Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
18 November 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 26 November 2015 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 7 January 2016.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council’s leaflet ‘Have Your
Say on Planning Applications’ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council’s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mr N Coppack, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S Hester, Mr P High, Mr N Pearce, Mr R
Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard, Mr S Ward
Substitutes: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs A Green, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P Moore, Ms M Prior, Mr E
Seward, Mrs L Walker
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 7 or 9 below)
4.
5.
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
6.
OFFICERS’ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
(1)
S106 AGREEMENTS - UPLIFT CLAUSES
Page 1
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(2)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/1191 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling (resubmission PF/14/1499); Land adjacent Lion House, 6 The Street for Mr & Mrs
P Iles
Page 5
(3)
WALCOTT - PF/15/0503 - Retention of single-storey replacement dwelling; The
Glen, Helena Road for Mr & Mrs Robinson
Page 10
(4)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0886 - Variation of conditions 3 & 18 of
planning permission ref: 11/0509 to permit retention of revised projecting
windows to east elevation; Quayside Court, The Quay for T Gill and Son
(Norwich) Ltd
Page 14
(5)
WIVETON - PF/15/1208 - Installation of 30 metre high shared
telecommunications base station tower with six antennas and associated
ground-based equipment cabinets; Friary Farm Caravan Park, Cley Road,
Blakeney for Arqiva
Page 21
(Appendix 1 – page 61)
(6)
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
7.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 3 ABOVE
8.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
Page 59
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
9.
OFFICER'S REPORT
(7)
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
Page 62
(Appendix 2 – page 63)
This report updates the situation previously reported concerning the schedule of
outstanding enforcement cases and unresolved complaints more than three months
old as at 30 September 2015
10.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 3 ABOVE
11.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 26 NOVEMBER 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
1.
S106 AGREEMENTS - UPLIFT CLAUSES
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee’s attention recent appeal
decisions relating to the use of uplift clauses (sometimes also known as “clawback”
clauses) within Section 106 agreements, to review the Council’s current use of such
clauses, and proposed amendments to the Council’s standard uplift clauses.
Standard Uplift Clause
The Council uses uplift clauses where viability information has been submitted, and at
the time the application is considered, shows that the development viability is such
that the scheme is unable to deliver the requirements for community infrastructure in
accordance with the Council’s adopted policies. This usually relates to the level of
affordable housing provided by a scheme.
The Council’s current uplift clauses enable the development to be assessed towards
the end of the development to ensure that if the viability of the site has improved
during the course of construction this results in a further financial payment (the “uplift”)
to the Council for the provision of the community infrastructure.
One of the purpose of these clauses is to protect against ‘land banking’ by developers
until the market improves to maximise their profit and avoiding providing an
appropriate level of community infrastructure.
Recent Planning Appeal decisions
It has been brought to the Council’s attention that there have been a number of recent
planning appeal decisions, where Inspectors have rejected the use of ‘uplift
clauses’, particularly as these create a degree of post decision uncertainty for
developers.
In summary, Inspectors have called into question the use of uplift or clawback clauses
in Section 106 agreements when development is short term ie 18-24 months for
implementation. Inspectors have been mindful of local policy but have referred to the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 206 or the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and also to advice contained in
guidance produced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
Inspectors have left aside the possibility that for larger, more longer term/
multi-phased development, it may be appropriate to use uplift or clawback provisions.
In light of these decisions, and advice from the Council’s legal team, consideration
has been given to amending the Council’s use of uplift clauses to reflect these appeal
decisions and also current guidance from central Government.
Development Committee
1
26 November 2015
Current Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
In respect of this issue, the National Planning Policy Framework states:
“176. Where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development
acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation or compensation),
the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be
secured through appropriate conditions or agreements. The need for such
safeguards should be clearly justified through discussions with the applicant, and
the options for keeping such costs to a minimum fully explored, so that
development is not inhibited unnecessarily.
204. Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the
following tests:

necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

directly related to the development; and

fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
205. Where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities
should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever
appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.”
Additional advice is contained within the Planning Practice Guidance. In relation to
viability and decision making the Guidance states:
“How should viability be assessed in decision-taking?
Decision-taking on individual applications does not normally require consideration
of viability. However, where the deliverability of the development may be
compromised by the scale of planning obligations and other costs, a viability
assessment may be necessary. This should be informed by the particular
circumstances of the site and proposed development in question. Assessing the
viability of a particular site requires more detailed analysis than at plan level.
A site is viable if the value generated by its development exceeds the costs of
developing it and also provides sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and
the development to be undertaken.
How should changes in values be treated in decision-taking?
Viability assessment in decision-taking should be based on current costs and
values. Planning applications should be considered in today’s circumstances.
However, where a scheme requires phased delivery over the medium and
longer term, changes in the value of development and changes in costs of
delivery may be considered. Forecasts, based on relevant market data, should
be agreed between the applicant and local planning authority wherever possible.”
The RICS guidance ‘financial viability in planning’ reiterates this advice in relation to
re-appraisals (viability reviews) as follows:
“3.6.4.1 The re-appraisal approach, which may be more applicable to certain
schemes, allows for planning applications to be determined but leaving for
Development Committee
2
26 November 2015
example, the level of affordable housing to be fixed prior to implementation of the
scheme. Such re-appraisals are generally suited to phased schemes over the
longer term rather than a single phase scheme to be implemented immediately
which requires certainty.
3.6.4.2 Where long life planning permission are granted (five years plus)
reappraisals may also be appropriate. As such re-appraisal mechanisms should
only be considered in exceptional cases. These appraisals would usually be
undertaken during the reserved matters application stage.”
Proposed amendments
In light of the above guidance and recent appeal decisions, it is therefore proposed
that the Council adopts the following principles:

Uplift clauses requiring a review of the viability of a site near the end of the
development will not be used on short term developments (deemed to be
single phase).

For these purposes short term will mean any development which will
complete in less than 5 years from the date of issue of the Planning permission
to completion of the final dwellings on site irrespective of whether planning
consent is outline or full consent

The period of time for submission of any reserved matters and for
commencement of the development from the date of issue of planning consent
will be taken into account in the calculation of the 5 year period.
The Council will use uplift clauses for the following types of development:

Medium and longer term developments (5 years or more from issuing of
consent to completion of scheme or schemes of more than one phase).

Mixed tenure Exception Housing Schemes to capture any increased
profitability which means less market dwellings would have been required.

Mixed use developments (i.e sites delivering housing and employment).
With regard to outline applications, if it is agreed to consider viability at outline stage
due to significant exceptional development costs or section 106 agreement
requirements associated with the development, then it is appropriate to insist on a
short time scale for implementation. If this is under two years, then no uplift applies, if
greater than 3 years than an uplift clause will be applied, as this is classed as medium
to long term development. Between 2-3 years, then a judgement should be made on a
case by case basis as to whether the development is short term or not.
Where a development has been determined to be a short term development and there
is therefore no requirement for an uplift, subsequently applications to extend the
timescale for commencing development maybe received. Such extensions shall
only be approved if the timescale for completion of the development from the initial
granting of consent shall not exceed 5 years.
Where no uplift is required, a one year deadline for reserved matters submission and
one year deadline for commencement will be required and appropriate conditions will
be imposed on the relevant Permissions. In exceptional cases, it may be appropriate
to allow for up to two years for a reserved matters application to be submitted. But
where a two year period for reserved matters is to be provided, this will be taken into
Development Committee
3
26 November 2015
account in the assessment of whether the development is a short term development
or not.
The approach outlined above is considered to be complaint with the NPPF and
Planning Practice Guidance and also acknowledges the relevant RICS guidance and
recent appeal decisions. Further, the adoption of the changes to the use of uplift
clauses as set out in this report is considered reasonable, to ensure that
developments are commenced within a reasonable time limit from the submission of
the viability assessment, and on the basis that in order to submit such an assessment,
detailed site investigation works would have been completed by the developer.
With regard to “full” applications, if viability assessment is considered in respect of the
application, then a shorter implementation time should apply ie 2 years, if longer then
an uplift clause should apply as again this falls within the definition of medium to long
term development.
It is recommended that these changes come into force with immediate effect and this
would apply to all undetermined applications including:
Roughton PO/14/0986 – Erection of 30 dwellings with open space to provide
sports pitch, wetland habitat, space for community facility, car park and
footpath link; Land at Back Lane
In this case, an assessment of the scheme viability showed that the development is
not currently viable to provide any contribution for affordable housing.
Cromer PO/15/0572 – Erection of 68 sheltered housing retirement apartments
and one bungalow, including communal facilities, car parking and management
proposals for the adjoining woodland; Land to rear of Barclay Mews,
Overstrand Road
An assessment of the scheme viability showed that the development is not currently
viable to provide any contribution for affordable housing.
Fakenham – PO/14/1212 – Residential development for a maximum of 78
dwellings, extension to existing allotments, public open space, surface water
attenuation pond and foul sewage pumping station; Land at Brick Kiln Farm,
Rudham Stile Lane
An assessment of the scheme viability showed that the development is not currently
viable to provide more than 2 affordable dwellings on the site.
Recommendations
The Development Committee is recommended to APPROVE:
1. The changes to the use of uplift clauses as outlined in the report, and that
these should be applied from the date of the Committee to all undetermined
applications as at 26 November 2015 and for all future planning applications
2. That scheme viability will only be assessed at outline stage when the
proposed development includes significant Section 106 Agreement
requirements and/or exceptional development costs as determined by the
Council.
Source:
Nicola Baker, Head of Planning (01263 516135)
Roger Howe, Planning Legal Manager (01263 516016)
Development Committee
4
26 November 2015
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(2)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/1191 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
(re-submission PF/14/1499); Land adjacent Lion House, 6 The Street for Mr &
Mrs P Iles
Minor Development
- Target Date: 08 October 2015
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19780330 HR
Erection of dwelling
Approved 07/04/1978
PLA/19860394 PO
Erection of a single dwelling
Approved 28/03/1986
PF/14/1499 PF
Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
Refused 06/03/2015
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought to erect a two-storey detached dwelling on land adjacent to Lion
House. The site, which formerly formed part of Lion House’s garden is approximately
17 metres wide and 56 metres deep and lies between Lion House and Hindringham
Methodist Chapel.
Amended plans received in respect of access and parking
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of both Councillors Vincent Fitzpatrick and Councillor Simon Hester
having regard to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework which
promotes sustainable development in rural areas and that Councillor Hester is
acquainted with the applicant.
Committee agreed at the previous meeting to visit the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Raise no objection to the proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of support received. Three of the four letters were from Hindringham
residents and the fourth was from the Minister of the Hindringham Methodist Chapel.
The following is a summary of the issues raised:
Development Committee
5
26 November 2015





The site is in the middle of the village where infill housing would be acceptable
A property on the site would be welcome as the site is untidy and occupied by
two unsightly containers
The country needs more homes and infill housing is a more acceptable means
of providing housing than building on swathes of countryside
A dwelling at the site would not negatively impact on neighbouring occupiers
The development would be an asset to the village
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council Highway Authority: the following is a summary of Highway
Officer's report with regard to amended plans received 23 September 2015.
The proposal is acceptable in terms of access and parking subject to 'stopping up' of
the highway. The 'stopping up' of the highway is acceptable in principle. Additionally,
the report points out that the location of the proposed development is in conflict with
the aims of sustainable development. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded
to approve the proposal the highway Authority requests conditions.
Planning Policy Manager:
I have considered the application along with the supporting documents that have been
submitted following the refusal of PF/14/1499. I have focussed my comments on the
acceptability of the development with respect of Policy SS2 of the adopted Core
Strategy.
The agent accepts that Hindringham, as stated in policy SS1, is not a designated
Service Village and that it falls within designated Countryside. However, they argue
that the proposal would promote sustainable development for a number of reasons
including that the site does not fall into ‘open countryside’ and would have access to
services within the village of Hindringham and the neighbouring village. The applicant
also mentions that planning permission was granted previously for the erection of a
dwelling and further that the current development plan is out of date and predates the
NPPF. These arguments were all considered and assessed previously under
application PF/14/1499 and are reiterated below for completeness.
The planning history of the site is a material consideration which should be taken into
account in reaching a decision. However the permissions granted on this site were
some years ago when the North Norfolk Local Plan constituted the adopted policy
framework. The former Local Plan allowed for residential development in this location.
The last recorded planning permission was granted in 1986 and unless works were
undertaken to implement this permission it lapsed in 1991. Given the passage of time,
and the replacement of the Local Plan with the adopted Core Strategy the history of the
site should be afforded very little weight in the decision making process. Certainly this
issue alone is insufficient to justify a departure from adopted policies.
The Core Strategy includes controls over the location of development. The extent to
which development is supported is based on the relative sustainability of the location.
The ‘Countryside’ policy area is the least sustainable and within this designation Policy
SS2 states that planning permission for residential development should not be
permitted. Nevertheless some forms of housing, including the re-use of existing
buildings for dwellings and the provision of affordable housing, are acceptable in
recognition of the wider sustainability benefits associated with such proposals.
Development Committee
6
26 November 2015
The NPPF post-dates the adoption of the Core Strategy and is a material
consideration. It provides, at paragraph 214, that for 12 months after the publication of
the Framework, decision makers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies
adopted since 2004. This 12 month period has lapsed and it follows that if policies
conflict with the NPPF, full weight should be attached to the NPPF. Policies should not
be regarded as out of date merely due to the passage of time.
The NPPF states at paragraph 55 that to promote sustainable development in rural
areas housing should be located where it will ‘enhance or maintain the vitality of rural
communities’ and ‘isolated homes in the Countryside should be avoided’. The NPPF is
silent in relation to what might constitute ‘isolation’ and what is necessary to
demonstrate that a proposal might ‘enhance or maintain vitality.’ The limited number of
appeal decisions in the District which address this issue have focused on a
combination of the physical relationship of the site to other development and the
proximity of day to day services.
Relevant appeal cases
The appellant has referred to three appeals in North Norfolk where the inspector was
supportive of single dwelling houses being allowed outside settlement boundaries (ref
A/13/2210564, A/12/2187185, A/14/2214627.). Whilst the appeal decisions are indeed
a material consideration, consideration needs to be given to the appropriate weight to
be given to them.
I note from the details of these cases that two (A/13/2210564, A/12/2187185)were
sited immediately adjacent to a designated Service Village as set out in adopted policy
SS1 and had pre-existing residential uses on them. The third was for a residential
annex and was within 1.41 km of a designated Service Village and within a location
that also offered readily available facilities (including shop, post office and village hall see para 9-11 of the Southrepps appeal (A/14/2214627)). This site also has access to
a regular daily bus service to North Walsham. Further, there are other appeal
decisions for dwellings in the countryside which have been dismissed on the basis of
the unsustainability of a countryside location.
In comparison, the site for consideration under this application lies over 4.1km (as the
crow flies) from the nearest Service Village Settlement Boundary of Little Snoring and
only has a limited bus service available. As stated under the previous application, there
are very few facilities in Hindringham and residents are highly dependent upon car
journeys to access services. Notwithstanding that the proposal appears well related to
existing development and represents an ‘infill’ development the location is
nevertheless unsustainable and the grant of permission would be contrary to both
national and local policy.
The site is located within designated Countryside as stated in the North Norfolk Core
Strategy (2008) where Policy SS2 of the Core Strategy applies. This policy seeks to
restrict new development in the countryside to such development as that which
requires a rural location, subject to certain exemptions. New dwellings are not
considered acceptable in such locations. The site falls outside of a service village or
coastal service village and wholly in the Countryside Policy area.
Whilst other aspects of the proposal have changed following the previous refusal, the
positioning of the proposal within designated countryside has not and therefore the
policy position has not changed from those expressed under application PF/14/1499.
Therefore our recommendation must be one of refusal in line with Core Strategy Policy
SS2 and paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
Development Committee
7
26 November 2015
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
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
Principle of Development
Relationship with Neighbouring Properties
Stopping up of highway land at the front of the site
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site having carried out a Committee site visit.
Principle of Development: Policy SS2 and NPPF
The site lies within an area defined by the North Norfolk Core Strategy as Countryside
where new market dwellings are not normally permitted under Policy SS2. Policy SS2
restricts new market dwellings in the Countryside in order to prevent “dispersed
dwellings that will lead to a dependency on travel by car to reach basic services, and
ensure a more sustainable pattern of development”.
The committee will note from the planning history section of this report that the site has
previously been granted permission for a single dwelling (PLA/1978/0330 and
PLA/1986/0384), however, no extant permission exists. More recently, permission to
erect a single dwelling at the site was refused (PF/14/1499) on the grounds that it was
contrary to Policy SS2 and issues relating to overlooking.
The applicant considers the site, which lies in a central location within the village and
having existing properties to three sides, to be a sustainable location, and considers
the constrains imposed upon the site via Policy SS2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy
to be contrary to policies in the more recently published National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF). The applicant makes specific reference to Paragraph 55 of the
NPPF which states, “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing
should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one
village may support services in a village nearby…where development would lead to an
enhancement to the immediate setting”.
Development Committee
8
26 November 2015
However, Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states the NPPF does not change the statutory
status of Development Plans (North Norfolk Core Strategy). The District Council’s
Core Strategy is an adopted Development Plan and whilst adopted prior to the NPPF
the Core Strategy went through a rigorous consultation period. Additionally, paragraph
12 of the NPPF refers to the statutory status of Development Plans as a starting point
for decision making, stating, “Proposed development that accords with an up to date
Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be
refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise”. Furthermore,
paragraph 196 of the NPPF states, “applications for planning permission must be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
dictate otherwise”.
Whilst it is noted that the village offers some local facilities, they are few in number and
the location is considered unsustainable and therefore contrary to Paragraph 55 of the
NPPF and Policy SS2 of the Core Strategy.
Relationship with Neighbouring Properties: Policy EN4
With the adjacent dwelling being two-storey and the neighbouring chapel of a similar
height, a two-storey dwelling could prove to be acceptable in terms of design. The new
dwelling would be readily visible from the road and has been designed to relate to the
form and siting of the adjacent dwelling. The immediate street scene is largely
characterised by dwellings sited relatively close to the road with their principal
elevations fronting the highway. With traditional materials to be used to the front
elevation of the dwelling, the design would preserve the existing character of the area.
In terms of the proposed dwelling impact on the residential/garden amenity of the
neighbouring properties: the revised design to the first floor windows has virtually
eliminated potential overlooking. The windows to the north and south elevations’ flank
walls are set at a high level and the rooflights are high in the roofslope so as not to
result in overlooking. Furthermore, these windows serve a corridor and bathrooms.
Additionally, being of a similar scale, height and orientation to the neighbouring
properties the proposed would not appear overbearing. The proposed development is
considered acceptable in terms of Core Strategy Policy EN4.
Highway Matters: Policies CT5 and CT6
Lion House is currently served by two accesses. It is proposed to retain the two
accesses, one to be relocated and serve the proposed dwelling and the other to serve
Lion House. The principle is considered to be acceptable providing appropriate
visibility splays can be created and maintained.
The amended plans are acceptable under Policies CT5 and CT6. Additionally, there is
no objection in principle to the ''stopping up' of the highway.
Conclusion
The proposal remains contrary to the aims of Policy SS2 of the adopted Core Strategy
and the NFFP, it is therefore recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reasons specified below:
Development Committee
9
26 November 2015
The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy SS2 and The National Planning
Policy Framework in that:
The site lies within an area designated as Countryside, where there is a general
presumption against residential development. Furthermore, the location is considered
to be unsustainable under paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In
the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the case put forward by the applicant does
not provide sufficient justification to permit the erection of an additional dwelling in the
Countryside contrary to Policy SS2 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(3)
WALCOTT - PF/15/0503 - Retention of single-storey replacement dwelling; The
Glen, Helena Road for Mr & Mrs Robinson
Minor Development
- Target Date: 08 June 2015
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
ENQ Enforcement Enquiry
Flood Zone 3 1:200 chance sea/1:100 chance river
Flood Zone 2 - 1:1000 chance
LDF - Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DE21/11/0223 ENQ
Replacement Dwelling
THE APPLICATION
Is a retrospective application for the erection of a single storey timber dwelling 11m in
length by 3.7m wide.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning because the flood risk implications and the
possibility of enforcement action.
PARISH COUNCIL
Walcott Parish Council - no objections
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of representation from local residents commenting.
1. The building is an improvement over the previous building although larger than the
original.
2. Flooding depth of December flood was around 600mm
3. The front boundary is not adequately sealed and will not prevent water ingress
4. The southern boundary of the property belongs to the neighbour.
The agent has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment in support of the application.
Development Committee
10
26 November 2015
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency Provides an analysis of the Flood Risk Assessment and pointing out the
responsibilities of the Local Planning Authority in assessing the flood risk. Information
lacking in the Flood Risk Assessment is;




The site is at risk of flooding in a tidal wave overtopping event, the potential flood
depths are not known.
Whether the construction of a 600mm flood wall will reduce the risk of the building
flooding in a 1 in 200 year climate change flood event.
The flood depths on the access route are unknown but are likely to be unsafe.
The Flood risk assessment does not include information on additional flood risk
management measures such as a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan or Flood
Resilient Construction.
The agency would have no objections providing the Local Planning Authority has
properly considered that risk, in doing so the Authority should consider;



Safety of people (including the provision and adequacy of an emergency plan,
temporary refuge and rescue or evacuation measures)
Safety of building
Flood recovery measures (including flood proofing and other building level
resistance and resilience measures.
Emergency Planning Officer - The property was subjected to some flooding in
December 2013. Driveway flood barriers installed. Recommend they produce a
flood evacuation plan.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
11
26 November 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of development.
Safety of people and property in the event of a flood.
APPRAISAL
Principle of Development
The application site is located within the Countryside policy area where Policy HO 8
allows for replacement dwellings which may be permitted subject to other policies in
the adopted Core Strategy. The original building on the site was of an undetermined
age and of non-standard construction that appears to have had an established use as
a dwelling by virtue of the fact it was erected before 1948. Its replacement was
seemingly completed by August 2014, without planning permission and building
regulation approval, and it is a simple, single-storey timber building.
As to the appearance of the dwelling, lightweight buildings such as this are
characteristic of the coastal properties and with an appropriate colour finish would be
visually discreet in this location.
In terms of impact, the building is single storey, limited in size and the scale and design
of the proposal is acceptable under Policy HO 8.
Flood Risk
In this case it is Policy EN 10 Flood Risk that is the prime consideration as the site lies
within Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3 as designated by the Environment Agency and was
flooded during the storm surge of the 5 and 6 December 2013. The property is
accessed by the unmade Helena Road leading from B1159 Coast Road and is
approximately 160m from the sea-front.
As well as Policy EN 10 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in
paragraphs 100 - 103 require Local Planning Authorities to apply the Sequential and
Exceptions Tests in considering flood risk.
Sequential Test - The aim of this test is to steer new development to Flood Zone 1 or if
there are no other reasonably available sites use the sequential approach to steer
development to lower risk areas. Though it has generally been accepted that where a
dwelling is a single replacement for a damaged or substandard property there is no
other reasonably available site and it passes the Sequential Test. If a development
passes the Sequential Test then it must also however pass the Exceptions Test.
Exceptions Test requires a proposed development to show that it will provide wider;
a) sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, and that it will,
b) be safe for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible
reduce flood risk overall.
In this case the proposal has not demonstrated by means of an acceptable site specific
flood risk assessment that it has passed the exceptions test.
The purpose of a site specific Flood Risk Assessment is to enable the Local Authority
to assess the Sequential and Exception Tests. Also to understand the risk to life and
property if a flood event were to occur and inform the construction of the dwelling
designing in appropriate flood resistance and resilience measures to protect the
dwelling and its occupants in the event of a flood. It should also consider access to
and egress from the property in the event of a flood, which is particularly crucial in this
Development Committee
12
26 November 2015
instance as the escape route would be through the direction of coastal flooding. It is
imperative that it includes a proper flood evacuation plan.
Although a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application this is
regarded as inadequate to fully appraise the risk at this property. The agent was
given the opportunity to re-submit an improved Flood Risk Assessment and although
additional paragraphs were added this is still not considered to be a comprehensive
Flood Risk Assessment that takes account of issues such as climatic change for the
normal lifetime of a dwelling.
A building should be constructed to withstand the hydrodynamic and hydrostatic
pressures of a flood event which is normally dealt with by a planning condition
requiring this information prior to its construction. However, in this instance as the
building is already erected this detail should have been included with the flood risk
assessment. Given the appearance of the dwelling and the detail on the plans it is
doubtful that it has been constructed to withstand those pressures.
The flood protection and resilience measures the agent believes are adequate to
protect the property are a 600mm flood barrier around the front of the property and
non-return valve on the foul drainage system. These works were grant aided by
DEFRA, administered through North Norfolk District Council, based on criteria set by
DEFRA as to who was eligible and the types flood protection which could be claimed
for. It is understood that North Norfolk District Council undertook no responsibility for
the suitability of the defences proposed.
It is considered a flood barrier around the site, which it has not been established would
protect the property, is a poor substitute for building flood mitigation measures into the
dwelling. Moreover, the flood barrier does not extend around the whole site and it is
understood that some parts of the flood barrier do not belong to the applicant and are
outside their control to maintain.
It is the building that should be designed to make the building safer and better protect
its occupants. At the least a fundamental level of protection would be to raise the floor
levels, make the lower portion of the walls water resistant and wherever possible to
incorporate a place of refuge in the loft space. In this case the building has been
constructed without any such flood resistance or resilience measures.
Officers consider that the proposal fails the Exceptions Test and is contrary to Policy
EN10 and the advice in the NPPF.
Other Matters
Adequate space is provide at the front of the dwelling to park two cars in compliance
with Policy CT 6.
In terms of relationship with the neighbouring properties and design the proposal is
considered acceptable under Policy EN4.
Conclusion
In summary, although there are no other planning concerns the building has been
constructed without the most basic of flood mitigation measures. In addition the Flood
Risk Assessment falls short of the information required to demonstrate that the
dwelling and its occupants would be safe from flooding in the event of a 1:200 year
flood event taking into account climate change for the lifetime of the dwelling. The
proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Development Plan Policy EN 10 and the
advice in the NPPF. If members are minded to refuse the application authority is also
Development Committee
13
26 November 2015
sought to commence enforcement proceedings to secure removal of the building from
the site within 12 months.
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, as the proposed development lies within
Flood Zones 2 and 3, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment has failed to establish to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the development and its occupants
would be safe in the event of a flood. In this it has failed to take account of the advice
offered in the Government Planning Practice Guidance.
The submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails to take account of ;
1. The site is at risk of flooding in a tidal wave overtopping event, the potential flood
depths.
2. The impacts of climate change into account by determining what the flood levels
would be at the end of the development lifetime.
3. How people and the building will be kept safe from flood hazards identified in the
event of a 1:200 year climate change flood event.
4. The requirement for flood emergency planning including flood warning and
evacuation of people for a range of flooding events up to and including the extreme
event.
Accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the adopted
Development Plan Policy EN10 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
In the event members are minded to refuse the application authority is sought for
enforcement action for the building to be removed from the site within 12 months under
Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning
and Compensation Act 1991.
(4)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0886 - Variation of conditions 3 & 18 of planning
permission ref: 11/0509 to permit retention of revised projecting windows to
east elevation; Quayside Court, The Quay for T Gill and Son (Norwich) Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 August 2015
Case Officer: Mr D Watson
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
None relevant to the consideration of this proposal.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Planning permission (11/0509) for the erection of 2 A1 retail units, 1 A1 retail unit with
ancillary first floor office/store and 9 flats was granted on 7 September 2011. The
approved plans (PL01/A and PL02/A) showed a number of projecting windows to the
east elevation at first and second floor levels.
Condition 3 required the development to be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans except where further details were required by other conditions.
Condition 18 required further details through the submission of 1:10 scaled drawings of
the projecting windows for approval prior to their installation, and then for them to be
constructed in accordance with the approved details. The reason given for the
Development Committee
14
26 November 2015
condition was to ensure the windows were complementary to the appearance of the
building, in accordance with policy EN 4 of the NN Core Strategy.
The Highway Authority raised no objections to that application subject to the inclusion
of a number of conditions. Nearby residents did however raise concerns about the
proposed projecting windows and the report to the meeting of the Development
Committee on 23 June 2011 states:
"the concerns of residents regarding projecting windows on the eastern elevation have
been brought to the applicant's attention but, in view of the lack of objection on highway
safety grounds from the statutory consultee, it is not considered that refusal on
highway safety grounds could be substantiated or supported by officers, particularly as
the windows are understood not to overhang the highway. The applicant has
indicated that vehicles striking the building in the manner described in the
representations would be highly unlikely and have submitted plans to support this
opinion".
Two non-material amendments to the approved scheme have subsequently been
approved as follows:
1. Changes to the design of the third floor roof, installation of a privacy screen and to
change a door to a window for flat 7 - November 2013.
2. Revisions to the ground floor front elevation windows increasing the glazed area to
the shop windows whilst not increasing the area of the openings themselves December 2013.
These amendments did not allow for any changes to the projecting windows and relate
solely to the changes applied for.
Details of the proposed projecting windows were received in March 2013 and were
approved on 26 April 2013. The approved drawing (WD24) and an updated site
layout plan showed the windows projecting 590mm plus the thickness of the external
cladding from the east wall of the building and them sitting back slightly from the line of
the kerb.
In April 2014 shortly after the development was completed a complaint was received
from a resident of Croft Yard on the grounds that the projecting windows projected
further and sat lower than indicated on the approved plans, which restricted access to
Croft Yard for larger vehicles. Further complaints from other residents followed
referring to difficulties delivery and bin lorries had negotiating Croft Yard.
Initial investigation concluded that there was a breach of planning control as the
windows sat lower than shown on the approved plans and projected over the kerb line.
Following this measurements were taken at the site and compared with those on the
approved plans as follows:




Projection of windows from east wall - 0.71m (approved plans - approx. 0.63m)
Height above road level to underside of windows 2.48m (northern window) and
2.49m (southern window) (approved plans - approx. 2.58m)
Distance between front face of windows and west facing wall of The Granary
opposite - 3.76m (approved plans - 3.84m)
There was no difference in the wall-to-wall distance between facing walls across
Croft Yard (4.47m)
Development Committee
15
26 November 2015

The projection of the kerb from the east wall was less 0.58m (approved plans approx. 0.67m)
It was acknowledged that there was a technical breach of planning control, but
following the receipt of no grounds for objection from the Highway Authority and
Building Control Manager, it was agreed in consultation with the then Chair and
Vice-Chair of the Development Committee and the local ward councillors that it would
not be expedient to take formal enforcement action to secure compliance and that the
developer be invited to submit an application to vary relevant conditions on the original
planning permission.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to vary the following conditions attached to planning permission 11/0509:

Condition 3 which lists the approved plans, drawings and specifications except as
where may be required by other conditions, for example those requiring further
details; and

Condition 18, which required the submission of large-scale details of the windows
to be installed on the east side elevation.
This is to enable the windows to be retained as built.
(It should be noted than publicity for the application stated variations of conditions 2
and 3. Whilst this was an error it is not considered this has resulted in any prejudice to
either the applicant or objectors).
The submitted plans show the following:
 Overall projection the windows from the east wall of the building - 0.710mm
 Height above surface of Croft Yard - 2.470m
 Distance from front face of windows to west flank wall of The Granary - 3.760m
 Projection over the kerb line.
Quayside Court is a mixed-use retail and residential development that was completed
in 2014. It occupies the site of the former Grays Amusements, fronting The Quay,
Wells and is within the Wells Conservation Area. The east side of the development
adjoins Croft Yard, which provides vehicle access to a number of properties.
There are three projecting box bay windows on the east elevation. These are clad in
zinc with windows in their north and south sides. The northernmost bay is at first and
second floor level, the middle to the first floor level and southernmost to the second
floor. There is a narrow margin with upstand kerbs along its edge running adjacent to
the east wall of the building. On the opposite side of Croft Yard is The Granary, an
older building of similar scale that is in residential use above offices.
Further details have recently been submitted by the applicants indicating that there are
discrepancies in the measurements quoted above - suggesting that the bay windows
are higher and their projection from the wall is less. At the time of writing this report,
Officers are to re-check the relevant dimensions of concern.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is brought to committee at the request of Cllr V Fitzpatrick because of
the contentious issues involved and the level of objections.
Development Committee
16
26 November 2015
Determination of the application was deferred at the last meeting for a Committee site
visit.
TOWN COUNCIL
Wells Town Council: object as the windows have been built in contravention of the
planning permission and obstruct vehicular access for the residents of Croft Yard.
REPRESENTATIONS
Objections have been received from nine separate nearby residents some of whom
have sent in a number of letters. The summarised grounds are as follows:
 The windows should not have been approved;
 Access for large vehicles is now restricted. The most northerly window has been
damaged twice by vehicles attempting to access Croft Yard;
 Refuse vehicle can no longer access the yard and now a smaller vehicle has to be
sent. Removal vans similarly have difficulty accessing it;
 Major safety concern about access for fire service vehicles;
 Windows are a monstrosity, ugly, not in keeping and serve no functional purpose;
 Only a matter of time before there is more serious damage to the windows, a
high-sided vehicle or both;
 It is development through the back door;
 Latest example of the developer pushing the planning boundaries to beyond the
limit to the detriment of the residents of nearby properties;
 Windows project over a public footpath and vehicular right of way for about 35
dwellings in Croft Yard;
 Windows have built over the property of others;
 Croft Yard has been narrowed at the harbour end and the east elevation has been
extended over it, in addition to the windows projecting further than approved;
 The pediment of The Granary projects out by 200mm reducing the width of the
access at the point of entry to 3.55m not 3.7m as measured;
 Land has been taken from Croft Yard along its full length.


Subsequent representations have also been received regarding non-compliance
with condition 4 of the planning permission, which requires that no part of
development shall overhang or encroach upon highway land, and a lack of
enforcement of that condition. They also suggest that the footprint of the building
has encroached on Croft Yard.
A letter of Claim for Trespass as been issued to the management company for
Quayside Court.
CONSULTATIONS
Consultations carried out at time of investigation of complaint in 2014:
Building Control: Approved Document B states 3.7m is required between kerbs which
due to the projection of the bay windows is not achieved; however as this is a small
reduction in width, a minimum of 3.1m is still achieved which would be acceptable if the
developer had closed the opening with a gate. It is therefore considered that as built
the development does not adversely affect access for fire service vehicles.
Highway Authority: there is no dispute that Croft Yard is a public highway but it is
specifically recorded within the definitive map and statement as a public highway on
foot only (Wells FP9). There are no existing public rights to drive a vehicle along it. It
has not been shown that a public vehicular use has become established. Use by
residents and delivery vehicles are not examples of public use, but rather individuals
Development Committee
17
26 November 2015
exercising a private right of access.
Neither the reduction in width nor the lower height causes an impediment to the public
use of Croft Yard on foot. It is not a matter for the highway authority to comment on
any restriction that may be caused to private rights of access with or without vehicles.
The reduced width of 0.06m does not cause an additional highway safety concern on
the adjacent highway, for example from manoeuvring vehicles.
Access for fire
appliances is an issue that needs to be raised with building control.
In the circumstances, the Highway Authority has no objection to the windows as built.
It is suggested that whilst not a highway issue, if there remains a perception of the
window causing a problem to motorists the developer could be asked to consider
making the presence of the window more conspicuous. This could be achieved
through the use of either a bollard or signage.
Further consultation
Norfolk Fire Service (Western Area): have had the site checked by their crew and have
no objections.
Norfolk County Council Public Rights of Way: the Highway Research team have
investigated the PROW width, which is between the walls of the two properties either
side of it. From a PROW perspective the windows are 2.4m (minimum) above the
public right of way and as such do not present a problem to users of it.
Norfolk County Council Highways Research: Croft Yard is a Public Right of Way on
foot only and the buildings have always formed the boundary to the highway at its north
end. Copies of detailed correspondence between the developer's surveyors and the
Highway Research Team have been supplied.
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):
As the development has been completed and given the matters subject of this
application, it is considered only the following policies are relevant:
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 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
Development Committee
18
26 November 2015
valuable buildings).
National Planning Practice Guidance
Provides advice on how a proposal that has planning permission be can be amended:
New issues may arise after planning permission has been granted, which require
modification of the approved proposals. Where these modifications are fundamental or
substantial, a new planning application under section 70 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 will need to be submitted.
Where less substantial changes are proposed, the options for amending a proposal
that has planning permission are either making a non-material amendment or, an
application can be made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
to vary or remove conditions associated with a planning permission. One of the uses
of a section 73 application is to seek a minor material amendment, where there is a
relevant condition that can be varied, as is the case here.
There is no statutory definition of a 'minor material amendment' but it is likely to include
any amendment where its scale and/or nature results in a development which is not
substantially different from the one which has been approved.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Whether the proposal can reasonably be described as being a 'minor material
amendment'
 The reason why the condition was imposed on the original planning permission
 Whether there are any other implications likely to arise from varying the condition
APPRAISAL
Members will be familiar with the site having carried out a Committee site visit on 5
November 2015.
Comparison of the as built measurements with those from the approved plans clearly
illustrates that the changes are minimal particularly when taken in the context of the
development as a whole. Whilst there are accepted construction tolerances these are
very small and the windows, as built, would exceed these albeit by only a small amount
(at a maximum the changes are only 100mm different from what was approved).
Whilst there is no statutory definition, it is considered the proposal does not conflict
with the advice in the National Planning Practice Guidance noted above.
The reason why condition 18 was imposed was to ensure the appearance of the
windows was satisfactory. It did not relate to highway safety or any other related
matter such as access. Details submitted subsequently in this respect were
considered acceptable and approved.
Whilst objections also relate to the
appearance of the windows, the very minor changes to their dimensions has not
resulted in any material change to their design and appearance and the change would
not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. They
are acceptable in this respect and accord with Policies EN 4 and EN 8.
Condition 3 listed the approved plans with the reason to ensure the satisfactory layout
and appearance of the development. The wording of the condition is such that any
details approved to comply with other conditions would supersede the details on the
approved plans.
Development Committee
19
26 November 2015
On the basis of the information supplied by NCC's Highway Research Team (that was
not available at the time the original planning application was being considered), that
the public highway extends up to the wall of the building and prior to that, the
amusement arcade building, it is clear that the windows as originally approved would
have overhung the public highway. Whilst the local residents’ concerns are
acknowledged and reflected in the fact that the lower part of the northernmost window
has been damaged, presumably by a larger vehicle, it is considered that in this respect
the slight increase in their projection and being slightly lower than approved as built,
has not had any material effect. There is no conflict with policy CT 5.
Any structure overhanging the public highway requires licensing and as such this is a
matter to be dealt with under the Highways Acts. If a licence cannot be issued, as this
would restrict the private rights of people to drive along Croft Yard as could be the case
in this instance, it is considered it could result in an unlicensed structure overhanging
the public highway. Again this would be a matter for the Highway Authority to deal
with. Similarly if the development impedes private rights to drive along Croft Yard this
is a civil matter between the developer and users of Croft Yard. Approval of this
application would not override any other requirements in this respect or the private
rights of people to drive along Croft Yard, in the same way as it would not override any
restrictive covenants for example.
With regard to the non-compliance with condition 4, the Highway Authority have
advised that the approved plans indicated an overhang and permission was granted
on that basis. The purpose of condition 4 required by the Highway Authority, was to
restrict anything being added at a later date. It was intended to relate to the frontage
of the building.
Members will be updated verbally at the meeting of outcome of Officers visiting the site
to re-check the dimensions, including the siting of the building.
In conclusion, subject to the position of the building being correct, it is accepted that
whilst there are outstanding issues these are either civil matters or ones that need to
be dealt with under other legislation. On the basis of the Government's Planning
Practice Guidance regarding modifications to planning permissions it is considered the
windows as built have not resulted in a development which is substantially different
from the one which has been approved previously. Consideration also needs to be
given to whether it would be expedient to take formal enforcement action to secure
compliance with the originally approved plans, which it has been concluded previously
it would not. The application is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve subject to the positioning of the building being
in accordance with the approved plans, no objections from the Highway
Authority in respect of representations regarding possible encroachment and,
conditions. As the development has been completed only those conditions attached
to the original permission which remain relevant would be included. The conditions
subject of this application would refer to the plans submitted with it.
Development Committee
20
26 November 2015
(5)
WIVETON - PF/15/1208 - Installation of 30 metre high shared
telecommunications base station tower with six antennas and associated
ground-based equipment cabinets; Friary Farm Caravan Park, Cley Road,
Blakeney for Arqiva
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 October 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought for the construction of an electronics communications base and
associated works. The development comprises a 30 metre high lattice mast with six
antennas and two dishes, and six ground based radio equipment cabinets within a
fenced compound. Access to the site would be taken from the existing Coast Road
(A149) towards Friary Farm Caravan Park, via an existing track located within a copse
of trees (approximately 150m in length).
The proposal is part of the Government's Mobile Network Infrastructure Project (MIP)
to provide coverage to a number of locations in the UK that presently have no mobile
coverage at all 'and are considered to be complete 'not spots'. The principle objective
is to provide basic voice and data network coverage to the 'not spots' for such
locations. The project seeks to provide coverage by all four Mobile Network
Operators (Vodaphone, 02, 3 and EE) to communities and business that live and work
in areas of the UK where existing mobile network coverage is non-existent. It should be
noted that the basic requirement for this installation is only the provision of 2nd
generation (2G) services (basic voice and data coverage). However, the applicant has
indicated that the masts to date have been able to achieve 3 or 4G (although this is
subject to the individual MNO equipment installed). The application submission
states that the MIP sites will be future proofed to facilitate 4G and beyond if deployed
by the MNO's where the base stations will be able to absorb the emerging network
requirements. The main function of the mast is to elevate the antennas and dishes
above obstacles to gain a 'line of sight' transmission.
The application is supported by a Planning Statement including the Design and Access
Statement, technical supporting information, Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP
Public Exposure Guidelines; additional information included photomontages, and
information on discounted options. During the consultation period, additional
information in the form of an Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impacts and a
Cultural Heritage Assessment were submitted by the applicant. Those parties who had
already expressed an interest in the application were invited to submit further
comments on this additional information. The information was also available for
further public comment.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
As recommended by the Head of Planning in view of the complexity of the planning
issues involved.
PARISH COUNCIL – Wiveton Parish Council – Object strongly to the application on
the following grounds. (Representation of the 14 September 2015): The site lies
within the north Norfolk Coast AONB and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where
North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies EN1, EN2 and
EN8 are relevant. Additionally, Policy C9, PB3 of the AONB Management Plan, the
NPPF, Conservation Principles, English Heritage, 2008 (P.72) should also be
considered. As a result the proposal fails to accord with the requirements of the North
Development Committee
21
26 November 2015
Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy and NPPF. Concern that
Blakeney is not a total 'not spot' in that coverage is available in some parts of the
village.
Concerns that the application has been made in haste due to time scales set by the
Mobile Infrastructure Project, that the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate,
or fully explore the options of the mast being erected in a less sensitive location or the
utilisation of an existing building or structure such as within the tower of St Nicholas
Church in Blakeney. Question that Arqiva have not fully explored the use of the Church
Tower to accommodate the equipment, particularly due to the approved application
approved in 2004. The application does not conform to the NPPF requirements in
that 'Existing masts, buildings and other structures should be used, unless the need for
a new site has been justified. Where new sites are required, equipment should be
sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate". It is suggested that
NNDC undertake a thorough and impartial examination of Blakeney Church Tower
whether it runs on beyond the present phase of the MIP.
Object as major landscape impact would occur if a telecommunications mast of this
scale would be constructed in this particular location due to the prominent site within
the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and overlooking two
Conservation Areas. Concern that the mast would be visible from longer range views,
such as the Norfolk Coast Path from as far off as Wells in the west and for a similar
distance to the east as far as Sheringham. The mast would also be prominent from a
number of important visitor centres such as the National Nature Reserve of Blakeney
Point, the Harbour and departure point at Morston and Cley nature reserve. As a
result, questions whether the local economy and tourism offer of the unspoilt beauty
would be at risk.
The drawing submitted by Arqiva misrepresents the actual mast and tree height. In that
the mast would extend above the trees by 7 metres not the 3 metres suggested by
Arqiva. A further comment that was made by the inspector at the appeal for the
previous application was that these trees are tall, thin and ivy covered, such that their
health and stability may not be good, and little weight can be placed on their long term
screening value
(Further comments of the 1 October 2015) in respect to the LVIA- The photo montages
are misleading as what the camera sees on a basic setting is not what the eye sees.
Furthermore, concern that the level of support from Friary Farm caravan site are
disingenuous. Friary Farm sits high and has good mobile signals, plus I believe they
have mobile signal boosters on site, which I think make these responses
disingenuous.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date 198 representations have been received, 47 against, 149 in support and 2
comment.
Summary of objections:



The mast would detract from the landscape and seascape that Blakeney is
renowned for being visible for many miles in all directions;
It would blight the approach to the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty;
It would be a visual intrusion within the wider landscape;
This is a nationally famous site and the proposal is extremely ugly and visible
Development Committee
22
26 November 2015


























from a long distance;
A mast of this size is going to mar the skyline and the beauty of the area;
The lighting on top of the mast will destroy the beautiful natural night skies
where there is currently minimal light pollution;
It is the beauty of the area that draws visitors not the network availability;
Other areas have minimised the effect by pylons looking like fir trees;
The nearby church would be a much better solution and this option should be
fully investigated before a decision is taken;
The application is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework;
The proposed mast will be seen from Blakeney, Wiveton and Cley
Conservation Areas and will be deleterious to the views of these conservation
areas and nearby villages of Wells and Sheringham.
The views to and from the following listed buildings will be spoilt by the intrusion
from a lattice framework – St Nicholas Church I, Cley Mill II*, Friary Farmhouse
II.
The mast will be visible from the Norfolk Coast Path, Mortson Harbour,
Blakeney Point, Blakeney Harbour, Blakeney Freshers, Cley Marshes,
Wiveton Downs the Coast Road and many residential vantage points;
The financial consideration of Arqiva should not be the reasons to disfigure the
horizon we value;
Questions the mast siting on the edge of the coast when an arc of only 180
degrees can reach the prospective recipients. A site further inland would
reach an area of 360 degrees from the mast be 100% more cost effective;
The utilisation of other buildings and structures has not been fully explored;
The financial and time constraints of MIP seem to have encouraged the
applicants to inadequately investigate or fully research other options;
The Chief Executive Officer, Chris Townsend, for Broadband Delivery UK,
Departure of Culture, Media & Sport suggested planning applications should
have been submitted by the end of July. Therefore, the application
submission in September is unsatisfactory.
Whilst better communications is welcomed, this should not be at the detriment
of the scenic landscape of the AONB and paragraph 115 of the NPPF should
be given great weight;
Questions the height of the existing trees stated to be 18-24 metres where they
are in fact lower than this height.
The mast looks to be double the height of the trees.
The photomontages illustrate that the height of the mast to be inappropriate
when viewed from the churchyard;
Every effort should be made to overcome the reason why the church tower is
unsuitable for the equipment;
The coverage to be achieved by the mast is questioned as the mast is due
north of the church on ground which is 5 metres higher than the site. Given
that the church is 33 metres, therefore the top of the mast will be 8 metres
below the church which would comprise the coverage to the south;
Langham Road, Blakeney would be more suitable;
A technical evaluation of alternative sites should be explored and made public;
The previous application in 2004 was refused by NNDC, which was 5 metres
lower than that which is currently proposed;
The mast would damage and diminish one of the most iconic views in North
Norfolk from almost all directions;
Great weight should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of
the AONB;
The aim should be to keep the number of radio and telecom masts to a
Development Committee
23
26 November 2015


























minimum consistent with efficient operations of the network;
Questions whether the applicant has conformed to paragraph 45 of the NPPF
and explored the erection of antennas on existing building, masts and other
structures;
Concern that the application is driven by time pressured commercial
considerations;
The site is extremely sensitive and detract from the twin towers of Blakeney
Church;
A stronger mobile signal is not required at the expense of the landscape;
It would deter tourists on whom our tourism economy depends;
A visit to the tower is requested to explore its potential with objectors of the
proposal;
Previous appeal statement of refusal is provided where the Inspectors decision
is still considered relevant for today;
The application is ill prepared and has been delivered as a fait accompli by the
applicants – on the basis of 'agree or lose out'.
The use of the church has not been seriously examined in particular when the
previous approval was considered acceptable by NNDC and the diocesan;
The scale and type of mast is vastly larger than the standard mast provision;
Concern that the applicant has not quantified the area and its overall projected
coverage and correlated this with the actual area of non-provision of a mobile
signal. This should be essential in understanding why the mast needs to be
the size that is proposed;
The commercial aspect is disingenuous;
The siting of Blakeney Church on a high point of the coast, together with the
lady tower was used as a navigation tower and are considered to be impressive
and characteristic historic landscape features of the AONB;
It is one of the most frequently painted views of North Norfolk;
Blakeney can be accessed by one provider and the signal has improved over
the years. It is considered that the need has been reduced;
Has a survey been undertaken to establish how many business/households in
Blakeney really need a new mast;
Have the internet options of receiving mobile signals been explored;
It is hard to underestimate the significance of this landscape - a prominent
headland that constitutes a significant element of the North Norfolk Coast area
of the AONB and overlooking two Conservation Areas;
Blakeney Church at the crest of the landscape feature in this part of Norfolk as
Glastonbury Tor is to its part of Somerset;
The unspoilt nature of this landscape contributes to the tourism economy;
The mast will be visible from Morston where tourists embark on excursions to
see the seals;
The applicant has failed to demonstrate, or fully explore the options of the mast
being erected in a less sensitive location or utilising an existing structure;
The short term pragmatism in respect to mobile phone signals is not a sufficient
excuse for destroying important views within the AONB;
NNDC should undertake an impartial examination of Blakeney Church tower
whether or not it results in the extension of the application time frame;
Concern that Arqiva's assessment of the ability for the church to accept the
equipment is incorrect as the church tower is the largest parish church tower in
the country and contains the belfry and clock room which could accommodate
the equipment;
No account has been take of the 2004 application to accommodate equipment
for similar scheme;
Development Committee
24
26 November 2015






















It is considered that the church could accommodate the equipment from 4
operators without harm to the church or its setting, contrary to Arqiva's
assessment;
Arqiva's assessment of the trees is incorrect and have been measured and
found to be considerable lower that that shown on the plan;
Concern that if the focus is on the relationship between the trees and the mast
tends to suggest that the mast becomes acceptable if the relationship can be
improved;
Any extension above the tree line will be conspicuous from a great distance;
The correct height of the trees should be established by NNDC;
Concern that the appeal case in 2004 suggested that little weight can be placed
on the long term screening of the trees due to their condition;
The following polices should be taken in to account – EN1, EN2, EN8 of the
Adopted Core Strategy, current AONB Management Plan (C9, PB3, Section
3A), NPPF and Conservation Principles, English Heritage 2008).
The tourist revenue in 2012 was 415 million, therefore the economic case is not
overriding, not at the expense of the landscape asset;
Other areas have a robust position and have removed pylons – Dorset AONB
(NEAR Winterbourne Abbas), New Forest National Park (near Hale), Peak
District National Park (near Dunford Bridge) and Snowdonia national Park
(near Porthmadog).
Landscape issues are determined by geology and usage which has contributed
to the landscape which is visible within this AONB;
Concern that creeping inappropriate development keeps occurring such as
inappropriate architecture on high vantage points, stark eco build etc, where an
application for a structure on the edge of the Esker was thankfully stopped;
Concern that the construction of a new house was refused by the LPA as it
might be seen from the road, therefore significant concern that a 30 metre mast
maybe constructed.
Concerns in respect to radiation and the nearby school children.
Documents are included within the representations which demonstrate that this
area is not a total not spot and therefore ineligible under the MIP (Mobile
Coverage in the UK: Government Plans to tackle 'mobile not spots' & the
Mobile Infrastructure Project - Planning Application).
There are other alternatives available resulting from the improvements in
technologies – fast broadband infrastructure which has been installed within
the era, consolidation of existing network operators and signal boosters;
Concern that Arqiva have had ample opportunity to consider this area under
the MIP contract. Limited take up has occurred in sensitive areas suggesting
that these areas are unacceptable or alternative solutions have been preferred;
Aqiva are ignoring/failing to investigate viable alternatives, including the type of
mast, failing to follow pre-application consultation protocols and hurrying
planning application and committees to make decisions;
The information provided within the application is inadequate and misleading
and undertaken to achieve the financial reward;
There is a failure to observe the best practice guidelines and recognise the site
as a 'Red Traffic light' under the relevant matrix and pathway for consultations;
There has been an abuse/waste of public funds where this has resulted in a
flawed proposal which will have an adverse impact upon the AONB;
There should be a full and independent assessment of the current provision of
mobile and phone reception within the area to determine the true 'not spots';
Telecom groups (O2, BT, EE and Vodaphone) should be invited to suggest
options/alternative solutions to satisfy the need in Blakeney, Wiveton & Cley.
Development Committee
25
26 November 2015




















Merged mobile network operators, upgrades to existing masts (Cockthorpe)
and fast broadband should be considered.
The previous planning application adjacent immediately adjacent was
abandoned and there are no changes in circumstances since then;
There is no guarantee that in a few years an extra 10-20 metres could be
added, or if it becomes redundant that it would be removed;
Once the existing structure is there, there will be no going back;
No alternative structures or design have been proposed out of the 7 masts
already erected and 22 other masts under construction across the country.
These are all of the same design;
Are there not more environmentally friendly and sympathetic options available;
Elevation Plan No 304247–2 –150–MD002 shows the pylon just above the
trees but the test mast was much higher that the tree line. Concern that the
test mast was not the full 30 metres it was claimed to be;
The slender pole was visible for many miles around where a heavy duty lattice
pylon with a 4 metre diameter collar will be more intrusive and visible. This
has been misrepresented;
There has been an inadequate assessment of the need for a mast and other
options. The area contains coverage from other providers (O2, BT,EE and
Vodaphone). Coverage states that this area is only 3% lower than the UK
average;
The need for the 30m mast in this location does not outweigh the significant
visual harm to its sensitive location;
Figure 1 and Appendix 1 of the Cultural and Heritage Statement shows that the
mast will be visible in 5 km in almost all directions and will protrude above the
tree line from the majority of viewpoints;
Concern that the submitted LVIA describes the development as
major-moderate, which is significant;
Section 6.3 of the Cultural and Heritage Assessment does not correlate with
the evidence provided in Appendix 1, viewpoint 4 of the same document.
Viewpoint 4 montage clearly shows that the proposed mast would extend
significantly above the tree line and appear higher than the church tower
breaking the skyline. This contradicts section 6.3, where it states this it
would not break the skyline;
Overall, the direct visual effects of the study should be assessed moderate not
minor as claimed in section 6.3;
A more detailed assessment is required under the EIA regulations if the results
are either major or moderate effects;
Stakeholders and members of the public have not been given sufficient time to
comment on all the information in support of the planning application;
The proposed mast does not meet the requirements for sustainable
engineering as identified under the 6 principles within the engc guidance;
The applicant has failed to follow best practice guidance with regards to
pre-application advice;
The caravan park operator should set up an Internet WiFi hub;
Concerns that the caravan owners are using two addresses to provide
representations;
Summary of support


The mast will be a tremendous benefit from a community, social, economic and
safety viewpoint;
The inability to make emergency phone calls is of concern;
Development Committee
26
26 November 2015





























The east side of Blakeney has a poor reception and people frequently have to
walk to the west side to get 3G signal.
The mast does not appear to be visible to more than a handful of residents;
The lack of phone signal has been witnessed over a number of years in
Blakeney;
Improvement in emergency medical situation as improved mobile
communications could save lives;
It is difficult to run a business without effective mobile communications and
business will be more efficient and offer a better service to their customers;
Improvement in tourist and visitor experience;
Objections to the mast being unsightly are misguided in an AONB due to the
overwhelming benefits of significantly improved mobile telecommunications;
Support for the application as a local tradesman, frustration occurs as work
calls are missed due to poor signal;
Concern due to emergency situation and no signal availability in particular as
this is a remote area regarding major hospital facilities;
Improved mobile signal will be lifesaving;
Blakeney lost its flood siren before the 2013 surge illustrates that
communication is still important in emergency situations,
The previous application was objected upon due to the proximity of the school
and potential radiation. It was thought that another option would come along
and this did not happen. Therefore 14 years later there is the same debate
and Blakeney must move forward;
Business and people who work from home will benefit;
Blakeney is currently being left behind in respect to signal coverage;
The height of the mast is no worse than seeing hundreds of wind turbines
spoiling the horizon;
Communications in the area which are extremely poor at the moment would
benefit;
The mobile signal is inconvenient and frustrating for residents and visitors;
The site on which the mast is proposed is considered to have little impact
according to the mock up photographs as well as being mostly hidden in
coniferous trees;
The mast would only be briefly seen when driving along the coast road and
would not have a significant impact;
Many benefits to a improved mobile signal such as fire, police, ambulance
coastguard;
Having elderly family members, a good mobile signal is very important if there
is an emergency or to contact the emergency services;
It will bring significant benefits to those who live, visit and work in the area and
the location presents the minimal visual impact;
It is considered that the visual impact of the mast would be minimal and the
improvement to the local communication would be invaluable;
Blakeney is lagging behind in the 21 century and people who holiday may also
run a business and contacting is difficult;
It would be most reassuring to know that contact can be made at all times,
emergency – health or work wise;
The proposal should be the first of many to improve/upgrade rural Norfolk to
bring in to line with modern technology enjoyed by more populated areas;
Poor serve must be hurting local commerce;
Without healthy commerce how can the local environment be protected and
maintained;
Residents, traders, farmers and visitors welcome a reliable mobile phone
Development Committee
27
26 November 2015

























signal;
Improve communications will result in families staying longer in Blakeney and
contributing to the local economy;
The mast is seen as a benefit and will help on retiring to to the area;
Having young children, peace of mind would be given in that during a case of
emergency mobile signal could be achieved;
The mast will be fairly well screened and the benefits outweigh the impact on
the landscape;
This appears to be the last opportunity to install a mast in Blakeney;
A mast is essential as large areas of Blakeney do not receive a signal at all;
A mast at Friary Farm is the best possible solution;
A mobile single in Stiffkey due to the mast in Blakeney would be of benefit from
a business and social perspective, 4G would be liberating;
The caravan park on friary farm is a significant contributor to the local economy
and it would be a boost if the occupants could enjoy an improved signal;
The detailed analysis provided within the application depicts a sensitive
positioning of the mast with no detriment to the environment or visual beauty of
the area;
Being un-contactable is embarrassing from a business point of view and
dangerous form a personal point of view;
Other sites were proposed, investigated and rejected therefore there seems no
point in looking at other sites to fulfil the need for the mast;
Whilst the option chosen adjacent to the church and its visibility from the North
Norfolk Coast Path is not preferred, with no other options available, it is
considered that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages;
It will allow flood wardens and farm works to contact emergency services in
crisis;
Local flood warden need to receive warning and updates from the Environment
agency in flood situations particularly if the phone lines are down;
It is unfortunate that no other, better positions were available and explored
more fully in the time available, where the damage to the AONB and
Conservation Area would have been much less;
As a member of a local church the suggestion to construct a mast on the
church tower is laudable and wonder if consideration has been made to the
bureaucracy with the Church of England to get applications passed;
The blight of such a small mast is negligible when compared to the
monstrosities which have already been constructed off the Norfolk Coast;
The mast would eliminate not spots and give security to many tourist and locals
in the area by having mobile single in emergencies
There are no known benefits that the transmissions from the mast are
detrimental to health;
Local business are losing trade as a direct result of the problem;
It is appreciated that one of the main reasons of becoming a caravan owner in
Blakeney is the unspoilt nature and it is appreciated that the local authorities do
a great amount of work to protect that area, but a balance has to be struck and
the tide of progress cannot be held back indefinably as illustrated by the wind
turbines;
The visual impact will be small scale and wholly outweighed by the benefits of
the local community;
There are additional cultural reason for improved signal, i.e. on-line learning,
social communication, music are largely carried through social media;
If the balance of technical and planning judgement favours this location then
there is no good reason to oppose it;
Development Committee
28
26 November 2015






The MIP project to improve mobile phone signal in rural areas by 2017 is
welcomed;
Lack of phone signal is a hindrance in coastal areas, lone workers or
recreational boat users carrying out tasks with an element of risk;
The map taken from OFCOM illustrates areas which have /or no unreliable
single which impact upon instant payment of goods. Businesses are unable to
use this technology
The mast is considered to be well screened with little impact on the landscape
with only 20% visible;
The mock up illustrates that it will have very low environmental impact for
something that is so badly needed;
A strong signal will enable business and business owners to be booked more
easily;
Summary of letter of comment:1.
The issue of mobile coverage is very important in rural communities, but so is
maintaining the natural beauty that is the tourist attraction and economic benefit that it
brings. The option of using the church tower should be explored.
Collective letters/emails sent on behalf of the Director of Friary Farm Caravan Park
Two letters from the Director of Friary Farm Caravan Park was received which includes
78 emails/letters from caravan owners and 2 from members of staff, all in support of
the application. The comments are included in the support summaries above.
Summary of letter from Churchwarden of St Nicholas Church – Confirm that they
would be prepared to consider the instillation of the telecommunications equipment if
they were approached by the applicant. They have been approached and agreed in
the past to other schemes as it is considered to be of a community benefit
(notwithstanding Faculty approval).
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation and Design Officer - Comments that the mast will be visible from a
number of designated heritage assets (Grade II Listed Remains of Blakeney Mill
(approximately 170m from mast), Grade II Listed Friary Farmhouse (approximately
300m from mast), Grade II listed Wiveton Hall (approximately 600m from mast), Grade
II* Listed Cley Mill (approximately 1140m from mast), Blakeney Conservation Area
(Immediately west of the development site). However, the only heritage assets likely
to be significantly affected in terms of their setting and character and appearance is St
Nicholas Church (which lies approximately 175m south west of the mast) and the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area which entirely encompasses the development site.
Notes the importance of the architectural character of the church and the link between
the landscape value and the churches visual dominance which must be a key
consideration for the proposal. Comments that the mast will introduce a modern
structure of utilitarian nature which will be out of context with the landscape setting and
considers that the close proximity between the church tower and mast will result in the
structures competing for dominance.
Observes that whilst the tree belt will provide some element of screening, the top
section of the mast will protrude above the adjacent tree line from a number of key
vantage points where the Conservation Officer considers that this will result in a
dominant impact from within the churchyard. It is considered that the view from the
church across the graveyard towards the mast is one the most sensitive aspects of this
historic site and will be seen by the majority of visitors to the Grade I asset. Notes the
Development Committee
29
26 November 2015
longer range views of the mast, the impact and overall visibility is less significant and in
the majority of instances (as shown in the LVIA) will only result in the very top portion of
the mast being visible.
The Conservation Officer considers that the proposal will unquestionably erode the
unspoilt landscape setting of the Church and in-turn result in harm to the Church's
significance as the dominant historic landmark of the area. This harm is however
considered to be less than substantial and will not result in total loss or physical
alteration to historic fabric of the heritage assets in question. The harm identified is
also reflected within the 'Cultural Heritage Assessment' accompanying the application
which concludes that the sensitivity of this listed building is 'High' (national importance)
and the magnitude of the predicted direct visual effect will also be 'High'.
The Conservation Officer has noted that, in respect of the alternative sites considered
by the applicant, Joes' Hill (D4) would seem to be less sensitive from both a landscape
perspective and historic environment due to its siting and location compared with the
site at Friary Farm.
It is ultimately a matter of balancing any public benefits against harm to heritage assets
and those benefits would need to be significant where harm to heritage assets has
been identified.
In conclusion, the Conservation Officer considers the proposal will result in harm to
heritage assets (most notably the setting of St Nicholas Church, Blakeney and the
character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Whilst the harm in
both cases is considered to amount to less than substantial harm any public benefits
would need to be clearly identified and of be of sufficient weight in order to justify
approval. In the absence of any tangible evidence of public benefit outweighing harm
to significance, recommendation must be one of refusal in line with national and local
policy.
Landscape Officer – Based on the additional information submitted, in the form of an
Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impacts and a Cultural Heritage Assessment,
the Landscape Officer comments that the site is situated in the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Glaven Valley & Blakeney Conservation
Areas. The Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impacts report by Entrust dated
September 2015 concludes, 'the overall predicted effect on…
landscape
character…can be considered major-moderate, which is significant'. As a result, the
Landscape Officer does not consider that the proposal meets the requirements of
Policy EN1 & EN2 in terms of impact upon landscape and the AONB as the proposed
mast will have a significant negative impact on landscape due to its visibility from the
Coastal area, which is considered a valuable landscape.
Policy EN 1 makes clear that development proposals which have an adverse effect will
not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be located on
alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development
clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
In considering alternative sites, the Landscape Officer advises that a landscape
assessment at Joes Hill (D4) (undertaken in house by the Landscape Officer),
identifies the Joes' Hill site as being in a less sensitive location as it has limited views to
the coast and the immediate area around Joe's Hill can no longer be described as wild
and undeveloped due to the adjacent modern housing on Kingsway and Thistleton
Court on Langham Road. The intrusion of large farm buildings, electricity cables and
poles and the adjacent housing align the site to the clustered settlement of Blakeney.
Development Committee
30
26 November 2015
Therefore, the overall impact on the AONB is considered to be moderate. The main
impact would be from adjacent roads, footpaths and property whilst the site would be
barely visible from the more sensitive and valuable coastal area. Medium and long
distance views of the Joe's Hill site would be limited due to topography, hedges and
trees. In conclusion, Policy and guidance clearly states that the current site should
only be acceptable if no alternatives are available. It is clear that a suitable alternative
exists at Joes' Hill and therefore the Landscape Officer recommends refusal of the
current proposal at Friary Farm on the basis that the proposed mast would have a
significant negative impact on landscape character due to its visibility from the Coastal
area contrary to the aims of Policy EN1 & EN2 in terms of impact upon landscape and
the nationally significant AONB.
Environmental Protection Officer – The applicant has provided an ICNIRP certificate of
conformity [in relation to non-ionising radiation (NIR)] and therefore no objections are
raised to the application.
Heritage England – Comments that chief concerns relate to the impact the proposals
would have on the grade I listed parish church of St Nicholas. Historic England
consider the proposals could diminish the qualities of the church's setting and result in
harm to its significance in terms of paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF. Considers
that the siting of the church makes the twin towers more prominent, but also means the
church is seen in a rural setting with few, mostly traditional domestic and agricultural
buildings in the vicinity. This setting contributes to and emphasises the church's
significance as a landmark building built by and for a traditional agrarian community.
The images provided within the application indicate that the top of the proposed mast
would be visible above the woodland across the road from St Nicholas' church and
lower part of the mast might also be more visible in winter. However, introducing a
prominent modern industrial structure into the landscape near the church could
diminish the qualities of the church's setting.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies protection and
enhancement of the historic environment as an important element of sustainable
development and establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development in
the planning system (paragraphs 6, 7 and 14). The NPPF also states that the
significance of listed buildings can be harmed or lost by development in their setting
(paragraph 132) and that the conservation of heritage assets is a core principle of the
planning system (paragraph 17). Furthermore, paragraph 137 states that proposals
that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to, or
better reveal the significance of the heritage assets should be treated favourably.
Acknowledges that the proposed development would deliver a public benefit and
recommend the Council weigh that benefit against the harm as required by paragraph
134 of the NPPF when determining the application.
County Council (Highway): No objections.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MOD) – No objections.
National Air Traffic Services - No objection. It is noted that the proposed development
will not provide a significant collision risk to aircraft operating in the vicinity of the
Norwich airport, or interference with our surveillance systems.
Norwich Airport - Safeguarding Co-Ordinator - No objection
Norfolk Coast Partnership – Advised the agent at pre-application stage that the mast
Development Committee
31
26 November 2015
would be located in the heart of the AONB, close to and visible from the North Norfolk
Heritage Coast and the multiple designated coastal area. The proposed mast would
also be considerably higher (than the other proposed mast in the AONB, at Sedgeford)
at 30m and would also be in an exposed location on the coastal ridge, although the
existing planting will partly mitigate this. Informal advice recognised the high profile
with visitors and its local residents due to its natural beauty and is therefore a sensitive
site. Local concern was noted and advised that the [test mast] was welcomed.
In respect to the application in hand, it is recognised that coverage of 'not-spots' in
Blakeney and its surrounding area would inevitably require an additional base station
in the AONB in this area, and that coverage is an important national priority. The flag
trial showed that the mast would be clearly visible from large section of the Norfolk
Coast Path and would have a marked impact on the setting of Blakeney Church.
Comments that the site is highly sensitive and observes that there is contention over
the suitability of the church tower to house the necessary equipment. Notes that an
alternative site south of Blakeney may be viable although further investigation into
overall impact on the AONB would be required, although not on the coast north of
Blakeney and Cley. Advises that the Council needs to be assured that all possible
options have been properly considered to achieve the optimum outcome in terms of
both coverage and of minimising visual, landscape and heritage asset impacts.
Comments received 8/10/15 as a result of submitted LVIA – Considers that the
landscape assessment is flawed as the information contained within the North Norfolk
LCA assessing impact has not been fully recognised. Agrees with the Cultural and
Heritage assessment's conclusion that Blakeney Church is the only heritage asset
likely to be significantly affected in terms of its setting, and that the potential impact on
the landscape setting of the church is a key consideration in this proposal. Comments
that some deficiencies exist in the study in that it has failed to consider the full range of
relevant information and policy properly including NPPF compliance. Agrees with the
conclusion of the Cultural and Heritage Assessment in that the overall effect on the
setting of the church would be major and significant. Comments that it is it is
important to be assured that no other alternative sites and designs are potentially
available that would result in less impact before making a judgement on whether the
benefits outweigh the impacts in this particular location.
Council's Economic and Tourism Development Manager - No objection. The following
assessment is based solely from an economic impact perspective. In particular, it is felt
that:
 Advanced, high quality communications infrastructure is essential for sustainable
economic growth
 It is vital that rural businesses are able to access the increasing need for mobile
web payment systems
 Improved telecommunications enable the increasing need for remote working.
 Tourists into the District will benefit and, not only will feel encouraged to return, but
will be able to better access local services and information remotely during their
stay.
 Good telecommunications are invaluable in emergency situations, such as in the
event of flood.
National Trust – Confirms that National Trust owns the freehold to the land which is
subject to the proposed development. Objects due to demonstrable harm caused to
the grade I listed building (St Nicholas Church) and therefore contrary to Policy EN8 of
the adopted Core Strategy and Para 132 of the NPPF. Insufficient evidence has been
presented relating to the location and justification for discounting existing structures,
Development Committee
32
26 November 2015
buildings or other innovative solutions that might have presented site sharing
opportunities. Furthermore, the suitability of alternative sites has not been fully
explored. Concern that a number of sites were discounted due 'unable to contact
landowner' without demonstrating technical justifications for alternatives sites and
without demonstrating that every reasonable effort has been made to negotiate with
other landowners.
Natural England – The mast is located in the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB) where the local authority should ensure that the siting and
design principles contained in the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network
Development in England have been appropriately applied. The main issue here
appears to be whether this is the best available location for this proposal, in terms of
minimising the visual impacts on the protected landscape. No further comments
provided and recommend that advice is sought from the AONB Partnership.
SURROUNDING PARISHES
Letheringsett and Glandford Parish Council: State that there is a need for a good
mobile reception not only in the case of an emergency but also for economic
development in the Glandford area which suffers immeasurably from poor
connectivity.
Blakeney Parish Council – Support the application on the grounds of increased
emergency service cover, significant economic benefits to business, change in
community interest for this type of development, increased safety of lone workers,
cover a wider area than Blakeney to include Cley, Morston, Wiveton, Stiffkey,
Langham and Glandford, no alternative for the foreseeable future if it is not
constructed, the church is no considered a real alternative and the benefits outweigh
the negatives.
Cley Parish Council – Support the application but are concerned in respect to its
position in the AONB and disappointed due to the lack of investigation of the potential
to use the church.
Salthouse Parish Council – Supports the application on the grounds that the mast will
provide increased mobile coverage across the immediate North Norfolk coast and
hopefully as far as Salthouse. Whilst the visual appearance will be negative, the
benefits include coverage for emergency services and safety reasons, communities
and local farmers.
Field Dalling and Saxlingham Parish Council - Supports the application on the grounds
that the reasons for supporting the application outweigh those against it. Comments
that, whilst the sensitivity of the site is acknowledged it is considered that the structure
would be well screened and in the event that new technology arises, the equipment
can be removed from site. It is considered that the church tower is not appropriate
due to the level of equipment required and overall impact on the listed structure.
Concerns relate to the existing 'not spots' and reliable signal for emergency services,
flood defences, remote workers and business. The young generation will also
benefit.
Other Interested Parties – Volunteer Flood Wardens - Support the application on the
grounds that it is considered the infrastructure will dramatically improve the level of
communications within many of the potentially at risk areas/villages along the North
Norfolk coast, especially in times of flooding. A vote was taken and all the present
flood wardens unanimously voted in favour of the planning application.
Development Committee
33
26 November 2015
Chairman Economic Development Sub Committee (Norfolk County Council) –
Recognises the conflicting issues between the impact of this type of development on
the countryside, the AONB in this instance and the need for mobile phone signal in the
case of emergencies and other economic benefits, such as small business and
tourists. Comments that, if approved all the 'not spots' in the vicinity will be eliminated
and reception improved for a 4 mile radius. States that 3-4 G will be available and 5 G
in the future. Notes a number of inaccuracies with objectors comments such as - the
not spots have been confirmed by Ofcom, considers that the Church Tower as an
alternative would not be feasible due to the level of equipment required, there is
currently no technically viable alternative on the market and further investigation in to
alternative sites would jeopardise the project. Comments that the mast is vital for the
community and will improve the lives of residents, visitor and business. Concern for
public safety is observed due to storm or tidal surges. Comments that it is hoped that
the Council will consider that the benefits of the application outweigh the dis-benefits
and hopes that support from the local parish council will carry weight.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
EQUALITIES ACT 2010
In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has considered the
requirements under S149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It is considered that the
application raises no significant equality issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008), as well as supplementary
planning documents: the North Norfolk Design Guide Supplementary Planning
Document (December 2008) and the Landscape Character Assessment (June 2009).
The relevant policies are:
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
Development Committee
34
26 November 2015
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 4: Telecommunications (guides telecommunications development to ensure
protection of landscape and townscape character)
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
 Planning Policy Context;
 Background History;
 Principle of Development
 Landscape and Visual Impacts;
 Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty & Alternatives
 Impact on Designated Historic Assets;
 Impact on Residential Amenity;
 Impact on Wildlife/Ecology;
 Impact on Aviation;
 Impact on Highway Safety & Public Rights of Way;
 Impact on Public Health
 Impact on Tourism & Other Sectors;
 Benefits of the Proposed Development;
 Overall Summary.
APPRAISAL
Members visited the site on 05 November 2015, viewing it from a number of significant
local vantage points.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). Although it preceded the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF), the relevant policies (other than Policy EN8) are consistent with the NPPF and
full weight should be given to them.
LOCAL POLICY
The following policies are relevant to the application.
Policy EN1, requires the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on
the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, to be carefully assessed.
Development will be permitted where it;



is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or
is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB or The
Broads; and
seeks to facilitate delivery of the Norfolk Coast AONB management plan
objectives.
Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be
Development Committee
35
26 November 2015
demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less
harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Policy EN2, requires development proposals to demonstrate that their location, scale,
design and materials will protect, conserve and where possible, enhance, inter alia,
'the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character),' 'visually sensitive skylines, hillsides' and 'the
setting of and views from historic parks and gardens';
Policy EN8, which sets out that development proposals should preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of designated assets and their settings and that
development which would have an adverse impact on their special historic or
architectural interest would not be permitted; and
Policy CT 4, which is designed to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems
while keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. It states that proposals for
telecommunications development (including radio masts), equipment and
installations will only be permitted provided that:






there is a justifiable need for the development in terms of contributing to the
operator's national network;
no reasonable possibilities exist to share existing telecommunication facilities;
existing buildings and structures are used where possible to site new antennas
rather than erection of new masts;
the development is sited and designed so as to minimise impact on the open
character of the North Norfolk landscape and respect the character and
appearance of the surrounding townscape;
where applicable, impact on the building on which equipment is installed is
minimised; and
within the Norfolk Coast AONB, it can be demonstrated that the benefits of the
scheme outweigh the landscape or visual impacts.
In respect of the application of Core Strategy Policy EN8, in considering a number of
wind turbine proposals across the District, Officers have accepted that Core Strategy
Policy EN 8 is not consistent with the NPPF, on the basis of the Batsworthy Cross High
Court judgment – a case known as Colman [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin). In
considering impact on heritage assets, Officers therefore advise the Committee to
have regard to relevant parts of paragraph 14 of the NPPF as set out below, together
with the legal duties required to be discharged under Sections 66(1) and Sections 72 of
the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.
NATIONAL POLICY
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) came into effect on 27 March
2012 and sets out the Government's planning policies. It identifies that the purpose of
the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
The core principles of the NPPF include, amongst other things, conserving and
enhancing the natural environment and; conserving heritage assets in a manner
appropriate to their significance.
In determining planning applications for telecommunications, paragraphs 45 of the
NPPF states:
'Applications for telecommunications development should be supported by the
necessary evidence to justify the proposed development. This should include:
Development Committee
36
26 November 2015
the outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed
development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed
near a school or college or within a statutory safeguarding zone surrounding an
aerodrome or technical site; and
 for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies
that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International
Commission on non-ionising radiation protection guidelines; or
 for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the
possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and
a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission
guidelines will be met'.
In considering this proposal, the Committee should have in its mind the advice set out
within paragraph 14 of the NPPF which states:

'At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking.
…….. For decision-taking this means:





approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without
delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date,
granting permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken
as a whole; or
specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted'.
BACKGROUND HISTORY
On 5 April 2004 a planning application, reference 04/0573/PF was received by the
Local Planning Authority for the erection of a 25 metre lattice telecommunications mast
with three antennae, one dish and one small equipment cabinet. The application was
refused by the Local Planning Authority on the grounds that the application was
unacceptable in the AONB and Conservation Area, an incongruous form of
development in this prominent site and that alternative sites had not been fully
explored. The application was subsequently dismissed at appeal by the Planning
Inspectorate for the reasons broadly set out by the Local Planning Authority. However
the Planning Inspector did make an additional reference to the 'lack of 'overriding
national need'
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
Paragraph 42 of the NPPF states: 'Advanced, high quality communications
infrastructure is essential for sustainable economic growth'. The 'not-spot' areas are,
by their nature, usually in more remote locations and the costs involved in providing
coverage to these areas together with the limited number of potential residential,
business and other customers to justify private sector investment are part of the
reasons why significant mobile infrastructure investment has not happened to date in
certain areas. The Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP) provides an opportunity to
improve mobile phone coverage in a rural area and enable local communities,
businesses and visitors to benefit from it. This is a Government sponsored project
established with the specific purpose of eradicating the lack of effective coverage in
certain localities by providing communications services to local communities and
business currently without access to such services. Such benefits include extending
Development Committee
37
26 November 2015
business opportunities, improving social well-being by reducing a sense of isolation,
personal convenience and security, facilitating modern forms of working (such as
homeworking), and enabling faster contact with the emergency services in the event of
an accident or incident. Therefore, the Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP) is clearly
an important material planning consideration and it is the type of new digital
infrastructure that the NPPF (para.42) seeks to support.
In considering telecommunication proposals there is a clear emphasis that local
planning authorities should be looking for ways to support development coming
forward. The NPPF recognises that this is especially relevant where development
might have other significantly important benefits such as being essential to meet, for
example, sustainable economic growth or a national need which can include new
infrastructure that connect communities.
Having regard to the Government's three key dimensions for sustainable development
within the NPPF, mobile communications will assist in a number of ways:
Economic role employment;
help maintain high and stable levels of economic growth and
Social role - aid social progress, which recognises the needs of everyone, extending
economic opportunity particularly important to those who live in remote areas,
particularly among the more socially disadvantaged, with poorer access to transport,
extending flexible forms of working, helps to achieve a better work life balance,
improves convenience and enhance personal safety and security, and aids social
inclusion through connectivity.
Environmental role - helps reduce travelling and help ensure the prudent use of
natural resources. However, the main considerations include the impact on character
and appearance including impact on the setting of landscape and heritage assets,
highway safety and neighbour amenity.
In respect of telecommunications development it advocates that advanced, high
quality communications infrastructure are essential for sustainable economic growth.
The development of high speed broadband technology and other communications
networks also plays a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities
and services.
Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning
applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
The principle of a new telecommunications mast is acceptable subject to the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy CT 4 together with those requirements of Core
Strategy Policies EN 1 and EN 2 being met whilst having regard to the requirements of
sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay 'special attention' to the 'desirability of preserving' the
setting of listed buildings, and the character and appearance of conservation areas.
LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACTS
When considering landscape and visual impact, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy CT 4 (Telecommunications) and Policy EN 2
(Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character), which states:
'Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the
Development Committee
38
26 November 2015
distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment [NNLCA] and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:








the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character)
gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
distinctive settlement character
the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland,
trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for dispersal of
wildlife
visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
nocturnal character
the setting of, and views from, Conservation Areas and Historic Parks and Gardens
the defined Setting of Sheringham Park, as shown on the Proposals Map'.
CS Policy CT 4 states at bullet point 4 that proposals will only be permitted providing
that 'the development is sited and designed so as to minimise the impact on the open
character of the North Norfolk landscape and the character and appearance of the
surrounding townscape'
The application site would occupy an area of approximately 36 sqm of land and is
situated to the south of the existing Coast Road (A149). The site is located within a
copse of trees approximately ranging between 18 to 24 metres height and the access
to the site would be taken from the Coast Road (A149) via an existing track located
within a copse of trees (approximately 150m in length).
The site lies within the Rolling Heath and Arable landscape type and is immediately
adjacent to the Open Coastal Marshes landscape type as defined in North Norfolk
Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (Supplementary Planning Document) (June
2009). According to the LCA, the Rolling Heath & Arable – Blakeney Area (RHA1)
landscape type is a small isolated extension to the larger area on the eastern side of
the Glaven Valley with a gradually sloping landform and numerous 'sea view
opportunities which are a prominent feature of the area' due to its proximity to the sea
and fairly hilly topography.
Table 13.2 of the LCA, indicates that the open character and uninterrupted views
within the rolling heath and arable landscape character type would suggest that when
siting telecom masts within the more rural location, care should be undertaken to
minimise visual intrusion. Furthermore, in respect of skyline it is considered that
telecom masts could have severe impacts in certain areas as they result in an alien
feature within the wider landscape.
According to the LCA, the neighbouring Drained Coastal Marshes (DCM2) landscape
type is a relatively simple area which has few features mostly freshwater grazing in
small field parcels with reed infringed ditches and larger water scrape. The area
around Blakeney/ Wiveton is bounded by sea banks and has no direct contact with the
coast. This is a highly sensitive landscape which is 'considerably affected by any
potential developments or changes to adjoining higher areas'.
Additionally, a further landscape type is Open Coastal Marshes (OCM3) landscape
Development Committee
39
26 November 2015
type where the LCA considers this as a popular and well used area for leisure and
visitors, comprising of: large car parks, staithe and dinghy/boat parks, a large area of
harbour enclosed by the spit of Blakeney Point, areas of dune and shingle beach. The
village of Blakeney and to a lesser extent Morston, are considered to be 'highly visible
from within this area due to their locations on rising land'.
The applicants have submitted reports and documents to support their proposal,
including a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA), prepared by Entrust
Planning for Renewables, together with Visualisations from a number of Viewpoints
which, according to the Council's Landscape Officer have for the most part been
carried out in accordance with recognised professional best practice (Guidelines for
Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd edition, 2013, Landscape Institute and
IEMA) (GVLIA 3). The study area incorporates 7 key viewpoints in order to assess the
potential visual and landscape effects.
It is evident from the representations received that the surrounding landscape is
attractive and highly valued by local residents and tourists alike. It is inevitable given
the scale and location of the mast that it would be a prominent feature in the
landscape. The design of the mast would provide a utilitarian appearance which would
create a degree of harm in this essentially rural setting. The proposed mast will rely to
a large extent on the existing copse of trees to provide an element of natural screening.
The key policy test within Policy CT 4 is whether the proposal 'is sited and designed so
as to minimise impact on the open character of the North Norfolk Landscape and
respect the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape' whilst CS Policy
EN 2 suggests that development proposals should demonstrate that their location,
scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance,
amongst other things, the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.
The LVIA concludes in paragraphs 3.1.9 - 3.1.10 that the proposed development will
generally only be seen within a short range views of 2km, which will result in a medium
magnitude of change. Furthermore, the LVIA considers that the long range views will
be moderate due to the undulating nature of the landscape and natural screening from
hedgerows and planting. However, key views from the east and west will inevitably
change post development.
Whilst the existing copse of trees will screen the lower part of the mast and associated
ground equipment from wider view, the upper section of the mast will be visible from a
wide area, the extent of visible element dependent upon where the mast is viewed
from. The sites elevated position will inevitably result in significant visual impact to the
landscape fabric. The LVIA concludes the overall predicted effect on landscape
character as a result of the proposed development can be considered major-moderate,
which is significant especially given the noticeable impacts, namely from St Nicholas
Church and the Norfolk Coastal Path.
The conclusions of the submitted LVIA have been confirmed by the Councils
Landscape Officer. Taking the views of the consultees in to consideration, Officers
consider that the effect on the landscape character as a result of the proposed
development is significant. The proposal is therefore assessed as being contrary to
Policies EN1, EN 2 of the adopted Core Strategy.
It is ultimately a matter of planning judgment for Committee but Officers recommend
that, when making the planning judgment, the Committee should afford considerable
weight to the significant harm to landscape that would result from the proposal. As
such there would need to be compelling public benefits in favour of the proposal in
order to justify approval.
Development Committee
40
26 November 2015
IMPACT ON AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
When considering impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Committee is
advised to take account of advice within CS Policy CT4 (Telecommunications) and
Policy EN 1 (Norfolk Coast Area of outstanding Natural Beauty), which states:
'The impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect, on the Norfolk Coast
AONB... and their settings, will be carefully assessed. Development will be permitted
where it;
is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area or is
desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area;
does not detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk coast AONB of the Broads;
and
seeks to facilitate the delivery of the AONB Manage Plan objectives;
Additionally, EN1 states that, 'proposals that have an adverse effect will not be
permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative
sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh
any adverse impacts'.
The statutory purpose of designating an area of land as an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. This
comprises the area's distinctive landscape character, biodiversity and geodiversity,
historic and cultural environment.
Two secondary non-statutory purposes of AONBs are also recognised:
To take account of the needs of agriculture, forestry, fishing and other local rural
industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities, paying
particular regard to promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development
that in themselves conserve and enhance the area's natural beauty; and
To seek to meet the demand for recreation so far as this is consistent with the statutory
purpose of conserving and enhancing the area's natural beauty - and which preferably
supports this purpose by increasing understanding, valuation and care for the area and is also consistent with the needs of rural industries.
The Norfolk Coast AONB Management Plan Strategy 2014 - 19 states;
'There are also pressures for other forms of development in the countryside and in
some cases potential conflict between government and other guidance and AONB
protection – for example telecommunications masts and broadband infrastructure –
and there may be others, unforeseen at present, in the future. Although development is
likely to bring economic benefits, impacts on the areas natural beauty can undermine
the natural capital that underpins the tourism industry and makes this an attractive
area to live in and visit. We need to manage development so that it is compatible with
AONB designation'
Policy PC9 of the Norfolk Coast AONB Strategy 'supports the provision of necessary
facilities and new development to meet proven needs of local communities and
businesses', but this must be balanced with 'ways that maintain the area's natural
beauty, including the provision of fast broadband throughout the area'.
The LVIA submitted with the application includes 7 viewpoints taken from within the
AONB, which illustrate the visual effects, and the likely effects on the landscape
Development Committee
41
26 November 2015
character of the AONB which is one of an undeveloped and unspoilt character. The
LVIA confirms that the mast will be viewed from all 7 sensitive receptors which were
chosen as viewpoints and concludes that 'significant effects upon the landscape fabric
are predicted'….' There would be some noticeable impacts on the nearby sensitive
receptors, namely from St Nicholas Church and from certain angles along the North
Norfolk Coast'.
The Council’s Landscape Officer considers that the mast will have a significant
negative impact on landscape character due to its visibility from the Coastal area which
is considered a valuable landscape. The AONB Strategy states why this area of coast
line is so important;
'At national level, it is one of the few remaining examples of relatively undeveloped and
unspoilt coastal areas of this character. At a regional level it forms a wild, rich and
diverse complement to the intensive agricultural landscapes that dominate East
Anglia'.
Taking all these considerations in to account, Officers are in agreement with the
conclusions set out within the submitted LVIA which states 'as a result of the overall
predicted effect on the landscape character…the proposed development can be
considered major/moderate, which is significant'.
The site's location within the AONB requires very careful assessment of visual impact
on the special qualities of the area. The available evidence suggests that a lattice mast
at Friary Farm Caravan Park would introduce an alien, industrial structure and
associated equipment into a rural landscape which has one of the highest levels of
statutory protection. The proposed mast would be highly visible above the existing tree
line from a considerable number of locations within the AONB. The mast would
become an additional focal point which would detract from the setting of adjacent
heritage assets and their wider setting within the landscape. As a result, Officers are
of the opinion that, the proposed 30m mast would detract from the special qualities of
the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Alternative and potentially less harmful locations on which to site the mast have been
identified. In accordance with the advice set out with Core Strategy Policy EN 1 and, in
light of the identified significant adverse impact the Friary Farm Caravan Park proposal
would have on the special qualities of the AONB, Officers would advise against that
grant of planning permission unless it can be demonstrated that the mast cannot be
located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the
development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
Alternative Design and Sites
In light of the advice contained within Core Strategy Policies EN 1 and CT 4, amongst
other things, about ensuring alternative and less harmful proposals have been properly
considered and also having regard to paragraph 43 of the NPPF which states 'Where
new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and
camouflaged where appropriate'.
The applicant's submission notes that the use of a lattice tower provides a relatively
open and permeable structure, would give the impression of allowing views through
the mast to the backdrop of trees and the sky beyond. As a shared base station, the
applicant advises that the tower needs to have sufficient structural stability to handle
the load bearings of the various antennas etc. (and allow for future upgrading) as well
as taking into account environmental factors such as wind speeds.
Development Committee
42
26 November 2015
Other designs such as shared tree mast designs were considered but these would
require vertically separated antenna arrangements and an artificial tree spear which
would increase the overall height by as much as 10 metres and require a thick trunk.
The agent states that the design can often be prominent and incongruous in the wider
landscape, especially when divorced from groups of trees and woodland. Officers
would agree that a 'tree' mast would be inappropriate in this location.
Paragraph 45 of the NPPF states that applications for new telecommunications
development should include evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of
using an existing building, mast or structure. No guidance on the level of evidence
needed is given, and not withstanding comments made in representations, the
applicant confirms that the following criteria in consideration of sites:
 They must be environmentally suitable, i.e. where any inevitable and associated
impact is within acceptable parameters;
 They must be available on reasonable commercial terms;
 They must be capable of being developed, e.g. without unstable ground
conditions;
 They must have safe and satisfactory vehicular access for construction and future
maintenance and servicing;
 They must afford a reasonable degree of security;
 They must be supplied with power or capable of having an economic supply
connected;
 Ideally they will offer scope for accommodating future requirements, e.g. sufficient
room at ground level for further equipment cabinets.
The application submission states that there are no existing electronic
communications sites in the locality that can be shared which will result in the coverage
and line of sight requirements essential for a project of this type. The applicant has
also confirmed that an existing mast at Cockthorpe is currently unsuitable because it is
already being shared by three mobile network operators (MNOs) and also the
Wells-Next-the Sea transmitting station does not reach the Blakeney area and
therefore will not remove the existing 'not spots'. The submission further states that
the proposed electronic communication apparatus will be shared by all MNO's.
A number of representations have questioned whether/why the existing larger tower at
the St Nicholas Church, Blakeney could not be used to house the masts and
associated equipment. The applicant has dismissed this for various reasons including
the limited space to accommodate the equipment. Officers have considered the use of
the Church of St Nicolas very carefully but the amount of equipment needed to be
housed, the number of alterations required to be made and the resultant impact on the
fabric of the grade I listed building would likely amount to substantial harm to the listed
building such that it would be unlikely to be recommended for approval by Officers.
Officer are aware of previously approved applications to install equipment within the
Bell Tower of St Nicholas Church, though it must be acknowledged that the equipment
was significantly smaller, in that the application related to the erection of 3 antennas
and one cabinet (including associated cables). The equipment was proposed to be
mounted behind the existing louvres.
Turning to the assessment of alternative sites, the application submission details
twelve alternative sites which were considered and which sets out the reasons why
these alternatives were dismissed. Four sites were discounted due to unwillingness of
the landowner to host the equipment (Land at New Barn Farm, Land west of Langham
Road, Galley Hill Farm, Land at Allen Farm). Two sites were discounted due to inability
Development Committee
43
26 November 2015
to contact the landowner (Land at Kettle Hill, Land at Morston Downs) and two sites
were discounted due to prominent position resulting from the local topography, limited
vegetation screening and impact upon landscape and heritage assets (Land at Friary
Farm Caravan Park and Land at Joes Hill). Three sites were discounted on the basis
that a taller structure would be required to provide the required coverage to the target
areas.
One of these twelve sites, Site D4 (Land at Joes Hill) was rejected for the following
reason;
'This option is located to the south of Blakeney, outside of the Glaven Ward
conservation area and North Norfolk Heritage Coast. While the site option is located
further away from the majority of residential properties than the proposed option, an
option in this location was considered to have a greater landscape impact upon the
AONB, therefore this site was discounted'.
On the basis that the Joe's Hill site could be a potentially more appropriate location on
which to site a mast, the Council's Landscape Officer carried out a Landscape Visual
Impact Assessment and considered that the overall impact on the AONB would be
moderate and overall, Joes Hill is a less sensitive site (compared with Friary Farm
Caravan Park). The main impact would be from adjacent roads footpaths. A
considerable factor in favour of the Joe's Hill site is that a mast would be barely visible
from the more sensitive and valuable coastal area. Medium and long distance views
of the site would be limited due to topography, hedges and trees.
Following comments made in representations and observation from Officers, the
Agent provided an additional statement on why the existing site at Joes Hill (D4) was
discounted on landscape reasons. The statement for the agent includes the
following:
'This was because this discounted option forms part of the open, rolling, farmland to
south of Blakeney where a 30m mast would be divorced from built development and
tree screening with the effect that it would be visible over a large area, most notably
from the public viewpoints along the B1156 and Saxlingham Road on the approaches
to and from Blakeney. In essence, the judgment was made that the development
would have a greater visual impact than the application proposal and thereby have an
unacceptable impact on the on the landscape character of the Norfolk Coast Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty at this point'.
At the time of writing this report, Officers remain unconvinced by the applicant's
justification to dismiss the Joe's Hill site.
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ON THE AONB
Having considered the applicant's LVIA, as well as the advice from the Council's
Landscape Officer, it is considered that the proposed mast would have a significant,
yet localised adverse effect on the special qualities of this part of the AONB. The
mast would introduce a significant man made structure into an area valued for its
landscape qualities as an undeveloped and unspoilt coastal area. The visual amenity
would be adversely affected by the intrusion of the mast. Furthermore, Officers are
not satisfied that an appropriate assessment of alternative sites has been carried out.
Taking all of these considerations into account Officers are of the opinion that, the
proposed 30m mast would detract from the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast
AONB and adjacent heritage assets and their setting intrinsic to those landscapes.
The proposal is therefore assessed as being contrary to Policies EN1, EN 2 and CT4.
Development Committee
44
26 November 2015
On the basis that alternative and potentially less harmful locations on which to site the
mast have been identified by Officers, in accordance with the advice set out with Core
Strategy Policy EN 1 and, in light of the identified significant adverse impact the Friary
Farm proposal would have on the special qualities of the AONB, Officers would advise
against that grant of planning permission unless it can be demonstrated that the mast
cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of
the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.
IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
When considering the impact on historic assets, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy CT 4 (Telecommunications) and Policy EN 8
(Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment), which states:
'Development proposals…should preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of designated assets, other important historic buildings, structures, monuments and
landscapes, and their settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that
would have an adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not
be permitted'.
The Committee is required by sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act 1990) to pay 'special attention' to the
'desirability of preserving' the setting of listed buildings, and the character and
appearance of conservation areas. This means that the desirability of preserving the
settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas
are not mere material considerations to which any weight can be attached. When a
local authority finds that a proposed development would harm the setting of a listed
building or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm
considerable importance and weight. There is effectively a statutory presumption
against planning permission being granted. That presumption can, however, be
outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so, including the public
benefits of a proposal.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the NPPF, which
specifically addresses the need for conserving and enhancing the historic environment
at paragraphs 126 – 141. In particular paragraph 132 states:
'When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation.
The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development
within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require
clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed
building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of
designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,
protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II*
registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional'.
Paragraph 133 states: 'Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm
to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities
should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss
is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or
all of the following apply:
the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
Development Committee
45
26 November 2015
no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through
appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is
demonstrably not possible; and
the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use'.
Paragraph 134 goes on to state: 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than
substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should
be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum
viable use'.
Although the NPPF is expressed in terms of balance rather than expressly referring to
issues of weight and significance, the High Court has held that local authorities must
approach the decision in a way that is consistent with sections 66(1) and 72 of the
1990 Act, and therefore that the question should not be addressed as a simple
balancing exercise, but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in
favour of preservation.
The NPPF defines setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is
experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings
evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the
significance of an asset, and may affect the ability to appreciate the significance or
may be neutral. Significance is defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and
future generations because of its heritage interest. Significance derives not only from a
heritage asset's physical presence, but also from its setting. Recent case law has
made it clear that harm to the setting of a listed building results in a strong presumption
against planning permission being granted.
The NPPF requires local plans to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and
enjoyment of the historic environment. It recognises that heritage assets are an
irreplaceable resource and they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their
significance. The significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost through
alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.
Historic England guidance, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011), advises that 'setting
embraces all the surroundings from which the heritage asset can be experienced or
that can be experienced from or with the asset. Setting does not have a fixed boundary
and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or
as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset.' The construction of a high structure
such as a 30 metre lattice mast may extend what was previously understood to
comprise setting. Development within the immediate or extended setting may affect
significance, particularly where it is large-scale, prominent or intrusive.
The Historic England document Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the
sustainable management of the historic environment articulates the value of heritage
for its evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. However, the importance of
aesthetic and communal value is not taken through into recent Government policy in
the NPPF.
In considering the impact on heritage assets, a number of consultations were
undertaken including with Historic England and the Council's Conservation and Design
Officer.
A heritage and cultural assessment was submitted with the application. The
statement notes that there are a number of designated heritage assets within the
Development Committee
46
26 November 2015
immediate vicinity where the 30 metre lattice mast will be visible: In particular these
include:
Grade I Listed St Nicholas Church (approximately 175m from mast).
Grade II Listed Remains of Blakeney Mill (approximately 170m from mast).
Grade II Listed Friary Farmhouse (approximately 300m from mast).
Grade II Listed Wiveton Hall (approximately 600m from mast).
Grade II* Listed Cley Mill (approximately 1140m from mast).
Glaven Valley Conservation Area (encompasses the development site and its
surroundings)
Blakeney Conservation Area (Immediately west of the development site).
The Statement submitted by the Agent notes that the landscape surrounding the site is
slightly undulating arable farmland to the east and south east of the site defined by
hedgerows and small pockets of woodland. The landscape towards the west and
south west is relatively flat and becomes more built up. The Statement considers that
the lower section of the mast would be well screened due to the siting in an existing
woodland plantation, however there would be viewed of the top section protruding
above the trees.
The Conservation Officer considers that the heritage assets to be to be significantly
affected in terms of setting would be St Nicholas Church (Grade I listed) which lies
approximately 175m south west of the mast and the Glaven Valley Conservation Area
which entirely encompasses the development site.
Turning now to specific heritage assets:
St Nicholas Church (Grade I) – The parish church of St Nicholas dates back to the 13th
century and is strongly characterised by its twin towers which frame the buildings nave
and chancel. The church being set within open space and fieldland to the north and
east encapsulates the sense of visual isolation. Its continuing dominance in terms of
built form means its historic setting remains relatively unspoilt. There is an intrinsic link
between landscape value and the churches visual dominance which must be a key
consideration for the proposal.
The Heritage and Cultural Statement submitted within the application draws the
following conclusions:
'The assessment presented here identifies St Nicholas Church as being the most
important designated heritage asset, due to its towers visual dominance and of
national importance being a grade I listed building. The analysis has resulted in the
opinion that the proposed development would have a major impact on the
characteristics of the church, and would, to a certain degree, impact on the wider
setting of the Grade I listed church and how it is appreciated in the surrounding area'
'The size and location of the mast would only involve a visible change to its immediate
surroundings and would later the existing skyline which contributes to the appreciation
of Blakeney Village as a whole'
Heritage England considers that the church of exceptional architectural and cultural
value which contributes to the church's significance as a landmark building. They
suggest that the combination of the location and prominent twin towers forms a part of
the overall setting of the asset and makes a considerable contribution to the
significance of the asset. The rural setting is part give the site's charm where it is
possible to view the site in a traditional mixed agricultural landscape largely
unencumbered by modern interventions. Whilst the site provides partial screening,
they note that if the mast were built, it would be both visible on the approach to the site
Development Committee
47
26 November 2015
and critically in a considerable number of views from within the site and around the
site. Heritage England's view is that the development of a mast would introduce a tall,
modern structure in to the landscape setting of the parish church and that it is likely to
bring a considerable degree of harm to the significance of the asset. The application
should therefore be refused as it fails the test of paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
The Conservation and Design Officer has assessed the application and considers that
despite the existing screening, the mast would be visible from key vantage points and
due to the proximity to the church. The mast would therefore result in an overbearing
impact from the church yard and from the main entrance to the church from the north
porch. The view from the church across the graveyard is one of the most sensitive
aspects of the grade I listed building. The Conservation and Design Officer observes
that the proposal will result in no physical alterations to the church and therefore whilst
harm to the listed building's setting will occur, this is considered to be less than
substantial in accordance with Paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
Taking the above view of consultees into consideration, there is consensus that the
mast would result in harm to the setting of the parish's St Nicholas Church (Blakeney).
Whilst this harm amounts to 'less than substantial harm' under the NPPF (paragraphs
133 and 134), the harm is still considered to be significant given the impacts identified
above. Officers concur with this view. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA
Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of the
parish's St Nicholas Church (Blakeney), and there is a presumption against planning
permission being granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the
degree of harm to the setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider
whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
Remains of Blakeney Mill (Grade II) - Remains of Blakeney Mill is located (170m from
mast north of the proposed development. The listed building is located within the
caravan park of the same name.
The Heritage and Cultural Statement submitted within the application does not make
reference to this heritage asset.
Heritage England has not commented on this asset.
The Conservation and Design Officer is of the opinion that the proposed mast at Friary
Farm Caravan Park will not result in significant harm to the setting of the Remains of
Blakeney Mill.
The list description describes the asset as: - 'Remains of tower mill. On map of 1769.
Flint with brick dressings; upper parts of brick. Circular on plan. Tower of 3 stages with
pronounced batter; openings with 2-centred arches over; sash windows. Casements to
top floor. Interior. Great spur wheel and other machinery. The weather beam, left hand
sheer and other machinery are stored to south of mill, 1984'
Officers consider that although it is likely that the top element of the mast may be
visible, given the immediate tree cover and extensive vegetation the impact on the
setting of the Remains of Blakeney Mill would not be significant and would not
adversely affect this heritage asset. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act
1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of the Remains
of Blakeney Mill, and there is a presumption against planning permission being
granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to
the setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this
presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
Development Committee
48
26 November 2015
Friary Farmhouse (Grade II) - Friary Farmhouse is located 300m north west of the
proposed development. The listed building is located within the caravan park of the
same name.
The Heritage and Cultural Statement submitted within the application draws the
following conclusions:
'The mast would not be adjacent to this Grade II listed Building or visible from within
Friary Farmhouse as well as its inner grounds, due to the mature woodland planting
and also because the proposed mast itself would be almost entirely screed by trees.
It is considered that the top part of the mast would be visible from the wider setting of
this listed building, but it would not result in any visual dominance and would not
therefore detract from its significance'.
Heritage England has not commented on this asset.
The Conservation and Design Officer is of the opinion that the proposed mast at Friary
Farm Caravan Park will not result in significant harm to the setting of Friary
Farmhouse.
Officers consider that although it is likely that the top element of the mast may be
visible, given the immediate tree cover and extensive vegetation the impact on the
setting of Friary Farmhouse would not be significant and would not adversely affect
this heritage asset. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the
statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of Friary Farmhouse, and
there is a presumption against planning permission being granted. The strength of the
presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed
building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed
by the public benefits of the proposal.
Wiveton Hall (Grade II) - Wiveton Hall is located approximately 600 metres to the north
east of the proposed telecommunications mast and is accessed by a driveway from the
A149 along Cley Road.
The Heritage and Cultural Statement submitted within the application draws the
following conclusions:
'Views for the wider setting of the heritage assets at Wiveton Hall towards the
proposed mast would be limited in nature as fieldwork identified that due to the mature
woodland planting surrounding the heritage asset and also the proposed development,
means the proposed mast would be almost entirely screened by trees, with only the
top section of the mast protruding above the tree cover.
There would be minor visual discordance as the mast would be seen slightly protruding
above the tree cover in the area around the immediate setting of this listed building,
however the scale and size of the visible parts of the mast is not overbearing and due
to the extensive'.
Heritage England has not commented on this asset.
The Conservation and Design Officer is of the opinion that the proposed mast at Friary
Farm Caravan Park will not result in significant harm to the setting of Wiveton Hall.
Officers consider that although it is likely that the top element of the mast may be
Development Committee
49
26 November 2015
visible to given the separation distance of some 600m, coupled with intervening
landscape features the impact on the setting of Wiveton Hall would not be significant
and would not adversely affect this heritage asset. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of
the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of
Wiveton Hall, and there is a presumption against planning permission being granted.
The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the
setting of the listed building. The Committee will have to consider whether this
presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
Cley Mill (Grade II*) - Cley Mill is located 1130m north east of the proposed mast along
the northern tip of the in village of Cley along the coast road.
The Heritage and Cultural Statement submitted within the application draws the
following conclusions:
'The proposed mast would not be adjacent to the heritage asset of visible from within
its setting. However, it is considered that the top part of the mast would be visible
from the wider setting of this listed building, but it would not result in visual dominance
and would therefore not detract from the significance of this building'. It is considered
that there would be some indivisibility of the mast between this heritage asset and the
church, however due to the top part of the mast only protruding above some trees
means the impact would not be significant'.
Heritage England has not commented on this asset.
The Conservation and Design Officer is of the opinion that the proposed mast at Friary
Farm will not result in significant harm to the setting of Cley Mill.
Officers consider that although it is likely that the top element of the mast may be
visible, given the separation distance of some 1130m, coupled with existing woodland
plantation surrounding the mast and main views from the windmill are to the north, the
impact on the setting of Cley Mill would not be significant and would not adversely
affect this heritage asset. In light of the duty in section 66(1) of the LBCA Act 1990, the
statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of Cley Mill, and there is a
presumption against planning permission being granted. The strength of the
presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to the setting of the listed
building. The Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed
by the public benefits of the proposal.
Blakeney Conservation Area - The eastern boundary of the Conservation Area is
approximately 60 metres outside of the proposed development site.
The Heritage and Cultural Statement submitted within the application draws the
following conclusions:
'The proposed mast would be adjacent to this Conservation Area and to some degree
will effect views in to or out of this area, however as the proposed mast is surrounded
by mature vegetation the visual impacts will decrease with distance. View from the
core of the Conservation Area towards the site would be minimal and limited in nature
and from most locations within the village, the mast would be entirely screed behind
mature trees. In terms of the wider setting, the proposed development is located within
the wider landscape setting of the Conservation Area but it is considered that the
proposed mast would to some degree impact upon the established skyline with one of
the church towers dominating the views, however due to the scale and only a small
part of the mast protruding above the trees, means that the addition of the mast will not
Development Committee
50
26 November 2015
adversely impact on the significance of the wider setting of the Blakeney Conservation
Area'.
Heritage England has not commented on this asset.
The Conservation and Design Officer is of the opinion that the proposed mast at Friary
Farm Caravan Park will not result in significant harm to the character and appearance
of the Blakeney Conservation Area.
Officers consider that although the mast will affect some views in to and out of the
Blakeney Conservation Area, given that the site is adjacent to this Conservation Area
coupled with the mature screening around the mast, the impact on the character and
appearance of the Blakeney Conservation Area would not be significant and would not
adversely affect this heritage asset. In light of the duty in section 72 of the LBCA Act
1990, the statutory presumption is engaged by the harm to the setting of Blakeney
Conservation Area, and there is a presumption against planning permission being
granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Committee will have to
consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of the
proposal.
Glaven Valley Conservation Area – The Glaven Valley Conservation Area stretches
from the Glaven river estuary to the north of Cley to the south towards Hunworth and
Edgefield. The Glaven Valley Conservation Area encompasses the development site
and its wider setting.
Whilst the Heritage and Cultural Statement recognises that the Local Authority does
not have an appraisal on the Glaven Valley Conservation Area, the submitted
statement does not provide independent assessment of the effects of the mast on the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Furthermore, the Heritage and Cultural Statement
is also of the opinion that the impacts of the mast on the Blakeney Conservation Area
as detailed above are 'appropriate' and can be attributed to understanding the impacts
on the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
Heritage England has not commented on this asset.
The Conservation and Design Officers is of the opinion that the proposed mast at
Friary Farm Caravan Park will erode the currently unspoilt landscape setting of the
church and in turn the significance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
Officers acknowledge that there is an element of overlap between the Blakeney
Conservation Area and the Glaven Valley Conservation, however the Heritage and
Cultural Statement does not give due consideration to the latter and provide a separate
assessment of the impact of the development on this heritage asset. Furthermore,
the Heritage and Cultural Statement also presents contradictory messages when
compared to that of the LVIA. Whilst the Heritage and Cultural Statement makes
reference to some degree impact upon the established skyline with one of the church
towers dominating the views' and considers this impact as minor and not significant,
the LVIA considers the development will result in significant visual impacts to the
landscape fabric, where the proposed development can be considered as
major-moderate.
Officers consider that the mast would become the dominant characteristic of this
landscape area, being visible from a considerable distance from a number of important
viewpoints. As such the proposal would have some harmful impact on this heritage
Development Committee
51
26 November 2015
asset. In light of the duty in section 72 of the LBCA Act 1990, the statutory
presumption is engaged by the harm to the character and appearance of the
conservation area, and there is a presumption against planning permission being
granted. The strength of the presumption will vary, depending on the degree of harm to
the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area. The
Committee will have to consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public
benefits of the proposal.
SUMMARY OF IMPACT ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC ASSETS
Having considered the applicant's Heritage Assessment, as well as the advice from
Historic England, the Councils Conservation and Design Officer and having taken
account of other material considerations, it is considered that the proposed 30 metre
mast would result in harm, albeit less than substantial harm to:
The setting of The Church of St Nicholas Grade I listed building. In officers' view, the
harm to the setting of this heritage asset gives rise to a strong presumption against the
granting of planning permission. Officer advice therefore is that there would need to be
compelling public benefits in favour of the mast to override this presumption;
In addition, based on the information available it is considered that the proposal would
have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of Glaven Valley Rural
Conservation Area, arising from the view of the mast from a number of viewpoints.
Officers' view, that the harm to the character and appearance of this Conservation
Area gives rise to a presumption against the granting of planning permission. Officer
advice therefore is that there would need to be public benefits in favour of the mast to
override this presumption.
In addition, based on the information available it is considered that the proposal would
result in limited harm to the setting of the Remains of Blakeney Mill (Grade II), Friary
Farmhouse (Grade II), Wiveton Hall (Grade II) and Cley Mill (Grade II*). Furthermore,
Officer considers that there would be limited harm to the character and appearance of
the Blakeney Conservation Area as a result of the proposed development. Officers
are of the view that when balancing the limited harm caused by the proposal against
the benefits to the public, the harm is considered to be acceptable as the public benefit
far outweighs this minimal detrimental impact upon these heritage assets.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The mast would be located to the eastern edge of Blakeney along the Cley Road at the
edge of the settlement in a rural setting. There closest properties to the proposed
site are as follows:
To the south of the site
Acreage House at approximately 140 metres
To the west of the site
Orchard Cottage, Lion Cottage and Scriveners at approximately 160 metres
To the north of the site
Friary Farm at approximately 300 metres
Caravan park is situated to the north of the site where a tree belt (including an existing
access between belts) of approximately 50 metres.
To the east of the site
Wiveton Hall approximately 300 metres
Development Committee
52
26 November 2015
Whilst the proposed mast would be a significant addition to the skyline and would be
visible to a significant number of residents at a variety of distances from the masts
location, given the distance from the closest residential properties it is not considered
that the turbine could be said to result in significant adverse overbearing impacts or
likely to result in significant adverse noise impacts. Therefore, in respect of impact on
residential amenity, the proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development
Plan policies.
IMPACT ON WILDLIFE/ECOLOGY
When considering the impact on wildlife/ecology, the Committee is advised to take
account of advice within CS Policy CT4 (Telecommunications) and Policy EN 9
(Biodiversity and Geology). Policy EN 9 states:
'All development proposals should:
protect the biodiversity value of land and buildings and minimise fragmentation of
habitats;
maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of natural
habitats; and
incorporate beneficial biodiversity conservation features where appropriate.
Development proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect to
nationally designated sites [including AONB] or other designated areas, or protected
species, will not be permitted unless;
they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm;
the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts on the features of the site
and the wider network of natural habitats; and
prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are provided.
Development proposals that would be significantly detrimental to the nature
conservation interests of nationally designated sites will not be permitted.
Development proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance
biodiversity or geodiversity interests will be supported in principle.
Where there is reason to suspect the presence of protected species applications
should be accompanied by a survey assessing their presence and, if present, the
proposal must be sensitive to, and make provision for, their needs'.
Committee should also take into account the advice contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) which specifically addresses the need for
conserving and enhancing the natural environment at paragraphs 109 – 125.
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states:
'The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by:
protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation
interests and soils;
recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where
possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in
biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more
Development Committee
53
26 November 2015
resilient to current and future pressures.'
In considering the application, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the likely
impacts of the proposed 30 metre mast on the landscape is understood to ensure that
there are no likely significant adverse impacts on protected species, or other
important flora and fauna either on the site or passing over the site or the wider
landscape.
Consultation has taken place with Natural England who recognised importance of the
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and recommended that advice
should be taken from the AONB Partnership. The AONB Partnership and the
Councils Landscape Officer make no reference to significant adverse impact upon
wildlife and ecology.
In respect of impact on wildlife and ecology it is considered that the proposal would
accord with Development Plan policy and the wider aims of the NPPF.
IMPACT ON AVIATION
Consultations have been undertaken with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), National Air
Traffic Services (NATS En Route) and Norwich Airport. No objections were raised to
the application by these consultees to the application therefore the proposal complies
with relevant Development Plan policy.
IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY & PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
Having considered the proposed site and route, the Highway Authority considers that
the proposed development does not affect the current traffic patterns or the free flow of
traffic and therefore has raised no objection to the proposal. No public rights of way are
affected by the proposal.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Concern has been expressed through representations regarding the impact of the
proposed mast on public health (specifically in relation to radiation) and its proximity to
residential dwellings. Paragraph 46 of the NPPF states:
'Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds. They
should not seek to prevent competition from different operators, question the need for
the telecommunications system, or determine health safeguards if the proposal meets
International Commission guidelines for public exposure.'
The International Commission is a non-governmental organisation recognised by the
World Health Organisation. The application submission states that precautionary
measures are incorporated when setting the guidelines, and within the UK a safety
factor of 50 times is applied to the public exposure guidelines. As required by
paragraph 45 of the NPPF, the application includes a statement that self-certifies when
operational the development would comply with the International Commission
guidelines for non-ionising radiation. On this basis refusal of the application on public
health grounds cannot be substantiated.
The Councils Environmental Health team were consulted and raise no objections to
the application
IMPACT ON TOURISM & OTHER SECTORS
A number of representations have suggested that the proposed mast would have an
adverse impact on tourism and this in turn would have an adverse economic impact on
the area. In addition it has been suggested that the addition of the mast in the
Development Committee
54
26 November 2015
landscape would significantly reduce and undermine the very reason that people visit
the area. It has been suggested that this could also have an adverse impact on the
local economy.
Alternatively, a number of representations suggest that the proposed mast would
benefit the local economy due to improved communications. The benefits are said to
be significant especially in relation to emergency situations and emergency services. It
has been suggested that improved communications will provide significant
socio-economic benefits to locals, tourists and business.
Whilst there is no doubt that the addition of a mast would have an adverse landscape
impact (see Landscape and Visual Impacts), a decision to refuse the mast based on its
potential to reduce tourism in the area would be very difficult to substantiate without
hard evidence. Officers have not been made aware of any evidence to support a link
between the introduction of a mast and a reduction in tourism numbers and, in any
event, there are many factors outside the control of the Local Planning Authority which
would influence tourism in the North Norfolk Area. In respect of the impact on the wider
tourism offer and the image of North Norfolk as an unspoilt area are difficult to gauge.
Without firm evidence to substantiate a significant adverse impact, officers would
advise against refusal on those grounds.
BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The MIP forms part of a package of Government and telecommunications industry
measures that seek to extend and improve mobile coverage in rural areas. The
national importance of the MIP is reflected by its inclusion in the National Infrastructure
Plan and by the European Commission State-Aid clearance granted to the
Government for the use of public funding to tackle market failure in the provision of
mobile network coverage in and around Blakeney and elsewhere in the UK.
The aim of the MIP is to provide mobile phone coverage to areas which currently do
not have any coverage (these areas are referred to as not spots). The initiative is
supported by the UK's four MNOs, i.e. Vodafone, 3 and EE (the brands Orange and
T-Mobile), who have accepted the need to develop new base stations to provide
coverage to local communities in complete 'not spot' areas. This is due to constraints
which revolve around the transmission of signals to users and to the existing network,
the need for the structure to provide access to all the main operators and to allow for
future upgrades along with more basic requirements such as power, access and a
willing landowner.
Representations to the Council have challenged the basis for this planning application
as part of a MIP initiative as some mobile network coverage is available to parts of
Blakeney and the surrounding area. However, a number of 'not spot' areas remain
where coverage is not provided by any of the MNOs. The simulation plot submitted
with the planning application (Appendix 1) illustrates that expected coverage to be
provided to 33 of the 100x100m 'not spots', containing a total of 434 premises
presently without coverage. The agent states that the MNOs are part of the decision
making process for the MIP and they have to be satisfied that there is a need to
develop a base station to provide coverage to 'not spot' locations before Arqiva is
instructed to submit a planning application. Officers are satisfied that the DCMS and
MNO acceptance of the need to develop a base station at the application site and the
submission of the planning application to the Council accords with the MIP
requirements.
The benefits of the proposed development would therefore be to provide mobile
communications to an area where there is no coverage currently available. Officers
Development Committee
55
26 November 2015
agree with the agent that the provision of wireless mobile telecommunication
infrastructure facilitated by the development would be likely to offer significant
economic and social benefits for members of the public living, working and visiting
within the affected area. The applicant has set out the following benefits attributable to
the proposed development.
Enabling immediate contact with emergency services (fire, police, coastguard,
ambulance);
Summon assistance from breakdown services in the secure environment of a locked
car;
Facilitate modern forms of working, including greater home working. This can offer
improved balance between home and working life and reduce the need to travel;
Minimise unnecessary journeys and therefore reducing travel demands;
Extension of business opportunities in to peripheral areas;
Help local business and service providers such as farmers, tradesmen, doctors, vets to
provide a more flexible and response service;
Improve local business such as hotels, restaurants, shops and other service providers
be means to reach potential customers, for example booking and reservations;
Social inclusion through connectivity.
Overall, the proposed mast would make a positive contribution towards
communication, and could make a locally significant economic contribution, these
benefits need to be weighed against the potential adverse heritage and landscape
impacts of the proposal.
OVERALL SUMMARY
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In assessing the proposal, the Council have considered very carefully the public
benefits attributed to the mast which has required weighing many number of
competing interests. The economic and social benefits of improved
telecommunications infrastructure are well recognised and are of growing importance
as we move towards the digital age but these benefits have to be balanced by the
decision maker against the statutory protection afforded to heritage assets and the
protection afforded to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The time pressure
associated with Government funding of the Mobile Infrastructure Project has
heightened a sense of urgency to determine the current proposal but, in the opinion of
Officers, the limited availability of Government funding should not be seen as an
overriding factor to set aside national and local policy unless there are clearly
articulated and justifiable reasons for doing so.
The proposal, seeks to erect a 30 metre lattice mast located within the Norfolk Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Government guidance is supportive of proposals for telecommunications
infrastructure, and the NPPF is clear that applications should not be refused on public
health grounds where International Commission guidelines for public exposure would
be adhered to. Balanced against this is the need to preserve the character of the
AONB, local landscape and to protect the historic environment and amenities of
neighbouring residential properties. There is a statutory presumption against granting
planning permission for any development which will be significantly detrimental to the
special qualities of the Norfolk AONB. Additionally, where development will result in
substantial harm to setting of a listed building/ or harm to the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area and these considerations carry significant weight in
Development Committee
56
26 November 2015
determination.
Officers have sought to set out the relevant policy tests within this report and having
considered all of the evidence available, it is considered that the key planning issues
hinge on an assessment of the impact of the proposed mast on the wider landscape
and on heritage assets, balanced against any public benefits that might arise as a
result of the proposal. The Council is also required to apply the statutory presumption
against a grant of planning permission where the proposed mast would adversely
affect the setting of a listed building or the character and appearance of a conservation
area, and consider whether this presumption is outweighed by the public benefits of
the proposal.
Officers consider that, the proposal generally accords with Development Plan policy in
relation to impacts on residential amenity, impacts on wildlife and ecology, aviation,
highway safety and tourism, as detailed above, such that refusal in relation to these
matters alone could not be substantiated or justified.
In relation to landscape impacts, there is no doubt that the 30 metre mast would have a
localised adverse impact on the wider landscape and AONB. The utilitarian structure
would create a degree of harm in this essentially rural location. The Council's
Landscape and Conservation and Design Officers are of the opinion that the proposal
would result in a significant impact to the landscape and parts of the Norfolk Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a number of heritage assets and their settings
that are intrinsic to those landscapes. The proposal has failed to demonstrate that all
reasonable alternative sites for the mast have been assessed and discounted. Officers
would concur with this view. The proposal therefore does not comply with Policies EN1
and EN2, in that it has failed to demonstrate that its location, scale and design will
protect and conserve the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB and local
distinctiveness of the area, visually sensitive skylines and the setting of listed building.
Impact upon listed building and conservation areas, needs to be considered in order
for the Committee to fulfil its duty under sections 66(1) and 72 of the LBCA Act 1990 to
pay 'special attention' to the 'desirability of preserving' the setting of listed buildings,
and the character and appearance of conservation areas – i.e. apply a statutory
presumption. This is not a simple balancing exercise, but a question of whether there is
justification for overriding the presumption in favour of preservation. Accordingly, in
relation to each listed building and each conservation area, the Committee will have to
consider whether it accepts that there is harm and whether the presumption against
planning permission which arises as a result of any harm is outweighed by the public
benefits of the proposal. Officer advice is that, in relation to the harm that the
proposal will cause to the setting of St Nicholas Church and the wider Glaven Valley
Conservation Area there would need to be compelling public benefits in favour of the
mast to outweigh the presumption.
The application forms part of a package of Government and telecommunications
industry measures that seek to extend and improve mobile coverage in rural areas.
The national importance of the MIP is reflected by its inclusion in the National
Infrastructure Plan and by the European Commission State-Aid clearance granted to
the Government for the use of public funding to tackle market failure in the provision of
mobile network coverage in and around Blakeney and elsewhere in the UK.
In respect of telecommunications development it advocates that advanced, high
quality communications infrastructure are essential for sustainable economic growth.
The development of high speed broadband technology and other communications
networks also plays a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities
Development Committee
57
26 November 2015
and services. The application states that the mast would provide coverage to '434 not
spots' and provide wider public benefits and socio-economic benefits (business and
tourism), including the ability to contact all types of emergency services. In addition,
the proposal would benefit locals and visitors alike. In considering telecommunication
proposals there is a clear emphasis that local planning authorities should be looking
for ways to support development coming forward and not reject applications simply
on environmental grounds. The NPPF recognises that this is especially relevant where
development might have other significantly important benefits such as being essential
to meet, for example, sustainable economic growth or a national need which can
include new infrastructure that connect communities.
While the loss of an opportunity to provide coverage is very unfortunate, it is
considered that the cumulative effect of these impacts on heritage assets and impacts
on the wider landscape are such that, notwithstanding the national importance of the
project and public benefits that can be attributed to the mast, in the opinion of officers
the benefits of mast, are outweighed by the adverse effects of the proposal relating to
landscape and historic asset impacts.
Furthermore, it is considered that all reasonable alternative locations for the mast have
not been properly explored. As such it is considered that the proposal does not accord
with Core Strategy Policies EN 1 and CT 4.
Having regard to the proposal as a whole it is considered that there are insufficient
compelling public benefits to outweigh the identified harm.
Recommendation – Refusal
The proposal does not comply with the Development Plan in that it does not comply
with the following policies:
EN 1 - Norfolk Coast area of outstanding Natural Beauty and the Broads
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
CT 4 – Telecommunications
The proposed mast would result in harm to the setting of heritage assets, some of
which are of the highest designated category including St Nicholas' Church Blakeney
(Grade I listed). Whilst this harm is 'less than substantial' in terms of the NPPF, it is
still significant.
The statutory presumption in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Area) Act 1990 against planning permission being granted in light of the
effect of the proposal on the settings of the above identified listed building is not
outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
In addition the proposed mast would adversely impact upon the character and
appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Whilst this harm is 'less than
substantial' in terms of the NPPF, it is still significant.
The statutory presumption in section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Area) Act 1990 against planning permission being granted in light of the
effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
In addition the proposed 30 metre lattice mast and associated equipment would
occupy a prominent position on this elevated site and would result in an intrusive and
Development Committee
58
26 November 2015
incongruous form of development detrimental to the visual amenities of the area
including significantly detrimental harm to the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which is a landscape of the highest national
designation.
Furthermore the proposed mast would incur harm to the wider landscape including
individual and cumulative impacts on heritage assets within the landscape and their
settings that are intrinsic to those landscapes and to receptors within these
landscapes. These impacts are considered to be significant and contrary to Policy
EN2.
In addition, an alternative location has been identified within the surrounding area
which is considered technically feasible, and without proper investigation of such
alternative sites having been carried out there is no technical justification for the visual
damage caused by the proposed 30 metre mast and antennae.
Having regard to the above identified significant adverse landscape and visual impacts
it is considered that the public benefits of improved mobile infrastructure delivered by a
mast in this location do not outweigh the identified harm to the Special Qualities of the
Norfolk Coast AONB and, as such, the proposal would not accord with Core Strategy
Policy CT 4.
(6)
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
EDGEFIELD – PF/15/0419 – Proposed partial demolition of rear extension and
construct two storey rear extension and single storey extension at Annandale
Ramsgate Street Edgefield Norfolk NR24 2AX for Mr and Mrs S Smith
APPEAL DECISION: DISMISSED 22 October 2015
Plannng application PF/15/0419 was for “partial demolition of rear extension and
construction of two-storey rear extension and single storey extension “at and existing
bungalow in open countryside. The appeal Inspector identified the main issue to be
the effect of the proposal on the character an appearance of the area.
The proposed extension would create approximately twice the floor space of the
existing bungalow and the Inspector found this to be disproportionate and combined
with the height (two storey) “would result in the extension dominating the existing
dwelling.” This would not accord with policy HO8 of the Council’s Core Strategy.
The Inspector also found the design of the proposed extension to be inappropriate
and not in accordance with the Council’s Design Guide. He took into account other
points made by the appellant but concluded that the extension would have a
significant impact on the surrounding countryside and unacceptably harm the
character and appearance of the area.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Development Committee
59
26 November 2015
HOLT – PF/14/1139 – Erection of two pairs of semi-detached and one detached
two-storey dwellings at land adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead Cley Road Holt
Norfolk NR25 6JE for Primrose Developments (Anglia) Limited.
APPEAL DECISION: DISMISSED 20 October 2015
Primrose Developments (Anglia) Ltd applied for planning permission for a total of five
dwellings with parking/garage on the above site, described as “garden land adjacent
to 8 and 9 The Fairstead, Holt.” Permission was refused on 17 October and an appeal
made to the Secretary of State.
The appeal Inspector found the main issue to be the effect on the character and
appearance of the Holt Conservation Area. In a comprehensive and detailed decision
the Inspector described The Fairstead and its context in the wider Conservation Area.
He then described the site and its appearance and noted that although the five
proposed dwellings “do not seek to replicate the existing dwellings on The Fairstead,
efforts have been made to ensure that the new dwellings would reflect key aspects of
the design and materials of the original houses and would go some way to being in
keeping with their appearance.
Although the Inspector found that the design and materials of the proposed dwellings
would resonate with existing dwellings on The Fairstead he was critical of the layout.
He found this to be “almost backland” with minimal front garden space and two of the
dwellings having no road frontage at all. This would result in harm to the character
and appearance of The Fairstead, “materially undermining its contribution to the
significance of the Conservation Area as a whole.”
The Inspector then went on to assess the proposal against local and national policy.
The identified harm to the Conservation Area means that the proposed development
would conflict with policies EN4 and EN8 of the Council’s Core Strategy resulting in
“real and serious harm” to the heritage asset (the Conservation Area).
Assessed against the NPPF, this identified harm would, in the Inspector’s opinion, be
“less than substantial.” Undertaking the balancing exercise required in such cases by
the NPPF, the Inspector noted that the site is within the settlement boundary for Holt
such that there is no objection in principle to residential development. The proposal
would offer a windfall site which would help meet the general housing development.
However, on balance the appeal Inspector found that the benefits of the scheme do
not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The development would be contrary to Core Strategy policies EN4 and EN8. In the
“overall planning balance” the Inspector found the proposal could not be considered
as sustainable development as defined in the NPPF.
The appeal has been dismissed.
Development Committee
60
26 November 2015
APPENDIX 1
Development Committee
61
26 November 2015