; Land at Clink Road for Miss S
Dickinson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/1151 - Installation of extraction system; Adjacent 10
Station Approach for Mr M Miah
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0309 - Erection of rear conservatory; 10 Meadow Way for
Mr and Mrs Taylor
(Householder application)
SIDESTRAND - PF/11/0337 - Removal of Condition 2 of permission reference:
05/0233 to permit full residential occupancy; Manor Barn, Tower Lane for Mr D
Akehurst
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
48
26 May 2011
SWAFIELD - NMA1/10/1266 - Non-material amendment request for installation of
additional windows; Stones Cottage, Knapton Road for Mr J Roberts
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/11/0211 - Construction of tennis court; Swanton
Cottage, The Street for Mrs R Tranter
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/11/0320 - Alterations to garage to facilitate conversion
to habitable accommodation and erection of replacement rear conservatory;
Ash Cottage, St Giles Road for Mr & Mrs D Wilson
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/11/0336 - Erection of first floor extension, single-storey rear
extension and detached garage; Church View, Church Lane for Col & Mrs F
Gedney
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0359 - Installation of weather boarding to front elevation
and enlarged dormer window; The Old Lime Kilns, Scarborough Road for Cdre
& Mrs Burgoine
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0313 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Stanley House, 32 Theatre Road for Mrs A Bushell
(Householder application)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/03/1707 - Non-material amendment to retain more internal
retail space to shop, insertion of new window to flat on western elevation,
alterations to eastern elevation of flat and shop only by reducing size of rear
extension, altering hipped roof, inserting door and altering fenestration;
Weybourne Stores, 2 Beach Lane for Mr M Joll
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WIVETON - PF/11/0040 - Erection of extension to existing cafe; Wiveton Hall
Cafe, Coast Road for Mr D MacCarthy
(Full Planning Permission)
WOOD NORTON - PF/11/0330 - Installation of solar panels; Mill Barn, Holt Road
for Mr D Rutterford
(Householder application)
17.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0170 - Variation of conditions 5 and 6 of planning
reference 04/1009 to allow commencement of work prior to submission of
scheme for highway improvement works; Land at Holly End, Holway Road for
Tesco Stores Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
49
26 May 2011
APPEALS SECTION
18.
NEW APPEALS
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0898 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings; Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/1411 - Erection of single-storey extension; 5 The
Sheltons, Barsham Road for Mr G M Grimwade
FAST TRACK - HOUSEHOLDER
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/0161 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 5 Meadow Way for Mr James
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
19.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/09/1269 - Erection of agricultural building; Land at Hart Lane for
Mr D Gay
INFORMAL HEARING 14 July 2011
20.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BINHAM - PF/09/0870 - Retention of single-storey building used for saw-milling
and storage/distribution of logs; Land adjacent to Langham Road for Mr Taylor
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0898 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings; Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
GREAT SNORING - PF/10/1411 - Erection of single-storey extension; 5 The
Sheltons, Barsham Road for Mr G M Grimwade
NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
PASTON - PO/10/1058 - Erection of single-storey dwelling to replace demolished
dwelling; Spyglass Hill, North Walsham Road for Mr D Briggs
21.
APPEAL DECISIONS
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0786 - Variation of Condition 2 of 08/1690 to increase
opening hours to 8.00 am to 1.00 am each day; 25 Bridge Street for Mr A Demir
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
50
26 May 2011