OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 26 SEPTEMBER 2013
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
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0937 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include rooflights and bay window, insertion of
dormer windows, rooflights and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay
Cottage, The Quay for Mr & Mrs Bertram
- Target Date: 26 September 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Flood Zone 2
Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
13/0753 HOU - Erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions with partial
undercroft - Withdrawn by Applicant 23/07/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two storey extension having a total floor area of some 82 sq.
metres, which would accommodate a sitting room at ground floor with bedroom,
bathroom / dressing room above. The side and rear elevations would be a mix of flint
with red brick dressing with horizontal timber boarding at first floor level. The front
(north elevation) would sit on a plinth of flint and red brick with double patio doors at
ground floor level flanked by flint dressings, which would lead out onto a glazed
balcony area. At first floor level there would be a recessed glazed screen with glazed
Juliette balcony. The extension would be roofed in clay pantiles to match existing
whilst the external timber work would be of a natural finish.
Other works would include increasing the width of the dining hall by 1 metre, which
would involve the introduction of a new roof with a slightly shallower pitch so as not to
increase the overall height. In addition, a splay bay would replace an existing picture
window to the front elevation, and on the rear garden elevation two high level roof
lights are proposed.
As far as the two storey east wing is concerned, it is proposed to convert the roof
space to habitable accommodation which would involve the introduction of two
dormer windows to the front (north elevation), a two light window to the western
Development Committee
1
26 September 2013
facing gable and two high level roof lights to the rear elevation. In addition, a further
eight over eight sash window is proposed at first floor level to the front elevation.
An amended plan has been received which shows the glazed screen to the first floor
of the north elevation being set back a further 300 millimetres from that originally
proposed in order to increase the shadow lines. Also one of the rooflights to the
southern roof slope of the two storey element has been deleted and the other one
moved into the lee of the roof behind the neighbouring property. The number of
rooflights to the southern roof slope of the dining hall have also been reduced from
two to one. The drawing also indicates that the overall ridge height of the dining hall
and two storey element would be the same as existing.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
This application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee in order to
enable Members to visit the site.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that the extension is unnecessarily high and the design of the
north elevation is not in keeping with properties fronting the quay within the
Conservation Area and AONB. In addition, the use of cedar boarding is out of
character and would not accord with Development Plan policies.
REPRESENTATIONS
14 letters of objection have been received which raise the following concerns
(summarised):1. The plans are misleading and less than helpful and do not show the proposal in
relation to surrounding building.
2. There are inaccuracies in the plans.
3. There should be a cross section though the site showing the relative heights in
relation to Quay Barn and properties of The Pastures.
4. The height of the extension will have a huge impact on the appearance and
character of the quay.
5. The building would be totally at odds with the established buildings to either side
being bigger, hugely prominent, dominate and intrusive.
6. It is totally selfish of the applicant to insist on a three storey building (if you
include the attic windows) which take away the enjoyment of the environment of
other property owners.
7. The position and number of rooflights will destroy the harmony of the existing
building and will impact on the privacy of The Pastures to the south.
8. The proposal could open the floodgates for all sorts of other development on the
quay.
9. The existing symmetry of the single storey building will be destroyed.
10. The use of timber cladding will be out of keeping with the historic buildings along
the quay and the character of adjoining properties.
11. The proportions of the roof of the two storey element when viewed from the west
is very ugly and would be much better if the ridge line was continued, thereby
eliminated the triangular shaped window.
12. The building is ugly and not suitable in this location.
13. Building works in the past 3 months have been noisy and killed bats.
14. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on this very sensitive
part of the Blakeney Conservation Area, AONB, SSSI Designated areas and
adjoining listed properties.
15. NNDC states that "Conservation Area” status gives additional planning protection
from unsympathetic development which might otherwise harm an areas special
character.
Development Committee
2
26 September 2013
16. The Blakeney Village Design Statement was created to influence the application
of district-wide policies in the parish of Blakeney to conserve and enhance its special
character.
17. A large and healthy tree in the north eastern corner of the site has not been
disclosed in the application.
18. The style and type of windows proposed to the northern gable are out of keeping
and inappropriate in this location.
19. The rooflights will have an adverse effect on the harmony of the night scene both
from land and sea.
20. The glazed gable frontage bears no relationship to other buildings on Blakeney
quay.
21. The rooflights to the south elevation will severely impact on the privacy of
neighbouring properties.
22. It is considered that the roof height of any additional structure should not rise
above the level of roofs to the immediate east and west.
23. No details have been provided as to the design of the proposed dormers to the
existing two storey part of the property, which given its prominent location is very
important.
24. Concerns that the velux rooflights to the south elevation would result in
overlooking of The Pastures.
25. The building will compromise the view of at least four discreetly built houses
which lie behind the proposed development, which have living rooms at first floor.
26. Will affect the market values of properties to the rear of the site.
27. Some of the proposed works will entail the demolition of significant parts which
are of architectural interest i.e. brick and flint wall adjoining to the west.
28. Flood risk is not significant enough to justify raising up the extension.
29. The chimney/flue is out of keeping.
30. Concerns that the works have already commenced on site.
31. The works to the roof have resulted in the loss of bats which are seen in the area
on summer evenings.
32. The proposal is contrary to the Blakeney Village Design Statement and in
particular the effect on important views, including The Quay, Marshes, Spit and sea.
33. Whilst the loss of view is not normally a material consideration it must be
considered when a view forms an important part of the amenity of such properties as
in this case.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Raises
no objection and makes the following comments.
The site in question occupies a prominent position just off The Quay within the heart
of the Blakeney Conservation Area. It is a location which is defined largely by the
three linear ranges (Quay Barn, The Lookout & Blakeney Hotel barn) which stand
gable end-onto the road and which provide longstanding enclosure and rhythm to the
street scene. These former maritime structures, along with their connecting frontage
walls, are all Grade II Listed Buildings and are separated by important open spaces
between. As a result, the location is considered to be a particularly sensitive one
which demands our full attention.
At the same time, however, the host property is actually something of a hybrid and
features a serious of rather disparate elements. This is most noticeably illustrated by
the existing living room extension which is a rather lifeless affair and which adds little
to the overall site. With this part of the building also set some way back from The
Quay, and therefore not impinging upon the open space, there can be no objections
to the principle of some form of new build in this area.
Development Committee
3
26 September 2013
In terms of the scheme submitted, the plans essentially provide for a two-storey cross
wing which would be built through the end of the existing living room. At some 8.5m
above ground level, it would obviously be higher than this particular part of the
building. However, because this differential would only amount to 2.3m, and because
the new build would actually be 1m lower than the main Quay Cottage, it is not
considered to be out of scale with its surroundings.
Design-wise, the un-annotated sketch plans submitted hardly help gain a true feel for
the proposed development, however, from what can be determined, the new build
should present an elegantly proportioned gable facing The Quay. This potentially
offers an attractive mix of a solid battered flint base at lower level and a more
contemporary glazed screen/apex at first floor level. The former should help „ground‟
the new build on the site whilst the latter should actually enliven this part of the site
and add some much needed visual interest. Crucial to the success of this, however,
is ensuring that the glazing is set deep within its masonry reveals to create
meaningful shadow lines and depth. Although the plans are not terribly clear on this
point, the set-back looks rather „mean‟ as shown and is unlikely to achieve the
desired effect. A much deeper reveal is therefore recommended.
Elsewhere, the minimalist balcony should wrap successfully around the corner of the
extension and link creatively through the curtilage wall. Rather less successful would
be the rather unbalanced roofscape with its high level gablet facing south. However,
with this seemingly necessary to reduce the impact of the development, it is not
something that can be challenged (particularly as there would only be fleeting and
angled views of these side elevations). Therefore, with compatible materials, this
element of the scheme should take its place comfortably on site without any
detriment to the existing heritage assets.
Of the other elements of the application: The addition of the bay window in lieu of the existing ill-proportioned picture
window is very much to be welcomed in principle. However, as the plans stay
quiet on materials and detailing, this would need to be conditioned if the
application were to be approved.
Similarly, the alterations within the listed part of the building also raise no obvious
concerns. This said, it would be helpful to know exactly how the access is to be
configured out of the garage into the utility room – there hardly seems space to fit
a stair in between the two doors.
More detail on the proposed ramp should also really be provided as this could
undermine the gains to be had elsewhere (particularly if concrete and
engineering bricks are proposed).
In summary, the proposed development, and in particular the two-storey extension,
would undoubtedly constitute a significant intervention into the existing built
environment. At the same time, however, providing the points of detail outlined above
are satisfactorily addressed, the scheme would not result in any harm being caused
to the listed building (both directly and in terms of its setting). With it also compatible
with the form and character of this part of the Blakeney Conservation Area,
Conservation & Design need have no objections to this application.
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.
Development Committee
4
26 September 2013
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
The Blakeney Village Design Statement which was published in 1998 and has been
adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is also a material
consideration.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Impact on Heritage Assets.
4. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
5. Flood risk.
6. Trees.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting in order to enable
Members to visit the site.
The site is situated within the Development boundary for Blakeney as defined by the
North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core Strategy in an area designated as
residential. In addition, the site is within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and the Blakeney Conservation Area, whilst part of the northern wing
of the property is listed Grade II.
In principle an extension in the manner proposed is considered to be acceptable in
this location subject to compliance with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN8.
Policy EN1 states that development will be permitted where it does not detract from
the special qualities of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality, be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set and that the scale and massing of
buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area.
Policy EN8 states that development proposals, including alterations and extensions,
should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets in
this case the Blakeney Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings and their
Development Committee
5
26 September 2013
settings through high quality, sensitive design. Development that would have an
adverse impact on their special historic or architectural interest will not be permitted.
Whilst the scheme as envisaged would involve a number of elements the alterations
to the dining hall could be implemented without the benefit of planning permission as
the works would not increase the height of the roof and would be Permitted
Development under the Town and County Planning, (General Permitted
Development) Order 2008. Similarly the velux rooflights to the rear elevation and first
floor window to the north elevation of the two storey element would also not require
consent. As such consideration can only be given to the two storey extension, the
splay bay to the front of the dining hall and the two dormer windows to the north
elevation of the two storey wing.
As far as the splay bay and dormer windows these do not raise any particular
concerns, with representation from local residents being primarily concerned with the
appearance and impact of the proposed two storey extension.
In terms of the impact on the extension on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
as this is primarily a landscape designation consideration needs to be given as to
how the proposal would impact on the surrounding landscape. Although Quay
Cottage, is visible from Blakeney quay and the Blakeney Marsh National Nature
Reserve beyond, the frontage to the site is defined by a substantial flint wall some
1.8 metres in height, which substantially screens the property from view. Whilst the
introduction of a two storey element would undoubtedly increase the impact of the
existing property when viewed from the north, this would be seen in the context of
surrounding properties fronting the quay and against the backdrop of properties at
The Pastures and would not it is considered adversely affect the special landscape
qualities of the area.
In respect of the impact on the heritage assets, the form and character of Blakeney is
that of a close knit linear form being concentrated on High Street and West Street,
which consists of small, two storey cottages of flint with red brick dressings under
clay pantile roofs. Whilst properties fronting the quay form a slightly looser form of
development and range in scale from The Blakeney Hotel, a large two and half storey
property on the corner of High Street to more modest two storey properties at the
western end of the quay. However one of the main characteristics of properties
fronting the quay is that a number have north facing gables abutting the highway
whilst others are set back some considerable distance thereby creating gaps in the
development and providing the feeling of space. In addition, as with other areas of
Blakeney a number of properties are listed buildings, including Quay House a Grade
II* building which joins the application site to the east, plus The Lookout which joins
the application site to the north, which is listed Grade II, as is the frontage wall to the
site and the majority of other walls fronting the quay which are primarily of flint.
At the present time Quay Cottage, which is “T” shape in form, consists of two distinct
elements. The east wing dating from the 18th Century is two storey and constructed
of flint and red brick with timber sash windows and physically joins and was clearly
once part of Quay House. Joining this to the west is a single storey central core off
which there is a western wing, most probably dating from the 1960‟s, part of which
would be incorporated within the proposed two storey element. A further single
storey wing projects in a northerly direction, part of which dates from the 1960s, with
the remaining element, which forms an open fronted garage, being listed Grade II,
the same as The Lookout to which it is physically attached. When viewed from the
quay the two storey wing is not readily visible, being masked by the single storey
elements which give the property both an understated appearance and neutral
Development Committee
6
26 September 2013
impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. Inevitably the introduction of a two
storey element, the ridge height of which would be some 2 metres higher than the
existing single storey element, would increase the prominence of the property in the
street scene. However the introduction of north facing gable, which would have a
total height of 8.7 metres and a width of 6 metres would, it is considered, reflect the
form and character of other properties in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Furthermore, it would create a stopped end to the existing single storey element, and
would balance with the larger two and a half storey wing to the eastern side of the
property which abuts Quay House. In terms of its elevational treatment, although
more contemporary, with the proposed use of substantial areas of glazing to the
north elevation, it is considered that this mixed with the palette of material consisting
of flint with red brick dressing and the joinery of natural timber with the roof finished in
clay pantiles would be in keeping with the local vernacular.
It is therefore considered that overall the scale, massing and detailing of the
extension as proposed would contribute to the overall character and appearance of
this part of the Blakeney Conservation Area, preserving its appearance and would
not have a significantly harmful effect on the heritage assets. This view has been
substantiated by the Council‟s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager who
considered that whilst the two-storey extension, would undoubtedly constitute a
significant intervention into the existing built environment the scheme would be
compatible with the form and character of this part of the Blakeney Conservation
Area, and would not result in any harm being caused to the listed building both
directly or in terms of its setting.
It terms of the impact of the development on neighbouring properties, those dwellings
most affected by the development would be to The Pastures immediately to the south
of the site, which are two storey properties, having first floor reception rooms facing
north towards the quay. The southern boundary of Quay Cottage and these
properties is formed by a substantial flint wall some 3.0 metres in height which is
topped with planting and other vegetation and forms a fairly dense barrier.
As outlined above the proposed rooflights to the dining hall and two and half storey
element do not require formal consent. Therefore the only element over which the
Local Planning Authority has any control and which could affect the amenities of
neighbouring properties is the two storey extension. This said the only windows to
the southern elevation would be patio doors at ground floor and glazing to the apex
of the gablet which would serve the bathroom / dressing room and would be above
eye level. Whilst the extension itself which is north of The Pastures and some 14
Metres from the boundary at its closet point would not result in loss of light or
overbearing. However it is accepted that the occupiers of a number of properties at
The Pastures could lose their view towards the quay, however this is not a
consideration that the Local Planning Authority can take into account.
However the Blakeney Village Design Statement Section 3.1 - Guidelines for
Protecting Blakeney views, states that “views from all parts of the village of the
marshes, the harbour, the shingle spit and the open sea should be jealously guarded
and protected from the intrusion of by new development.” Whilst Officers concur with
this statement, it is considered that that the prime intention is to protect important
views from public vantage points and not to safeguard views from individual
properties.
In terms of the impact on other properties in the vicinity of the site, the only other
potential for overlooking would be from the proposed dormer windows which would
look towards the frontage garden area of Quay House. However given that this is
Development Committee
7
26 September 2013
communal parking area serving four flats within Quay House, this would not in itself
result in significant amenity issues.
As far flood risk is concerned, although the site is identified as being with Flood Risk
Zone 2, the applicants‟ agent has indicated that the site is 900mm higher than the
ground level at the edge of the flood zone. In addition, the extension is raised slightly
to take it further away from flood levels. It is therefore considered that given that the
proposed extension would not significantly increase the residential capacity of the
property, that refusal on flood risk grounds could not be justified.
In terms of the concerns raised by an objector regarding a tree to the north eastern
corner of the site, there is only a requirement to disclose the existence of trees where
they would be affected by the development. In this particular case the tree in
question would not be affected by the proposal and is protected by Conservation
Area legislation.
In summary, it is considered that the two storey extension as proposed would not
have a significantly harmful impact on the Blakeney Conservation Area or the setting
of listed properties in the vicinity of the site in terms of its scale, massing or overall
appearance. In addition, it would not result in overlooking or overbearing of
neighbouring properties. In terms of flood risk this is also considered to be
acceptable and the development would not increase the risk to life.
It is therefore considered that the scheme as proposed would accord with
Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
2.
EDGEFIELD - PF/13/0872 - Erection of replacement garage with ground and
first floor studio/annexe; Vine Cottage, The Green for Mr J Goldney
- Target Date: 10 September 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20071629 PF - Demolition of single-storey side extension and erection of twostorey extension
Approved 11/12/2007
PLA/20071630 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage
Withdrawn 11/12/2007
PLA/20080626 PF - Erection of two-storey dwelling and garage
Refused 09/06/2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a detached replacement garage with ground and first floor
studio and annexe measuring approximately 7.6m wide by 7.9m deep by 6.4m high.
Development Committee
8
26 September 2013
The annexe would have a garage, living room, dining room, kitchen and WC at
ground floor level and two bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Perry-Warnes having regard to the following planning
reasons:
Size of the proposed annexe.
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the scale of the proposed building and that it is not within current Core
Strategy Policy as it could be classed as infill.
REPRESENTATIONS
4 representations have been received, raising the following objections (summarised):
Traffic increase- noise and disturbance to neighbouring property plus additional
parking and manoeuvring problems within a tight space;
Parking pressures- track currently used, which blocks access track;
Future concerns- loss of parking if garage area in future converted to extra room.
Would also increase parking needs and manoeuvring issues and traffic volume;
Highway Safety concerns- dangerous exit/entrance onto busy B1149. Concerns
that increased coming and going would increase possibility of accident;
Limited vehicular access;
Access inadequate to additional traffic (especially given lack of parking space to
accommodate envisaged visitors and likely health professional);
Unsafe and suitable access issues, in particular with vehicles of visiting carers,
medical practitioners which may include nurses, doctors or ambulances. Site is
severely restricted and provides limited space for safe and suitable vehicle
manoeuvring;
unadopted track serving site inadequate to serve any further vehicles use
whatsoever- poor alignment, restricted width, a lack of passing and manoeuvring
provision and severely restricted visibility at junction with busy and important
B1149;
Development not in keeping with neighbouring properties in the Conservation
Area;
Desirable for there to be such a relatively cramped in-fill of new residential
building development at end of tight access and in a Conservation Area?;
Concerns regarding time scales for new building project- works been done and
resultant building site at Vine Cottage for last 5 years. Tight site for large
vehicles;
Size of proposed building. Building is disproportionate to existing building on site;
Proposals do not appear to have adequate provisions for person with dementia
(which is justification for application);
Does seem to be determined to get second property on site as he has made
several, so far unsuccessful applications in the past for similar annexes;
In event of this application being successful, trust a second home on site would
not be allowed to be sold as separate property;
To permit this development would appear to be against current policy of infill
development;
Poor design which does not conserve or enhance Conservation Areaundeveloped area contributes to amenities of the area, proposal would
unacceptably erode character of area, scale, design and siting, unduly dominant
and detrimental to residential amenities or adjacent dwellings, reducing open
character and quiet amenities of backland site;
Form, design and detailing would not be in keeping, would be visible and would
bear little relation to style and materials of main building. Would fail to achieve
Development Committee
9
26 September 2013
high standards expected by the North Norfolk Design Guide;
Contrary to principle aims of good design in Policy EN4 and contrary to principles
underpinning local distinctiveness in district;
NPPF expects LPA to always seek to secure high quality design and good
standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
Fails to achieve this. Fails to reinforce local distinctiveness;
Does not represent good design and would fail to contribute to positively making
this location better for people within the community;
Would proposed development represent good design to meet health and care
needs of intended elderly occupant. No evidence that this represents suitable
form of annexe and more likely that single-storey linked unit of accommodation
would better provide suitable annexe accommodation for intended occupant;
Applicants failure to engage with community;
NPPF encourages pre-application discussions but there is no evidence that
applicant has taken opportunity to explore this.
CONSULTATIONS
County Highway Authority - Having carried out my site inspection, the access
visibility is restricted in both directions by frontage vegetation and road alignment and
any intensification of use of the site would be resisted.
To ensure that the annexe accommodation remains ancillary to the main dwelling, I
would seek to append the following condition, should your Authority be minded to the
grant of consent:SHC 32 - The living accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the use
of the main dwelling and shall not be occupied at any time as a separate and unassociated unit of accommodation.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - There
are no objections to the principle of this building. In terms of detail, the position and
profile of the rear dormers is less than ideal, however, this is possibly not a ground
for refusal.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)- Awaiting comments.
Members will be update verbally.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
10
26 September 2013
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of the development
Design and scale and impact on the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area
Highway safety and parking concerns
Impact on amenities
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where extensions to dwellings
are considered acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant Development
Plan policies.
Vine Cottage is a detached dwelling on The Green in Edgefield. The garage and
annexe would be sited approximately 5m away from the principal dwelling and would
share the same vehicular access point.
The proposed garage and studio annexe would have a floor area of approximately
108sqm. In comparison, according to submitted plans, Vine Cottage has an existing
floor area of approximately 125sqm, although it is recognised that the floor area of
the original dwelling was circa 78sqm (although this excludes a side extension which
is indicated on historic maps). On this basis, it is recognised that the floor area of the
proposed garage and studio annexe would be larger than the floor area of the
original dwelling.
There is no evidence to suggest that there is an intention to create a separate
residential dwelling; the agent has confirmed in the Design and Access Statement
that the annexe would be occupied by the applicant's elderly mother, who requires
care and have a live-in carer. No apparent physical boundaries have been proposed
between the main dwelling and the annexe.
Extensions in designated Countryside areas are subject to Policy HO 8 of the
adopted Core Strategy. Whilst it is recognised that the building has been extended
over the years and the proposal represents a significant increase in the size of the
property, it is not, in this instance, considered that the proposed development would
have a significantly detrimental impact on the host dwelling or surrounding landscape
and the extension is not considered to be disproportionately large when compared
with the prevailing character of the area. On balance the proposal would accord with
Policy HO8.
The site is located within the Edgefield and Glaven Valley Conservation Area, where
proposals are required to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
area.
Development Committee
11
26 September 2013
Whilst there is some concern in respect of the design of the rear dormer windows, it
is not considered that their design warrants a refusal and, therefore, the design of the
proposed garage and studio annexe is considered to be broadly acceptable, with
gabled ends to mirror the form of the host dwelling and weathered boarding and
pantiles to match existing to ensure additional compatibility between the proposed
development and the main dwelling.
It is considered that the proposed development would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
It would appear that there would be sufficient space to park two cars adjacent to the
garage and studio/annexe. Whilst the proposed garage would not be of sufficient size
to count as a car park space in accordance with the requirements of the North
Norfolk Design Guide, and it would appear that there would be a potential shortfall in
requirements for parking, given that the proposed development would essentially be
an extension to the existing dwelling and not a new dwellinghouse, it is considered to
be acceptable in this instance.
County Highway Authority have assessed the application and have not raised any
objections, subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition requiring the main
dwelling and the annexe to be linked.
Therefore, whilst not technically complying with the parking standards, having
considered the proposed development, and given there is no County Highway
Authority objection and given that a condition would be imposed on any approval
linking the use of the annexe to the main dwelling, it is considered that the proposed
development would be broadly acceptable and compliant with the aims of Policies CT
5 and CT 6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
In terms of impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, it is recognised that
the proposed garage and studio annexe would sit fairly close to neighbouring
boundaries.
Any potential shortfall in the Basic Amenity Criteria would appear to be between the
ground floor facing living room windows/doors and Honesty Cottage to the south,
although it is not clear what facing windows on the neighbouring property serve.
In this case, the BAC would recommend 21m if there are facing primary windows on
Honesty Cottage. In this instance, it is recognised that the dwellings in their nature
already share a fairly close relationship and that there is an outbuilding between the
proposed building and the neighbouring property to the south, that would partly
screen overlooking.
To the east, mature hedging and trees would screen the proposed garage and studio
annexe from the neighbour to the east.
In summary, the proposal is considered, on balance, to comply with the policies of
the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the
conditions attached below:
Development Committee
12
26 September 2013
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications and in accordance with eh additional plan (drawing number
948/01A) submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 3 September 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the
site, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
3
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other
alteration to the replacement garage with ground and first floor studio/annexe
hereby permitted (including the insertion or any further window or rooflight)
shall take place unless planning permission has been first granted by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and
the visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
The living accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the use of
Vine Cottage, The Green, Edgefield and shall not be occupied as a separate
or un-associated unit of accommodation
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and because the close relationship of the
proposed ancillary accommodation and the dwelling and neighbouring
properties is such that two separate dwelling units would not be appropriate in
terms of Policies in accordance with Policies CT 5, CT 6 and EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5
Prior to their first use in the construction of the development hereby permitted,
precise details of the proposed finish to the timber boarding shall be submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development
shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
13
26 September 2013
3.
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0898 - Removal of Condition 5 of planning permission
reference: 10/0203 to remove requirement for passing bay; Oystercatchers
adjacent Treeside, School Lane for Mr Colbourne
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 September 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20070089 PO - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage
Approved 12/04/2007
PM/10/0203 PF - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and garage
Approved 18/06/2010
PM/10/0350 PM - Erection of dwelling and garage
Withdrawn by Applicant 21/06/2010
NMA1/10/0203 NMA - Non material amendment request to delete porch on east
elevation to annex and insert window and erection of screen wall to south side of patio
Approved 22/02/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks removal of Condition 5 of planning permission reference: 10/0203 to remove
requirement for passing bay.
Condition 5 currently states:
Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the passing bay indicated
on the submitted plan shall be constructed in accordance with construction details to
be first submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority in
consultation with the highway authority. It shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy CT5 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Jones having regard to the following planning issue(s):
Highway safety concerns if the layby is not provided.
PARISH COUNCIL
Strongly object to the removal of condition 5.
The passing bay was a key element in this original planning application being granted
and was the only benefit the community would receive.
School Lane is now being used as a "rat run" for people to access the Tesco store in
Mundesley.
This passing place is and always has been considered necessary by the Gimingham
Community for a number of years and is needed more than ever due to the volume of
traffic which now utilises this route.
Development Committee
14
26 September 2013
It is vitally important to the Council and to the Community that this condition remains
in place and that it is built within a defined time scale.
Although Highways may consider the passing bay no longer necessary - the Council
and Community who will be using this facility do want this condition to remain and to
see it enforced and implemented.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received from Gimingham residents on grounds:
The passing bay was a condition of this contentious planning application being
passed despite all local objections. Now the removal of this one part of the planning
approval insisted upon locally is wrong.
Two letters of support have been received from adjoining residents concerned that
the passing bay would destabilise the bank and the consequential risk to their
properties.
In addition the construction of a passing place will only aid speeding traffic when it is
traffic calming measures that are needed.
The applicant has submitted a letter in support of his application which is reproduced
as Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority The Highway Authority objected to the granting of permission for a dwelling on this
site (App no 2007/0089). The response letter dated the 24 January 2007
acknowledging the proposed provision of a passing bay but considered this to be
problematic to construct and insufficient mitigation to allow the dwelling.
Contrary to the highway advice offered the application was approved by your
Authority with it being a condition of approval that the passing bay be constructed
prior to first occupation of the dwelling.
For some months the Highways Authority has been in consultation with the applicant
and his agent in regard to the provision of the passing bay which due to land
ownership constraints can only be constructed on the western side of School Lane.
Costings for the works, which will require piling of the steep roadside bank and a
retaining wall, from both the applicants agent and an independent estimator have
indicated costs of some £50,000.
In addition there is, as originally pointed out, strong concerns that the construction of
this bay would destabilise the bank and the public highway.
In light of this the Highway Authority do not consider it either fair and reasonable or in
the overall interest of the highway fabric to continue with the requirement for a
passing bay.
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.
Development Committee
15
26 September 2013
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy 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
Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The application site lies on a narrow lane within the settlement of Gimingham which
itself lies with the Countryside Policy area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The history of the site is that an outline application was approved by Development
Committee in April 2007, contrary to an officer recommendation for refusal based on
a Highway objection because the unclassified road was inadequate to serve the site
because of its poor alignment, restricted width, lack of adequate passing and
pedestrian provision. At the time of the original application the Highway Authority
considered the proposed passing bay put forward by the applicant and rejected the
idea as it was not considered suitable to mitigate the highway impact. The Highway
Authority commented at that time that '…it is considered potentially problematic due
to the difference in levels between the adjacent land and the carriageway and even if
able to be constructed would not satisfactorily address the overall highway concerns
in relation to School Lane.'
In assessing the 2007 application, the Development Committee considered the offer
of the provision of the passing bay by the applicant as a 'planning gain'. The minutes
of the meeting of the 05 April 2007 record the reason for the Development
Committee approving the application contrary to Officer advice as ‘The Committee
has comprehensively considered the site and assessed the Highway Authority’s
reasons for refusal, and bearing in mind that a passing bay will be provided it is
considered, on balance, that the application is acceptable’.
Subsequently, the site was given a full planning approval with the condition requiring
the passing-bay re-imposed under planning ref: PF/10/0203.
In now considering the request to remove condition 5 of planning ref: PF/10/0203, the
Development Committee will need to consider whether the requirement for the
passing bay goes to the heart of the original planning permission and whether
removal of the condition would be likely to lead to unacceptable planning impacts. It
is evident from the minutes of 5 April 2007 meeting that the provision of the passing
place was a material planning consideration which swung the balance in favour of
approving the application at that time. While it could be said with hindsight that the
application may not have been approved without the passing place, at that time the
Development Committee were not in possession of the facts about the subsequent
engineering difficulties and the ultimate cost of providing the passing bay some six
years later, albeit that the Highway Authority did have concerns at that time.
Development Committee
16
26 September 2013
In considering whether to remove the condition, the Development Committee should
have regard to Paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
which states: 'Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary,
relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise
and reasonable in all other respects’.
Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states: ‘Development should only be prevented or refused
on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are
severe’.
A key question for the Development Committee therefore is whether the existing
highway conditions are so severe that the erection of a dwelling is only acceptable
through the provision of the passing bay.
The Parish Council cited as a reason to object to this current application that 'School
Lane is being used as a rat run for access to the Tesco Store in Mundesley',
however, that objection is unrelated to the development of this site for a single
dwelling. The burden of providing a passing place to resolve existing unrelated
highway problems should not fall upon a development by an unrelated third party,
particularly as to do so would not comply with the requirements of NPPF paragraph
206 as they could not be considered as 'necessary' or 'reasonable' in terms of
meeting the condition test.
It should be noted that two residents closest to the site, and potentially most directly
affected, are supporting this application. These residents are also those most directly
concerned that the bank where the passing bay is proposed might become unstable
and consider that traffic calming measures instead would be a better solution than a
passing bay, which they consider would be likely to facilitate speeding traffic.
At the time the original application was approved in 2007 it was not envisaged the
cost of a passing place would be so expensive. Leaving aside the safety issue, the
cost of the passing place has been estimated by the Highway Authority at £50,000.
The requirement for the bay could be regarded as disproportionate to the scale of
development of a single dwelling and the traffic it generates. It is therefore doubtful,
in light of the available evidence, that the passing bay could be justified as being
necessary in terms of the amount of traffic generated by a single dwelling in
comparison to the traffic movements along this stretch of road. Officers consider that
retention of the condition is therefore unreasonable.
In any event, despite considerable consultation on a scheme to construct a passing
bay the Highway Authority have strong concerns that the works to construct the
passing bay would destabilise the bank and the public highway. In the
circumstances it is unlikely that the Highway Authority would authorise its
construction and existing condition 5 of application ref: PF/10/0203 would, in all
likelihood, become unenforceable.
As such, given that the original condition is likely to prove unenforceable if it is not
removed, the Development Committee have little option other than to accept the
erection of a dwelling in this location without the provision of the passing bay.
It is the opinion of Officers that, taking into account the circumstances explained
above, the existing condition fails three of the tests outlined in Paragraph 206 of the
NPPF (those relating to a condition needing to be necessary, reasonable or
Development Committee
17
26 September 2013
enforceable) and it is therefore recommended that the application to remove the
condition be approved.
Recommendation:
Approve
4.
LITTLE SNORING - PF/13/0207 - Erection of first floor extension, including
raising height of roof, one and a half storey rear extension, single-storey front
extension and single-storey side/rear extension; 6 Thursford Road for Mrs
Amos
- Target Date: 17 April 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
DEV20/09/052 ENQ
Extension
PLA/19930925 PF - First floor extension
Withdrawn 21/09/1993
PF/12/0475 HOU - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension, two-storey front
extension and first floor extension
Withdrawn 20/02/2013
THE APPLICATION
This is an amended proposal seeking to provide a first floor extension, including
raising the height of the roof, a one and a half storey rear extension, a single storey
front extension and a single storey side/rear extension. The amended proposal
follows the withdrawal of the original proposal under 12/0475 and extensive
discussion regarding the plans first submitted under this application.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comments: The Parish Council objects to this application for the following
reasons: invasion of privacy - it would overlook the neighbouring properties,
particularly those that back on to the garden. Overdevelopment of the site - huge
footprint on a plot intended for a two bedroom bungalow. The extended frontage and
increased height, depth and width are not in keeping with the rest of the properties in
the development (bungalows and chalet bungalows) other extensions, which have
been acceptable are only ground floor extensions.
Following the submission of the amended proposal the Parish Council
provided the following response:
Objects - recommends the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. the overall footprint is too big for the plot
2. The extension of the first floor at the rear means that the neighbours would be
overlooked and their privacy compromised. It was suggested that the rear
extension should only be at ground level.
Development Committee
18
26 September 2013
Although some changes have been made to the original proposal, the amended
plans are still not suitable for the location. The estate of dwellings is one of
bungalows and chalet bungalows. Small ground level extensions that overlook
neighbouring properties are not.
REPRESENTATIONS
3 x objections received in respect of the original proposal on the following grounds:
being directly behind the proposal we feel it will directly impinge on our privacy.
The large upstairs window will be straight in line with our kitchen windows and the
roof lights would overlook fully our conservatory and garden (No.5 Manor Close &
No 4 No 6)
proposal too large
not in keeping with the area (bungalows)
all properties in the Close are bungalows, none have been allowed to build up
2 x objections received following advertisement of amended proposal (one is
from an original objector and the other is a new objection)
any elevated addition to a bungalow in this situation is bound to be an intrusion
on the surrounding dwellings as the gardens are somewhat small
loss of privacy
a caravan repair service appears to be operating at the front of the dwelling
rear upstairs bedroom window would look directly into our kitchen as their garden
overlaps ours by some 3 metres (No. 6 Manor Close)
amended plans make situation worse as the rear extension would be even closer
to our property (No. 6 Manor Close)
One of the things that attracted us to the Close was that all the properties were
bungalows and therefore no overlooking
development out of place with existing properties
possibly open the floodgates for further over development of the village
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Suitability of design
2. Impact upon neighbouring amenities
Development Committee
19
26 September 2013
APPRAISAL
The site lies in the designated residential area of Little Snoring where the principle of
extending an existing dwelling is acceptable subject to compliance with other Core
Strategy policies which in this case includes policy EN4.
Policy EN4 requires that all development will be designed to a high quality,
reinforcing local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be
particularly encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does
not preserve or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be
acceptable. In addition proposals should not have a significantly detrimental effect on
the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
This proposal seeks to provide a first floor extension, including raising the height of
the roof, a one and a half storey rear extension, a single storey front extension and a
single storey side/rear extension. The application follows the withdrawal of earlier
application ref: PF/12/0475. The applicant has significantly amended his proposal
such that the application has addressed Officer's concerns.
The proposal seeks to raise the roof of the bungalow to provide first floor
accommodation. The height of the eaves is to remain as existing, with the ridge
height increased by approx. 1.1m to approx. 6.2m. The adjacent dwelling to the north
has a ridge height of approx 6.8m and it is therefore considered that the proposal is
in keeping with the form and character of the area, there already being a mix of
single storey and one and a half storey dwellings. A previously proposed one and
half storey front extension has been deleted and replaced with a single storey front
facing gable extension in the position of the existing porch and would project approx.
2.3m from the front elevation. The scale and form of this part of the proposal is now
considered to be acceptable and in keeping with the character of the area.
To the side and rear it is proposed to erect a single storey extension which
incorporates the existing flat roof garage which runs along the southern boundary.
This extension would, at the side, have a gable facing the neighbour approx 3.7m to
the ridge with a width of approx. 4.3m, followed by a dual pitched roof with the gable
rear facing so that the majority of the roof line along this boundary would be sloping
away from the neighbour with the eaves at a height of approx. 2.3m (the existing flat
roof garage height is 2.5m). This would provide a home office space and utility/wc
area, with an open storage area beyond. The site would still be able to accommodate
sufficient parking space at the frontage which is considered in keeping with
neighbouring properties. The side extension is considered acceptable in relation to
the neighbouring property. Whilst it would result in a relatively long and narrow rear
extension it is not considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the
original dwelling.
Also at the rear two roof lights are proposed on the raised roof slope to serve a
bedroom and shower room. The distance from these windows is considerably greater
than the recommended distances for protection of neighbours privacy and therefore
this element raises no cause for concern. A further gabled extension is proposed at
the rear which would be approx. 6.5m in width with the ridge sitting slightly below that
of the raised ridge level. This extension would extend approx 3.3m from the original
rear wall. A first floor window is proposed.
In terms of recommended distances (Basic Amenity Criteria) for retaining an
acceptable degree of privacy between properties the greatest distance required to be
achieved by the Council‟s Design Guide would be between primary windows and
primary windows; a distance of 21m. In this instance the window of concern is a
Development Committee
20
26 September 2013
secondary window (where recommended distances are less than for primary) but
nonetheless the distance between the proposed and the neighbouring properties to
the rear is, for No. 6 Manor Close some 31m to windows at an oblique angle (there
are some trees along No. 6 Manor Close's rear boundary which would further
obscure any view in that direction); 28m for No.5 Manor Close and, at very oblique
angle if at all possible, some 37m to No.4 Manor Close. Distances from the proposed
development to the boundaries of the neighbouring properties to the rear range from
some 14m to 23m.
In addition whilst the proposed first floor window to the rear extension could introduce
some overlooking of part of the rear garden of the neighbour to the north (No. 5
Thursford Road) it is considered that this would not be significantly detrimental given
that some overlooking of this garden is already present from the first floor rear
window of no. 4 Thursford Road.
In summary it is considered that the application has addressed the concerns
previously raised by Officers, the Parish Council and public representations in
relation to application ref: PF/12/0475. The Parish Council has objected to the
amended proposal and two objections have also been received on the grounds of
overdevelopment and loss of privacy and the development being out of character
with the area. However, Officers consider that the amended proposal complies with
the Council's amenity criteria and that the scale and form of the development is
acceptable at this location.
The development therefore accords with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve with appropriate conditions.
5.
TRUNCH - PF/13/0600 - Conversion of former commercial garage to one
dwelling; Trunch Garage, 5 Chapel Road for Trunch Garage
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 July 2013
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the conversion of a commercial garage to a one bed single
dwelling.
The existing building is a former chapel and has been in use by Trunch Garage since
1969. The building measures approximately 11m in length, 5.6m wide and 5.1m in
height to the ridge. It has a clay pantile roof and red brick walls with buff brick
detailing. Car parking is to the front of the site and there is a garden area to the rear
approximately 4m x 6m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee in order for a
site visit to be carried out.
Development Committee
21
26 September 2013
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters of support have been received, as well as three letters raising no
objection and one comment.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - No objection
Environmental Health - If approved condition required in relation to site investigation
being carried out into contaminants is required.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - In order to comply with Policy EN6 a condition is
required that the measures identified in the Sustainable Construction Checklist
submitted with the application are implemented.
Planning Policy Manager - The building is small, solidly built and attractive. Although
I understand it is not listed it would appear to have some historical interest. Under the
provisions of the revised Policy H09 the residential re-use of the building complies
with all requirements accept, subject to the outcome of application 13/0602 , that it
could result in the loss of the existing employment generating use.
To date we have discussed how this proposal and application 13/0602 could be
linked in order to secure the prior relocation of the business in the village. Having
now seen the details of the application I question whether this is in fact necessary.
On the one hand whilst the building provides the equivalent of 4 jobs, it has no
parking facilities to speak of and the existing use appears to be regarded as a bad
neighbour. The building could be used for an alternative commercial purpose but
given the lack of parking and the likely capital investment required for anything other
than something similar to the existing use I would be surprised if there would be
much demand from potential users. Although a departure from policy, I therefore
consider that an approval irrespective of potential relocation of the business would be
justified in this instance. This would secure the removal of a un-neighbourly use and
provide a small home in the heart of the village.
Historic Environment Service - No objection. Condition required in relation to historic
building recording.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Committee
22
26 September 2013
Policy HO9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area
where the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of the development
2. Impact upon neighbouring properties
3. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for the Committee to
carry out a site visit. The application is connected to application reference 13/0602
also on this agenda.
The application site consists of an existing building, formerly a chapel, currently used
as a commercial vehicle repair garage. The site is located within the centre of
Trunch, which is designated as Countryside in the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
The agent has advised in the Design and Access Statement submitted with the
application that Trunch Garage has operated from the former chapel since 1969, and
that the small size of the building is restrictive to the operation of the business with
vehicles parked along Chapel Road and is an inconvenience to neighbours. The
applicants are therefore seeking to relocate the existing business to an alternative
location in Trunch off the Bradfield Road, some 400 metres to the west. This is the
subject of a separate application for consideration under 13/0602 also on this
agenda.
This application (13/0600) is therefore seeking permission to convert the existing
business into a one bed dwelling. Such a proposal in this location is considered
under Policy HO9 regarding the "Conversion and Re-use of Buildings as Dwellings".
Whilst the site is located outside the HO9 zone a revised approach to Policy HO9
was adopted by Full Council in December 2012, which now permits good quality
buildings outside the HO9 zone to be considered for conversion. This is subject to
the conversion relating to a disused and redundant building and that the proposal
would comply with Policy HO9 criteria 3 - 5 regarding the building being structurally
sound and suitable for conversion to a residential use without substantial rebuilding
or extension and the alterations protect or enhance the character of the building and
its setting, and the scheme is of an appropriate scale in terms of the number of
dwellings proposed for the location, and where it is viable to do so, on all schemes
resulting in two or more units, not less than 50% if the total number are affordable.
The building itself is considered to be sound and has some historical interest given its
former use as a chapel. It is considered that the building is of quality and acceptable
for conversion in terms of this part of the policy. Buildings already in economic uses
are normally excluded from this policy as the presumption is that their uses should
continue, and not be lost to re-development. However, in this case whilst this
application is seeking to convert the building to a dwelling application reference
Development Committee
23
26 September 2013
13/0602 has been submitted seeking permission for the commercial vehicle repair
business to relocate to a new site within the village. Therefore, if application 13/0602
were to be approved the commercial use would remain in the village albeit at a
different site. In respect of this point you will note from the comments of the Planning
Policy Manager that whilst a departure from policy he considers that an approval of
this application irrespective of potential relocation of the business would be justified
in this instance. It is considered unlikely that a different commercial use other than
that already there would be acceptable due to the investment required in the building,
lack of parking for a commercial use and location surrounded by residential
properties. It is considered that this proposal would secure the removal of an unneighbourly use and provide a small home in Trunch in this residential area in which
it is located. The proposal is considered to comply with criteria 3 - 5 of Policy HO9.
No extension or rebuilding would be required. The main external alteration would be
to remove the large garage doors on the front. Converting the building would protect
and enhance its character and setting. The proposal is also for a single one bed
dwelling which is considered to be acceptable in terms of its scale in this location.
Furthermore, there is no affordable housing requirement given that this is for one
dwelling only. Apart from the fact that the building is still in economic use the
proposal would comply with all other aspects of Policy HO9.
The building is a former chapel and the intention is to remove the large garage doors
on the front and return the building back to its former appearance. These changes
are considered to be acceptable. There is one window in the east and west
elevations but these windows face the front garden of the dwelling to the west and
the driveway of the dwelling to the west. There would be an ensuite and bedroom
window on the southern elevation at first floor. However, this faces a small garden
area to the rear and given the relationships between neighbouring residential
properties it is not considered that this proposal would result in an unacceptable
impact. It is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring
dwellings.
The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the application. One car parking
space is provided to the front of the site which is in accordance with the Council's car
parking standards. There is also a refuse storage area for bins.
Therefore, whilst approval of this proposal would result in a departure from
Development Plan policy, as the building is currently in economic use, the buildings
commercial potential for an alternative use is considered to be limited due to the
investment required to alter the building for anything other than a vehicle repair
garage and lack of car parking. The proposal complies with all other aspects of
policy, and a residential use would be in keeping with the immediate area and
remove an un-neighbourly use. On balance it is therefore considered that the
proposal is acceptable as there are material considerations which are considered to
sufficient to outweigh a departure from policy in this case.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including the following:
In accordance with approved plans, removal of permitted development rights
for
alterations
and
extensions
and
insertion
of
new
windows/openings/rooflights, site investigation into contaminants, measures
identified in Sustainable Construction Checklist are implemented, historic
building recording
Development Committee
24
26 September 2013
6.
TRUNCH - PF/13/0602 - Demolition of workshop/stores and erection of B2
(vehicle repair/MOT) workshop; Builder's Yard, Bradfield Road for Trunch
Garage
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 July 2013
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the demolition of existing timber workshop/stores and
erection of B2 (vehicle repair/MOT) workshop.
Amended plans have been received reducing the scale of the building and indicating
on site parking for 20 vehicles. The building would measure approximately 20m in
length, 13m wide and 6m to the ridge. The walls and roof of the building would be
clad in an insulated polyester coated profiled sheeting, colour to be agreed.
The building would consist of three service bays, plus a VOSA approved sized MOT
ramp floor and an additional dead ramp, an office, an MOT viewing area, a toilet and
washroom facilities and a store.
The hours of operation proposed would be between 8.00am to 5.30pm Monday to
Friday and 8.00am to 2.00pm on Saturdays, no working on Sundays and Bank
Holidays.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee in order for a
site visit to be carried out.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments on original plans: No objection
Comments on amended plans: Awaiting response.
REPRESENTATIONS
Fourteen letters of objection have been received regarding the plans as originally
submitted raising the following points:
1. Highway safety
2. Detrimental impact on 'Quiet lanes'
3. Impact on Human Rights
4. Increase in traffic
5. Will cause pollution - noise, odour.
6. Scale of building significantly larger than existing
7. Should be located on industrial estate
8. An Environmental Survey should be required
9. Blot on the landscape
10. Will look like an industrial estate
11. A garage of that size does not belong in this rural community
12. Site already a mess
Development Committee
25
26 September 2013
13. Not appropriate location for commercial development
14. Would open floodgates for further commercial development
15. Hazardous road junction
16. Building would not be completely screened by hedge
17. Building too close to hedge
18. Although four bays, the size of the building would allow for more vehicles
19. Concerns over out of hours working
20. Will have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenities of near
neighbours
21. Parking problems
Twenty eight letters of support have been received regarding the plans as originally
submitted and five comments.
Amended plans have been received reducing the scale of the building and showing
on site parking for 20 vehicles. Additional supporting information has also been
provided regarding justification for what is being proposed and a client list showing
the location of their customers. This information can be seen in full in Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - Original Comments: No objection subject to
conditions in relation to improvements to access to industrial access construction
specification, visibility splays and on site parking and turning.
Comments following request for additional information: I note that the proposed
building size has been reduced and a detailed on site car parking plan provided.
Additionally whilst I question the agents statement that there are no 'suitable garage
workshops on the market' the provided customer list does indicate a significant
number of local customers who, if the business re-located, would possibly have to
travel further to get their cars repaired. This local customer base being something
that should be encouraged as it ultimately reduces the extent and possibly number of
journeys. I also note that the existing premises are unable to carry out MOT tests
with cars needing to be driven back and forth between the MOT station in
Gimingham. As MOT's, in my experience, are a significant part of this type of
garages business the resultant reduction in trips from the Trunch site should be of
some benefit. I therefore have no objection to granting of permission subject to
conditions as requested in original response and additional condition of no car sales.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions in relation to hours of use,
external lighting, ventilation and extraction.
Planning Policy Manager - Original comments: Whilst presented as part of a package
with application 13/0600 I consider that this application should be considered
separately in the first instance and whilst some weight can be attached to the
relocation argument this should not outweigh the principle considerations as to
whether the site is acceptable in land use terms for the use proposed. I have not
visited the site but I am familiar with the area and I do have concerns that both the
scale, appearance and to some extent the use proposed are rather at odds with the
prevailing rural character of the location. New build employment premises in this
location do not comply with policy „unless there is some environmental or operational
justification‟ for the specific location. I do not consider that the relatively modest
employment generating benefits of this proposal amount to such a justification.
Development Committee
26
26 September 2013
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development
2. Impact upon neighbouring properties
3. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting in order for the Committee to
carry out a site visit. The application is connected to application reference 13/0600
also on this agenda.
The existing garage premises is located in a former chapel on Chapel Road in
Trunch, where it is located in the middle of a residential area. The agent has advised
in the Design and Access Statement submitted with this application (13/0602) that
Trunch Garage has operated from that site since 1969. However, the building is
small and restrictive to the operation of the business with vehicles being parked
along Chapel Road, which is an inconvenience to the owners of the neighbouring
residential properties. The agent has advised that the intention is therefore to
relocate the business to an alternative site on the Bradfield Road in Trunch which is
approximately 400m to the west which is the subject of this application (13/0602).
There are existing timber buildings on the application site which the agent has
advised have been used as workshops and for storage purposes by two previous
owners in the building trade since the 1950's and up until 2012. However, there does
not appear to be any planning records in relation to this use, so this cannot
necessarily be considered as the lawful use of the site. The existing buildings are in a
Development Committee
27
26 September 2013
poor condition and would not be suitable for adaption or conversion for the use
proposed under this application. The proposal is therefore seeking permission to
demolish them in order to provide for a new purpose built building to be constructed.
The application site is located within the Countryside Policy Area as designated by
the North Norfolk Core Strategy. As the buildings on the site are not suitable for reuse the proposal cannot be considered under Policy EC2: The Re-use of Buildings in
the Countryside. In the Countryside new build employment generating proposals are
permitted, under Policy SS2, but this is only where there is a particular environmental
or operational justification. In this case the existing premises employs three people, a
father and two sons, with the new proposal creating an additional three full time jobs.
The Chapel Road premises is no longer large enough and suitable to accommodate
the business and this is having a detrimental impact upon the occupiers of the
surrounding residential properties as it is causing a problem for parking for residents
and traffic using Chapel Road due to the number of vehicles parked on the road in
relation to Trunch Garage. The existing business could also be considered as an unneighbourly use in such a location in close proximity to residential dwellings. It could
therefore be argued that there are environmental and operational reasons for the
relocation of this business to an alternative site. However, the Committee will note
that whilst the Planning Policy Manager advises that in his opinion some weight can
be attached to the relocation argument, this should not, in his opinion, outweigh the
principle consideration as to whether the site is acceptable in land-use planning
terms for the use proposed. Nor does he consider that the relatively modest
employment generating benefits of this proposal are sufficient to fully comply with this
policy.
However, the applicant's agent has been asked to clarify why the applicant needs to
relocate to the site on the Bradfield Road in Trunch and why they cannot relocate to
an industrial estate. The agents response is contained in full in the additional
supporting information in Appendix 2, but advises that the applicants have looked at
alternative sites in Cromer and North Walsham but there are no suitable premises
currently available. The few that are on the market are not of the correct size or
readily convertible. The agent also goes onto say that "Trunch Garage have
established themselves as a local garage for a local community", and their client list
(see Appendix 2) clearly shows that the business serves Trunch and the immediate
area, and that "re-locating to Cromer or North Walsham would either alienate the
customer base or result in longer less sustainable vehicle movements and greater
competition".
There is no doubt that this is a well established local business with a local client
base. The client list submitted with the additional information in Appendix 2 indicates
211 customers, some of which have multiple vehicles and 132 of which are shown to
be from Trunch. The remainder of customers would appear to be situated in the
immediate villages and in close proximity to Trunch. If the business were to relocate
outside of Trunch it is accepted that this could have a detrimental impact upon the
business and could result in the loss of customers, and would also generate more
traffic movements. The Committee will note that whilst the Highways Officer
questions the statement that there are no suitable premises on the market, he agrees
that the customer list indicates a significant number of local customers who, if the
business were relocated outside of Trunch would have to travel further to get their
cars repaired. The local customer base is something that the Highways Officer
encourages as it ultimately reduces the extent and number of journeys required. In
addition to that the Highways Officer has also commented that the existing premises
on Chapel Road is unable to carry out MOT tests so vehicles have to be driven back
and forth between an MOT station in Gimingham. If this application were to be
Development Committee
28
26 September 2013
approved the applicants would be able to carry out MOT's in the new premises which
would result in a reduction in trips which would be considered a benefit. The Highway
Authority therefore have no objection to the application subject to appropriate
conditions. It could therefore be argued that the Bradfield Road site is a sustainable
location for such a development.
The scale of the building has been amended following Officer comments, reducing it
from 28m in length and 7m in height to 20m in length and 6m in height. The width
remains the same at 13m. However, there is a mature hedge along the eastern
boundary of the site fronting the Bradfield Road and subject to an appropriate colour
for the external cladding it is considered that the design and materials of the building
would be acceptable.
There are open fields to the west and north of the site, and paddocks to the south.
The nearest neighbouring residential property is directly to the east known as
'Flintstones', approximately 15m from the application site. The Bradfield Road runs
between this residential property and the application site. There are also dwellings
along Primrose Close, whose rear gardens are approximately 60m from the site, and
to the north east of which 'The Gables' is the nearest in that direction being some
45m from the site. The location of these residential properties to the application site
is significantly greater than at the current site in Chapel Road, where there are
residential properties within a few metres. The Chapel Road site is also surrounded
by residential properties. The Bradfield Road site, whilst residential to the east and
north east, is considered to be more appropriate in terms of its relationship to
residential properties. Whilst it is understood that some residents in closer proximity
to the Bradfield Road site have raised objections regarding the relocation of the
business in terms of noise, odour and pollution issues and the impact this may have
on the residential amenities, Environmental Health have been consulted.
Environmental Health have not raised an objection to the application, but this is
subject to a number of conditions such as restricting the hours of operation to those
proposed, details of any external lighting, ventilation and extraction details to be
agreed. At the time of writing this report further discussions were taking place with
Environmental Health regarding the imposition of additional conditions in relation to
protecting the amenity of neighbouring dwellings. In view of this it is not considered
that the proposal would result in a significant detrimental impact upon their residential
amenities.
In conclusion, whilst the proposal would not strictly comply with Policy SS2 in respect
of compliance with „new build employment generating proposals where there is a
particular environmental or operation justification‟ it is nonetheless considered that
there are material considerations which Officers consider the Development
Committee would be entitled to give appropriate weight when making a planning
judgment and which could be used to justify approval of the proposal, albeit that
approval would be a departure from Development Plan Policy
Paragraph 18 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states: ‘The
Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs
and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the
twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future’.
Paragraph 19 of the NPPF states: ‘The Government is committed to ensuring that
the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic
growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to
sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to
Development Committee
29
26 September 2013
support economic growth through the planning system’.
Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that ‘Planning policies should support economic
growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive
approach to sustainable new development’. The NPPF goes on to state that LPAs
should …’promote the retention and development of local services and
community facilities in villages’.
The evidence submitted by the applicant suggests that the existing garage is a wellused and highly regarded local service and its relocation to an industrial estate in
Cromer or North Walsham carries significant risks of affecting the long-term success
of the business and would also likely to lead to increases in vehicle movements as
current customers living in the immediate area would have to travel further to access
vehicle repair and maintenance services.
Approval of the application would therefore help secure three full-time employment
positions and create an additional three full time jobs within the village and will also
enable carbon savings through reduced need for existing customers to travel out of
the village to access the garage services. The re-location of the existing business
from the centre of Trunch to the edge of the village will also reduce adverse
environmental impacts within the village centre from parking and other activities
associated with the existing business being located close to existing residential
properties.
At the time of writing this report the amended plans were being re-advertised and the
Parish Council re-consulted. The expiry of the amended site notice is not until 26
September 2013 and the Parish Council have requested an extension of time to
respond. Therefore, this recommendation is subject to no new grounds of objection
following the re-advertisement and re-consultation with the Parish Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no new
grounds of objection following re-advertisement of the amended plans, no
objections from the Parish Council and imposition of appropriate conditions
including the following and any others suggested by Environmental Health:
Approved in accordance with amended plans, upgrading of vehicular access
and constructed in accordance with industrial access construction
specification, visibility splay provided 2.4m x 25m, on site car parking and
turning areas, no car sales, hours of operation, external lighting, ventilation
and extraction details to be agreed, external colour finish to cladding to be
agreed.
7.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
BODHAM – PF/13/0960 – Installation of 3.6mw solar development for Genatec
Limited
Development Committee
30
26 September 2013
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Development Manager to expedite the processing of the
application.
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/13/0866 – Erection of 176 dwellings with access, open
space and associated works and formation of station car park and outline
application for employment development; land at Norwich Road for Hopkins
Homes
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTTEE
At the request of the Development Manager in order to expedite the processing of
the application and to enable Members to appreciate fully this major development
proposal.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/13/0971 - Formation of 116 touring pitches and
erection of two amenity blocks for Pinewoods Holiday Park
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Development Manager to expedite the processing of the
application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACONSTHORPE - PF/13/0856 - Variation of Condition 21 of planning
permission reference: 10/0553 to allow retrospective removal and replacement
of hedgerow; Dales House, The Street for Mr J Cooper
(Full Planning Permission)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/13/0948 - Conversion of outbuildings to annexe including
raising of eaves and ridge height (retrospective); The Annexe, Dales House, The
Street for Mr J Cooper
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/13/0752 - Erection of part two-storey side/rear extension;
Lowlands Farm, Church Road for Norfolk County Council
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/13/0782 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and insertion of
first floor window to north elevation; Vancouver House, Kimberley Road for Mr J
Sylvester
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/13/0654 - Retention of agricultural storage building; Land
adjacent Hall Farm, off Cromer Road for Mr M Bakewell
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - LA/13/0865 - Re-construction of orangery roof including
installation of cast iron handrail and lowering of parapet wall; The Old Rectory,
6 Wiveton Road for Mr I Smedley
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
31
26 September 2013
BRININGHAM - PF/13/0857 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 02/1309 to permit full residential occupancy; 1 Belle Vue Farm Barns,
Dereham Road for Mr R Stanton
(Full Planning Permission)
BRININGHAM - NMA2/11/0068 - Non material amendment request to demolish
lobby and erect porch; Well House, Burgh Stubbs, Melton Road for Mr D
Loombe
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BRINTON - PF/13/0659 - Erection of replacement single-storey side extension.;
Apple Tree Cottage, 15 The Street, Sharrington for Mr P Jozsa
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/13/0850 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Galloway Cottage,
The Street for Mr & Mrs Slater
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/0716 - Revised internal layout and external doors
and windows (retrospective); Parsley Cottage, 1 Newgate Farm Barns, Holt
Road for Mrs Napier
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/13/0736 - Conversion of two-storey annexe to separate residential
dwelling; The Annexe, 10 Macdonald Road for Mr G Robson
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - NMA1/11/0251 - Non material amendment request to permit the
omission of rooflight to north roof slope, insertion of two rooflights to front roof
slope, one rooflight with obscured glazing to south roof slope and side light
window to front door; Land between 27 & 30 Norwich Road for Mr W Butcher
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/13/0900 - Removal of Condition 8 of planning permission
reference: 11/1025 to delete requirement for car park entrance bollards; Lidl
Foodstore for Lidl
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0506 - Retention of non-illuminated advertisements; The
Regency, 1 New Street for Mr S Gray
(Advertisement Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/13/0564 - Conversion of garage/store to residential dwelling;
Garage/store adjacent 7 Colne Cottages, The Croft for Mr A Raby
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PF/13/0604 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; 5 Canal View, The
Street for Mrs V Bailey
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/13/0717 - Conversion of home office/gym to holiday
accommodation; Poplar Farm House, Chequers Street for Mr J Stares
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
32
26 September 2013
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0802 - Erection of first floor side/rear extension and
detached car-port and store; 2 Barons Close for Mr & Mrs J Gash
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0759 - Erection of extension to entrance lobby and
rendering of wall; Fakenham Community Centre, Oak Street for Fakenham
Community Campus Trust Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0847 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 10 Searle
Close for Mr & Mrs G King
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0853 - Erection of replacement garage/shed; Plot 1, Knoll
Gardens, Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - HN/13/0901 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 4.1m and which
would have a maximum height of 2.7m and eaves height of 2.7m; 151 Holt Road
for Mr J Punchard
(Householder Prior Notification)
FELMINGHAM - PF/12/0666 - Conversion of outbuilding to residential dwelling
and siting of oil tank; The Farmhouse, Aylsham Road for Mr & Mrs Yuasa
(Full Planning Permission)
FELMINGHAM - PF/13/0542 - Retention of open-fronted storage shelter and
portable building; Land at Heath Road for Mrs H Cobbold
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0771 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 30 Church
Street for Mr G Bensley
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0775 - Conversion of part of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation and alterations of vehicular access; Holly Farm, Whimpwell
Green for Mr and Mrs J Willoughby
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - LA/13/0777 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation and internal alterations to kitchen; Holly Farm,
Whimpwell Green for Mr and Mrs J Willoughby
(Listed Building Alterations)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0806 - Conversion of detached garage to habitable
accommodation; Ianda, Short Lane for Mr Moriarty
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - HN/13/0844 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey
rear extension which would project from the original rear wall by 5 metres and
which would have a maximum height of 2.75 metres; 19 Coronation Close for Mr
J Turner
(Householder Prior Notification)
Development Committee
33
26 September 2013
HELHOUGHTON - PF/13/0879 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
pergola; 43 The Street for Mr R Corrigan
(Householder application)
HOLT - LA/12/1307 - Retention of replacement windows and internal alterations;
25 New Street for Ms C Williams
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/13/0494 - Erection of nine dwellings; Land at Ainsworth Road for
Cripps Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - HN/13/0969 - Notification of intention to erect single-storey rear
extension which would project from the original rear wall by 6.75 metres, would
have a maximum height of 3.75 metres and eaves height of 2.45 metres; 4
Kelling Close for Mr & Mrs J Blyth
(Householder Prior Notification)
HORNING - PF/13/0921 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front/side
entrance lobby; 20 Broadwater Way for Mr K Berry
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/13/0817 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land at 27
Pinewood Drive for Mr Garner
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/13/0819 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; St Peters
Cottage, Tunstead Road for Mr S K Kemp
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - PF/13/0750 - Removal of sash window and insertion of French door,
installation of railings to form balcony, retention of staircase and installation of
rooflight.; Flat 7, Knapton House, North Walsham Road for Mr L West
(Householder application)
KNAPTON - LA/13/0751 - Removal of sash window and insertion of French door,
installation of railings to form balcony, retention of staircase and installation of
rooflight.; Flat 7, Knapton House, North Walsham Road for Mr L West
(Listed Building Alterations)
LANGHAM - PF/13/0735 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Glen Hay
Barn, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M Coe
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/13/0793 - Erection of extension to agricultural storage
building; 2, Little Snoring Airfield, Thursford Road for Ralph Harrison &
Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
MATLASKE - LA/13/0369 - Internal alterations and opening up of blocked
window; The Stable Flat Barningham Hall, Barningham Park, The Street for Mr T
Cortauld
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
34
26 September 2013
MORSTON - PF/13/0873 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension; Church
Cottage, 24-26 The Street for Mr C Davies
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/12/1202 - Non material amendment request to permit
omission of proposed side extension, revisions to front and side elevation
fenestration and door and insertion of door to side elevation; Former
Coastguard Station, Beach Road for Mr M Lucas
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0858 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
Whitehaven, 104A Mundesley Road for Mr & Mrs P Smeed
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0863 - Variation of Condition 8 of planning
permission reference: 12/1004 to permit construction of timber fence to
northern boundary in lieu of post and rail fence/hedging, in accordance with
revised Arboricultural Method Statement; 47 Bacton Road for Mr T Sanders
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - HN/13/0804 - Notification of intention to erect rear
conservatory which would project from the original rear wall by 6m, would have
a maximum height of 3.45m and eaves height of 2.25m; 5 Happisburgh Road for
Mr & Mrs P Innes
(Householder Prior Notification)
NORTH WALSHAM - HN/13/0805 - Notification of intention to erect rear
conservatory which would project from the original rear wall by 4.9m, would
have a maximum height of 3.5m and an eaves height of 2.25m; 1 Meeting House
Cottages, Mundesley Road for Mr & Mrs R Harmer
(Householder Prior Notification)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0721 - Change of use of ground floor from B1 (office)
to A1 (retail) and conversion of first floor to B1 (office) and residential flat; 2-6
Yarmouth Road for Independent Order of Oddfellows
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/13/0722 - Internal alterations to ground and first floors
to enable the creation of first floor office and flat and removal of chimney stack;
2-6 Yarmouth Road for Independent Order of Oddfellows
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/13/0725 - Internal alterations to provide third floor
habitable accommodation and construction of revised rear parapet; 6A Market
Street for Stonefield Estates Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0597 - Change of use from residential to bed and
breakfast accommodation; 20A Cromer Road for Mr Birch & Mr Spalding
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0756 - Erection of 1.5m fence on top of existing
450mm wall; 21 New Road for Mr R Jones
(Householder application)
Development Committee
35
26 September 2013
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/0767 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
ref: 11/1009 to permit installation of glazed screen; Unit 4, 1 Old Station Yard,
Norwich Road for Miramar Veterinary Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/13/0880 - Change of use from D1 (veterinary surgery) to C3
(residential flat); 46 High Street for R J Bacon Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
POTTER HEIGHAM - NMA1/12/1269 - Non-material amendment request to permit
re-positioning of side/front annexe, change flat roofed porch to pitch and
revised fenestration to west elevation; Orwell Cottage, School Road for Mr A
Windsheffel
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/13/0593 - Erection of livestock building; Glebe Farm,
Marsh Road for Mr R Hall
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - PF/13/0794 - Installation of replacement windows and additional
roof light; Stable Cottage, The Street, West Raynham for Miss V Clears
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/13/0822 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension and two
storey rear extension; Mascot, Rosebery Road, West Runton for Mr B Cottam
(Householder application)
SALTHOUSE - LA/13/0855 - Removal of chimney stack and installation of timber
window to ground floor pantry; Salthouse Hall, Purdy Street for Mr R Gayfer
(Listed Building Alterations)
SCOTTOW - PF/13/0690 - Erection of two-storey side extension, with singlestorey rear extension for use as an annexe; 1 Barton Road, Badersfield for Mr G
Freeman
(Householder application)
SCULTHORPE - PF/13/0743 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Cranmer Hall Barn, Cranmer Hall, Creake Road, Cranmer for
Mr P Garvin
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - LA/13/0744 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion of barn
to holiday accommodation; Cranmer Hall Barn, Cranmer Hall, Creake Road,
Cranmer for Mr P Garvin
(Listed Building Alterations)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0648 - Erection of two-storey side extension including
balcony and rear garden room and porch; 18 The Driftway for Mr I Wood
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0776 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 12/0453 to permit revised access and parking layout and change to
site boundary; 15 Weybourne Road for Miramar Veterinary Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
36
26 September 2013
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0825 - Erection of side conservatory; Stapleton, 5 Lilac
Grove for Mr J Coker
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0895 - Change of use of first floor from residential to A1
(retail); 3A High Street for Millglade Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0739 - Construction of pitched roof to facilitate
conversion of garage to habitable accommodation; 7 Laburnum Grove for Mr R
Carter
(Householder application)
SLOLEY - PF/13/0761 - Erection of detached garage; Sloley Farm, High Street for
D & M Hickling Properties Limited
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0724 - Retention of sunroom/shed; 5 Stile Cottages,
Chapel Road for Mr P Tipper
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - LE/13/0401 - Demolition of dwelling remains and outbuilding;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road for Mr M Goss
(Conservation Area Demolition)
SOUTHREPPS - NMA1/12/0053 - Non material amendment request to erect brick
plinth; Meadow View, Chapel Road for Mr J Barker
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0836 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 13 Pit Street
for J Donald & Sons
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/13/0726 - Demolition of 18 sheltered housing units and warden's
accommodation and erection of 16 replacement single-storey dwellings; Land at
Portalfield for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
STODY - PF/13/0808 - Demolition of part side extension and erection of twostorey extension and entrance hall; Beck Farmhouse, Thornage Road,
Hunworth for Mr & Mrs J Philippi
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/13/0826 - Erection of first floor side extension and twostorey rear extension; The Cottage, The Street for Mr G Greenwood
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/13/0669 - Raising height of single-storey extension
and erection of single-storey front extension/porch; 1 Reading Room Cottages,
The Street for Mr P Rathbone
(Householder application)
THORNAGE - LA/13/0812 - Installation of two conservation roof lights; Town
Farm, The Street for Mr J Pugh-Smith
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
37
26 September 2013
THORPE MARKET - PF/13/0664 - Erection of pavilion/function building and reinstatement of cricket pitch; The Gunton Arms, Cromer Road for Gunton Arms
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
THURNING - PF/13/0800 - Removal of Conditions 2, 3 & 4 of planning permission
ref: 08/1250 to permit permanent residential occupancy.; Burnt House Farm
Cottage, Craymere Beck Road for Mr & Mrs G Whitehouse
(Full Planning Permission)
TRIMINGHAM - PF/13/0737 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions
with rear balcony; Flint Cottages, 4 Church Street for Mr & Mrs B Miles
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/13/0691 - Erection of cart shed (retrospective); Thatch Cottage,
Front Street for Mr Garratt
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - NMA1/12/1412 - Non material amendment request to permit revised
door and window details to porch; Barrington Farm, Rookery Farm Road for
Janith Homes Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WALSINGHAM - NMA1/13/0168 - Non-material amendment request for
modifications to layout including location of fences and location/design of
panels, inverter stations and switchgear structures.; Land at former North
Creake Airfield, Egmere for British Solar Renewables
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WALSINGHAM - LA/13/0882 - Installation of glazed top panels to front door;
Chancery House, 3 Friday Market Place for Mr S Lazarides
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - NP/13/0924 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Breck Farm, Weybourne Road for Mr W Amies
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
WITTON - HN/13/0849 - Notification of intention to erect garden room which
would project from the original rear wall by 4 metres and which would have a
maximum height of 4 metres and an eaves height of 2.3 metres; The Thatched
Cottage, Stonebridge Road for Mrs T Tonks
(Householder Prior Notification)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0860 - Erection of summerhouse/cabin; Worstead Day Care
Centre, Meeting Hill Road, Meeting Hill for Worstead Day Care Centre
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0520 - Demolition of garage and erection of single-storey
extension to provide annexe; The Ferns, Yarmouth Road for Mr and Mrs Hayden
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0623 - Retention of roof lights; Summer Breeze, Station
Road for Mr & Mrs N Borkin
(Householder application)
Development Committee
38
26 September 2013
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CROMER - PF/13/0704 - Continued siting of caravan and retention of 2m high
boundary fence; Food Fare, Mill Road for Mr B Singh
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31 Norwich
Road for The Royal British Legion
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
SITE VISIT:- 17 September 2013
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
SITE VISIT:- 23 September 2013
SUFFIELD - PF/12/1419 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 08/0874 to permit installation of opening lights in glazed screen; Barn
3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road, Suffield for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
WORSTEAD - PF/12/1330 - Retention of extension to terrace, installation of
steps and raise height of restaurant extension roof; The White Lady, Front
Street for Mr D Gilligan
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams
Development Committee
39
26 September 2013
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0062 - Change of use of ground floor from A4
(public house) to residential unit; Red Lion, The Street for Trustees of John
Ashton's Children's Settlement
APPEAL DECISION:- WITHDRAWN
Development Committee
40
26 September 2013