OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 27 NOVEMBER 2014
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 – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
COASTAL CONCORDAT
Purpose of this Report
The Council has signed up to the ‘Coastal Concordat’ as one of the early adopters.
The Concordat encompasses developments that are located within the district below
Mean High Water Spring Tide (e.g. sea defences, harbour developments or within the
intertidal zone 1) or have a direct link to the marine environment (e.g. offshore cable
routes). This report explains the principles behind the Concordat, and the
implications should an application be received that is required to be considered under
the Concordat, with the Council as Local Planning Authority acting as the ‘Lead
Authority’.
Purpose of the Coastal Concordat
The Document ‘A Coastal Concordat for England’ was produced by the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in November 2013. A copy of this document is
attached as Appendix 1 to this report.
The Council’s Portfolio Holder for Coastal and Environmental Services agreed at the
time, that the Council should sign up as an earlier adopter of Concordat.
The Concordat applies to the consenting of coastal developments in England where
several bodies have a regulatory function, and is designed to form the basis of
agreements between the main regulatory bodies and the coastal local planning
authorities. It provides a framework within which the separate processes can be
better coordinated.
The Concordat is based on 5 high level principles:
1. Applicants seeking regulatory approval should be provided with a single point of
entry into the regulatory system for consenting coastal development, guiding them
to the organisations responsible for the range of consents, permissions and
licences that may be required for their development.
2. Regulators should agree a single lead authority for coordinating the
requirements of Environmental Impact Assessment Directive or Habitats
Regulations Assessments.
3. Where opportunities for dispensing or deferring regulatory responsibilities are
legally possible and appropriate they should be taken.
4. Where possible, at the pre-application stage, competent authorities and statutory
advisors should agree the likely environmental and habitats assessment evidence
requirements of all authorities at all stages of the consenting process.
5. Where possible regulatory and statutory advisors should provide a coordinated
advice to applicants from across their respective organisations.
1
Text in red added at Development Committee meeting 27.11.14
Development Committee
1
27 November 2014
The main aim is to provide a coordinated response due to the number of regulators
involved. There are usually at least 3 main regulators – local planning authority, the
Marine Management Organisation and the Environment Agency, with many other
public bodies having regulatory powers in specific locations or circumstances –Coast
Protection Authorities, Natural England, harbour authorities, Maritime and Coastguard
Agency, Trinity House, Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities.
The purpose is to be able to signpost the applicants through hopefully a more
streamlined and coordinated process, providing a more efficient and effective way of
working for all. One lead authority should be identified for each project proposal.
The lead authority would look to coordinate a decision on the contents of
Environmental Impact Assessment, with the aim being that the screening and scoping
stages of the process is carried out only once and on Environmental Statement covers
all relevant Environmental Impact Assessment Requirements. If this is undertaken
correctly, then other regulators should be able to rely on this, and defer their
responsibilities thus streamlining the process for the applicant. The same principle
applies to the Habitat Regulations Assessment.
Operational Implications
The identification of the Lead Authority will depend on the nature of the proposals that
fall for determination under the Concordat. At the moment this is hypothetical,
however any schemes that are terrestrial (above mean low water springs), it is likely
that the Council will be the Lead Authority, and need to coordinate its approach with
the Marine Management Organisations and other authorities. This would need to
include a coordinated approach to the Council’s joint role as Local Planning Authority
and Coast Protection Authority.
Scheme of Delegation and Constitution
Determining planning applications falls to the Development Committee, as set out in
the terms of reference within the Constitution (Part 3 Development Committee), in
certain circumstances this is delegated to the Head of Planning (Chapter 6 Conditional
and Default Delegation paragraph 6.2).
By contrast, the authority to determine Coastal Management consents rests with the
Head of Economic and Community Development under delegated authority (Chapter 6
paragraph 5.4). However there is no specific fallback position in the event of the Head
of Service declining to use their delegation authority. In such cases, the matter (as a
non-executive function) would fall to Full Council to determine. In view of the above, it
is recommended that in cases where the Concordat applies, where the Authority acts
as the ‘Lead authority’, and that the matter may be considered as controversial, then
the Development Committee should also determine the application for Consent under
the Coast Protection Act (1949). Any such applications would need to be determined
in accordance with any limitation or restriction imposed by Coastal Management
related Acts, however it is arguable that some issues may overlap, with those that fall
to be considered under the Town and Country Planning Acts in determining any
associated planning application. This would however necessitate changes to the
Council’s Constitution.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Development Committee resolve to:
Development Committee
2
27 November 2014
1. Support and adopt the approach set out in the Coastal Concordat.
2. Recommend that the Constitution and Scheme of Delegation be amended to
enable Development Control Committee to determine controversial applications for
Coastal Protection Consent, in circumstances where the Council as Local Planning
Authority is acting as the lead authority under the Coastal Concordat and the Head
of Service declines to use their delegated authority.
3. Members are briefed in respect of the key coastal management issues.
(Source: Nicola Baker, Head of Planning ext 6135)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(2)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0954 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions
to link dwelling and annexe , single storey extension to annexe and erection of
boat store to front elevation of annexe; 50 High Street for Mr & Mrs M Archer
- Target Date: 19 September 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19791387 HR - Conversion of stable forming additional accommodation
Approved 12/11/1979
PLA/19791386 HR - Conversion of stable forming additional accommodation
Approved 12/11/1979
PLA/19800720 PF - Reconstruction of porch
Approved 02/05/1980
PLA/19800739 LA - Reconstruction of porch
Approved 02/05/1980
PLA/19830535 LA - Insertion of windows and door
Refused 06/06/1983
PLA/19881644 LD - Repairs to porch
Approved 29/09/1988
PLA/19881643 PF - Repairs to porch
Approved 29/09/1988
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought to erect a two-storey and a single-storey extension to link the
existing dwelling to the detached residential annexe, a single-storey extension to the
annexe and a boat store to the front elevation of the annexe. Permission is sought for
Development Committee
3
27 November 2014
the boat store as the annexe is a listed building. The site is located at the end of a loke
running off Blakeney High Street. The site includes a two-storey end of terrace
dwelling with attached single-storey garage and a detached one-and-a-half-storey
residential annexe. The site has parking and manoeuvring facilities for several
vehicles. Listed building consent has also been sought.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred for a site visit.
Previously referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Brettle, noting the
number of objections from the residents of the neighbouring Loke.
PARISH COUNCIL
Following re-consultation of the application the Parish Council continue to have no
objection to the proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
The Local Planning Authority has received seven objections to the proposal. A letter of
objection with five signatories was received from occupants of the adjacent loke
(Leatherdale Yard) which lies north of the proposed development site. Two further
letters of objection were received from the owners of the 52 High Street which lies
adjacent to the application site.
The following is a summary of the concerns raised by the objectors:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed development will result in further over-development of the High
Street area and this property specifically.
With the increase in size of the property it is anticipated there will be an increase in
the number of occupants and therefore an increase in the number of vehicles
requiring parking facilities.
There is restricted visibility for vehicles exiting the loke in which the development is
proposed
The proposed development will reduce or possibly prevent parking in the loke.
Recent vehicle movement and parking within the loke has made it impossible to
open the windows because of exhaust fumes
The number of vehicles parked in the loke has led to an increase in vehicle
movement as when one car needs to exit the loke all of the cars to its rear have to
reverse out of the loke.
Pedestrian safety - the loke is very narrow and reversing vehicles pass very close
to the entrance of 52 High Street - this situation will be exacerbated during the
construction of the extension
The height of the proposed two-storey development will restrict sunlight particularly
during the winter months to some properties within Leatherdale Yard.
The height of the two-storey extension will result in some of the properties within
Leatherdale Yard being overlooked which will create an infringement of privacy.
Lokes are a special part of Blakeney and should not be used as car parks or roads
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design C&D):
Given the confines of the site C&D had concerns regarding what appeared to be a
substantial amount of development. However, when the individual elements of the
scheme were analysed it appears that cumulatively the proposal should not actually
result in any real harm being caused to heritage assets. Negotiations are on-going
between the applicant/agent and C&D, but on balance C&D believe the development
Development Committee
4
27 November 2014
would have very little impact on the built environment visually.
Development Committee
5
27 November 2014
County Council Highway Authority: Following the submission of additional
information the Highway Authority has withdrawn its objection to the proposal.
The dwelling is accessed from an existing narrow (3m wide) access serving 3
properties with severely restricted visibility due to the roadside walls of adjacent
properties 46 and 54 High St.
Visibility guidance is given in the Department for Transport document "Manual for
Streets" which sets out the requirements for a road controlled by a 20mph Order
(which is the case here) as being 25m x 2.4m x 25m. Visibility at the site access is
almost blind in both directions, being restricted to just 2m to the south and 2m to the
north at the required 2.4m setback - providing only 8% of the required distances.
At the minimum permissible setback of 2.0m, where the front of a car protrudes into
the live carriageway, visibility remains unchanged due to the boundary features. The
access is unsuitable to cater for any increased vehicle use due to its substandard
width and emerging visibility.
Information has recently emerged, which shows that the annexe building has been
used as a independent holiday let, has its own utility supplies and has paid the Local
Authority Council Tax for at least 7 years, as such there is sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the unit has been used independently and generated its own
vehicular traffic, which would need to be considered.
The proposed development bringing the annexe into the residential use of the main
dwelling would now be considered to reduce the level of vehicle activity and reduce
parking needs within the site, however, to ensure that the annexe now remains
ancillary, to prevent occupation separately from the main dwelling, which would
increase parking needs, I would seek to condition the use of the annexe element.
With due consideration of this information and the likely reduction in vehicle traffic and
parking needs, if appropriately conditioned, I find that any objection would not be
sustainable at an appeal, as such, I remove my previous objection in relation to this
proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Development Committee
6
27 November 2014
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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
• Impact of the development in terms of highway safety
• Impact of the development on the residents of the neighbouring properties
• Scale of the development in relation to the size of the site
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the previous meeting to allow
Members to visit the site.
The previous committee report recommended delegated approval of the application.
However, members were informed at the Development Committee meeting
(30/10/2014) that the County Council Highway Authority objected to the application on
the grounds of highway safety.
Information subsequently submitted on 5 November 2014 from the applicants via their
agent provides evidence that the annexe has been used as a separate unit of
accommodation since 2005. Given the proposal intends to subsume the annexe into
the main dwelling means the number of units of accommodation associated with the
property will be reduced from two to one suggesting there would be a decrease in
vehicle parking and movement within the loke. Subject to the imposition of a condition
limiting the annexe accommodation to that of incidental to the use of the main dwelling
and not at any time to be used as a separate and un-associated unit of accommodation
the Highway Authority has withdrawn its objection to the proposal.
Policy SS1 No.50 High Street lies within a designated Coastal Service Village. In
principle, development is considered to be acceptable within Coastal Service Villages
providing the development is of a high design standard, reflects local distinctiveness
and complies to other relevant policies within the adopted Core Strategy.
Policy EN1 AONB designation does not prevent development. Development, however,
is limited to that which benefits the social, economic and environmental needs of the
community whilst not detracting from the areas special qualities. Given the
development’s domestic nature and scale it is considered to comply with the aims of
Policy EN1 of the adopted core Strategy.
Policies EN2 & EN8 The areas status as a designated Conservation Area and that part
to the development relates to a Grade ll Listed Building the District Council’s
Conservation and Design (C&D) team were consulted. Negotiations are on-going
between the applicant/agent and C&D. These negotiations relate to design details and
the impact the boat house would have on the boundary wall (north elevation). These
negotiations do not relate to the overall scale or mass of the development. C&D
believe that as the proposed development would not be readily visible from any public
Development Committee
7
27 November 2014
vantage points it would, therefore, have a relatively neutral impact upon this part of the
Blakeney Conservation Area.
Policy EN4 In terms of design: the development would for the most part be
single-storey with only a relatively small proportion 32 sq. m. (approximately the
footprint of the existing garage) housing the two-storey extension. By virtue of its lower
ridge and narrower footprint the two-storey extension would be subservient to the
existing dwelling and would appear as a natural addition to the existing range of
buildings within the loke. With the exception of the single-storey glazed link between
the dwelling and the annexe and the sedum roof to the kitchen/family room extension
all other construction would feature traditional materials including timber windows and
doors.
In terms of Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC):
South elevation: The rear garden of 54 The High Street lies directly behind the
proposed development site. The existing boundary treatment would screen the
single-storey elements of the development from view. Furthermore, the existing
first-floor fenestration of the host dwelling directly overlooks the neighbouring garden.
It is considered that the proposed two-storey extension would not exacerbate the
overlooking as no additional windows are proposed to this elevation. Given the garden
lies to the south of the two-story extension suggests the proposed would not
overshadow the neighbouring garden.
East & west elevations: The neighbouring property to the west would be unaffected by
the proposed development. The neighbouring property to the east is screened via
mature shrubs and a two metre high brick and flint wall. Furthermore, the distance
between the properties exceeds the Supplementary Planning Document: Design
Guide BAC recommendations.
North elevation: Immediately to the north of the host property lies Leatherdale Yard.
Leatherdale Yard has dwellings to its west and north boundaries with their associate
outbuilding to the Yard’s south elevation. The rear wall of the outbuildings forms the
northern boundary of the development site. The single-storey element of the proposed
development would be screened from Leatherdale Yard by the existing annexe and
the northern boundary wall. As the existing dwelling directly overlooks Leatherdale
Yard it is considered that the modest two-storey extension would not exacerbate any
overlooking. The Supplementary Planning Document: Design Guide suggests a
distance of 18 metres between primary (living room) and secondary (bedroom)
windows. The distance between the primary fenestration in Leatherdale Yard and the
proposed two-storey extension's bedroom window ranges from 17 to 22 metres. The
historic pattern of close-knit development within Blakeney suggests these distances
are acceptable and are unlikely to result in an infringement of privacy or an intrusion to
residential/garden amenity. In addition, it is considered that the modest size of the two
storey extension even when coupled with the existing two-storey host property is
unlikely to cause any further loss of light to the properties in Leatherdale Yard.
It is felt the above comments address the concerns of the residents of Leatherdale
Yard in relation to overlooking and loss of light to their properties.
Policy CT5 & CT6 The High Street area of Blakeney was built prior to mass car
ownership. A consequence of present day levels of car ownership means car
parking/manoeuvring within the area falls short of current recommendations. Although,
the proposed development would reduce the parking/manoeuvring capacity at the site,
in this instance the shortfall is considered acceptable. This is because despite an
increase in the size of the dwelling there would be a net loss in the number of separate
Development Committee
8
27 November 2014
units of accommodation using the loke (see Highway Officer's report).
In response to the objector's comments regarding vehicle parking and
movements: It is acknowledged that the lack of residential parking in the centre of
Blakeney results in indiscriminate on-road parking, a situation made worse by the
increase in vehicle numbers during the summer months. Whilst it is regrettable that a
number of parking spaces and the turning area would be lost, the site retains parking
spaces for several cars. Furthermore, the reduction in units of accommodation
suggests there would be less vehicle movement and fewer parking spaces required in
future.
RECOMMENDATION:
To approve subject to the following conditions:
(i) The development shall be constructed in accordance with the amended plans
drawing number 2367-09g received by the Local Planning Authority on 6 October
2014.
(ii) The external materials to be used on the development shall be in full accordance
with the details submitted in the planning application.
(iii) No enlargement or alteration including the insertion of rooflights shall take place
without further permission.
(iv) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the proposed on-site car
parking area shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plan and retained
thereafter available for that specific use.
(v) The annexe accommodation herby approved shall be incidental to the use of the
main dwelling and shall not be occupied at any time as a separate un-associated unit
of accommodation.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Highway authority would seek to recommend refusal of
any subsequent planning application seeking to remove the above condition.
(3)
BODHAM - PF/14/1096 - Change of use of post office/convenience store (A1) to
residential accommodation to existing dwelling; Bodham Post Office, The
Street for Ms Campbell
- Target Date: 17 October 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19802217 HR
Proposed removal of a garage and build new garage
Approved 09/01/1981
PLA/19802218 HR
Proposed extra accommodation for manager
Approved 02/01/1981
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to change the existing post office/convenience store to residential
accommodation.
Development Committee
9
27 November 2014
The post office/store is located within a building which is also used as a residential
dwelling by the applicants. The resulting residential accommodation would be
incorporated into the existing dwelling. No new dwelling would be created.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor John Perry Warnes with regard to; concern over the loss of
a local facility which currently serves Bodham and surrounding villages.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection received raising the following issues;
• The shop provides a place for people to meet and is part of community life
• Approval would contribute towards creating rural isolation for the most
vulnerable members of the community
• Internet connection is very slow in Bodham, making online shopping hard
• Owners have stated that they will be closing anyway
• Parish Council have asked for an extension to enable a community backed
scheme to be explored, however NNDC denied this extension. Approval of this
application would deprive the village of the time to explore taking on the shop
• No doubt that the shop is viable. It was a bustling shop but is now a shell of its
former self – one wonders if anything has changed? From when the property
went on the market it was noticeable that things started to take a down turn.
• A few years ago the pub was dying, however with a change in tenant it is now
thriving; I am sure with the right people the same could happen to the shop
• Village shop and post office is a life line for many, especially the elderly in a
rural community
• The change of use would lose a much needed invaluable amenity
CONSULTATIONS
Growth and Communities (North Norfolk District Council) Despite significant investment and perceived efforts from the applicants the business
has experienced an unsustainable decline in trade and appears to have been largely
propped up by the Post Office counter salary. The shop has been refurbished, is
offering a range of products and includes a lottery machine and ATM. There is
however insufficient income generated from the business to support what would
appear to be a 2 staff operation at minimum.
Reasonable efforts have been made to market the property, although comment cannot
be made as to the appropriateness of the price. This has been completed for longer
than the required 12 months on national websites.
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
27 November 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria for
new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Loss of the only post office and shop in Bodham
3. Creation of a larger dwelling
APPRAISAL
The site is situated in the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy, where Policy SS 2 is applicable.
The conversion of the post office/shop to residential accommodation is acceptable in
principle under Policy SS 2.
However the site has been identified as the last premise within the area (Bodham)
which provides these facilities. Policy CT 3 covers the Provision and Retention of Local
Facilities and Services. Both post offices and convenience stores are identified within
this policy as important local facilities.
Policy CT 3 states that development proposals which would result in the loss of sites
identified as important local facilities will not be permitted unless:
•
•
alternative provision of equivalent or better quality is available in the area or will
be provided and made available prior to commencement of redevelopment; or
it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retention at its
current site; and if it is a commercial operation, that a viability test has
demonstrated that the use is no longer viable and that all reasonable efforts
have been made to sell or let the property at a realistic price for a period of 12
months.
The application seeks to obtain permission for the conversion under the second bullet
point.
A viability report has been submitted, together with their detailed business accounts
from 2010-2014 and a summary letter from their accountant. The latter two are being
treated as confidential at the agent's request.
Whilst the loss of these facilities is regrettable, Officer opinion is that the applicant has
met the requirements set out under the second bullet point. Despite the applicants
investing in the commercial unit it does not appear to be viable. Following a period of
longer than 12 months of advertising the business for sale, with no offers, the proposal
is considered to be compliant with Policy CT 3.
The site has adequate parking to serve the resultant larger house (minimum 3 spaces),
therefore the proposal is considered to be Policy CT 6 compliant (Parking provision).
Development Committee
11
27 November 2014
No new dwelling would be created; the floor area would be incorporated into the post
office/store owners own house. Their house currently includes the attached two storey
section to the north west of the site and the first floor above the post office/store.
With residential neighbours to all sides, there are no concerns regarding either the
suitability of the site to be used as residential or any impact upon neighbours
residential amenity. No physical alterations are currently proposed. Therefore Policy
EN 4 is considered to be complied with.
The proposal is considered to comply with Adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to conditions listed below;
1.
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
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.
2.
The residential accommodation hereby permitted shall be incorporated into the
dwelling known as Brook Willow Cottage and shall not be used as a separate dwelling
house.
Reason:
The site lies in an area of Countryside as defined in the North Norfolk Core Strategy
whereby proposals for new independent dwelling houses are not normally permitted,
and the restriction is necessary to accord with Policy SS 2 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
(4)
CROMER - PF/14/1296 - Installation of PV solar panels; Merchants Place, 16
Church Street for Cromer Past Present Future Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 26 November 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Principle Routes
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19971607 LE
Demolition of existing buildings
Approved 20/03/1998
Development Committee
12
27 November 2014
PLA/20050226 PF
Change of use of vacant shop unit to combined offices, learning centre and advice
venue
Approved 11/03/2005
PLA/20051448 PF
Installation of two windows and alterations to door opening in rear elevation
Approved 17/10/2005
PF/14/0516 PF
Installation of PV solar panels
Withdrawn by Applicant 15/08/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to install solar panels to the south and west elevations of the property's roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. A. Yiasimi for the following reason:
• Economic viability of the building
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection received from the Cromer Preservation Society. The following is
a summary of their objections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Merchant’s Place is a contemporary building which draws on local traditional
architecture
It takes it design from the old granary building opposite in order to validate its place
within the historic setting
Occupies a highly visible location, being sited at the top end of the historic
Gangway (one of the oldest streets in Cromer) and on one of the town’s main
thoroughfares
The solar panels will have a detrimental effect on the setting of the Gangway and
on the character and appearance of Cromer’s conservation Area
The roof is of attractive slate which complements the surrounding vernacular
architecture
Many interesting rooflines can be viewed along this section of Church Street
The PV panels will neither enhance nor preserve the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area and the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy policies EN4
and EN8
PF/12/0661 (Louden Road) and PF/13/0409 Gardener Street were refused
planning permission for similar proposals, both within the conservation Area
There are many new and innovative ways of harnessing solar energy and we urge
the applicant to consider alternatives which would not impact on the Conservation
Area
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health: No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design): Object to the
proposal. The following is an abridged version of the C&D officer’s report:
Development Committee
13
27 November 2014
The building is an important feature within the townscape. It terminates vista
from a number of key locations and marks the entrance way to the one of the
town’s main heritage assets. The buildings architectural form, materials and
detailing make a significant contribution to the prevailing character of the area.
Its principal characteristics are strong horizontal and vertical proportions as well
as its openings, bays and Dutch Gables.
The solar panels would be sited on two prominent elevations. The panels would
be highly visible from the public domain and would dominate the roofscape of
building from Church Street looking north and Mount Street looking east. The
building slate roof would be obscured, detracting from the buildings overall
architectural merit.
The panels do not sit well with the building’s roof form, dormer windows and
elevations. Whilst the panels on the southeast elevation sit within the middle of
the roof the panels to the southwest elevation are off centre appearing to
unbalance the elevation.
While C&D are mindful of the potential economic benefits of the proposal and the
important community services which operate within the building, in this instance,
the application lacks sufficient justification to indicate that the public benefit
outweighs the harm to the building and the wider Conservation Area.
By virtue of the solar panels poor relationship to the host building, their adverse
visual impact and the overbearing dominance of the roofscape C&D considers
the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of
the conservation Area and would be harmful to the setting of a designated asset.
The application fails to comply with Core Strategy Policies EN4 and EN8 and is
recommended it be refused.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 7: Cromer (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
Development Committee
14
27 November 2014
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
The impact of solar panels on the character and appearance of the Cromer
Conservation Area.
APPRAISAL
Merchant's Place is located within Cromer's Town Centre and Conservation Area as
defined by North Norfolk District Council's adopted Core Strategy. Development is in
principle permitted within these designated areas providing certain criteria are adhered
to. Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance the special qualities and
local distinctiveness of the area including preserving its historical character as defined
by Policy EN2 and EN8 of the North Norfolk District Council's adopted Core Strategy.
The site occupies a prominent location at the corner of Church Street, Mount Street
and the historic Gangway. The main Norwich to Cromer road (A140) runs almost
parallel to the buildings front elevation, the building therefore forms part of a significant
vista for those entering and leaving the town. Given the slight slope from Norwich Road
towards the town centre, those entering the town from Norwich Road have a virtually
unrestricted view of the building's roof (south elevation). Those walking eastward on
Mount Street have an unrestricted view of the property's western roof slope. Policy
EN4 of the Core Strategy states that development proposals along important approach
routes should have particular regard to their location and these locations should be
protected and enhanced through the careful siting of any new development.
Being mindful of the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, Policies SS4 and EN7 of
the Core Strategy support proposals which promote the use of renewable energy.
Nevertheless, proposals for renewable energy technology and their associated
infrastructure on existing or proposed structures will not be permitted where
individually or cumulatively they pose a significant adverse effect on the surrounding
townscape (roofscape) and historical features/areas.
Whilst it is acknowledged the proposal offers potential economic benefits, which in turn
would help to secure the important community services which operate within the
building, in this instance, the application lacks sufficient justification to indicate that the
public benefit outweighs the harm to the appearance of the building and the wider
Conservation Area. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
To refuse for the reasons specified below:
The proposed solar panels would have a harmful impact on the appearance and
character of the Conservation Area contrary to the provisions of Policy EN8 of the
Development Plan.
Development Committee
15
27 November 2014
(5)
FAKENHAM - PO/14/1108 - Erection of 2 two-storey detached dwellings and
garages, side/front extensions to existing single-storey dwelling and
conversion of existing outbuilding to double garage; 11 Hall Staithe for Mr N
Bunkle
Minor Development
- Target Date: 21 October 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Conservation Area
Flood Zone 2
RELEVANT HISTORY
13/1060 PO - Erection of five two-storey dwellings and garages - Withdrawn by
Applicant 28/10/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks outline planning permission for the erection of two-two storey dwellings, which
would each have a footprint of some 59 sq. metres, within what is currently part of the
garden area of Nos.9 and 11 Hall Staithe, a two storey dwelling and bungalow, both of
which date from the late 1960s early 70s.
As part of the scheme the proposed dwelling to Plot 1 would have an attached single
garage, whilst an existing hipped roof outbuilding to the eastern boundary of the site
would be modified to provide two parking spaces for both the dwelling to Plot 2 and No.
9 Hall Staithe.
In addition, a single storey side and front extension, which would have a footprint of
some 49 sq. metres, is proposed to the southern gable end of No. 11 Hall Staithe.
It is proposed that the development would be served via the existing access off Hall
Staithe the entrance to which would be modified in order to improve visibility by
removing part of the frontage wall.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Punchard having regard to the concerns raised by the
objector and also having a pecuniary interest as Chair of the Town Council who own
land abutting the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
Fakenham Town Council has no objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from the occupiers of a neighbouring property which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. The junction with Quaker Lane and Post Office Street is not suitable for increased
traffic movements.
2. Re-assurance required that the development would not undermine the boundary
wall to their property.
Development Committee
16
27 November 2014
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - Makes
the following comments:The site currently supports a late 20th Century bungalow and house neither of which
are of any particular architectural merit. As such, the main contribution the site makes
to this part of Fakenham is to help mark the gradual transition from the town centre into
the countryside. Even here, the relatively low density and sense of space has been
rather compromised by the tall boundary wall which encloses the site frontage. In fact
the openness only really becomes apparent through the narrow access point. Against
this context, it is not considered that the site is sacrosanct from development. Nor is
there any objection in principle to upping the number of dwellings on site.
Whilst the views of English Heritage are appreciated the Conservation & Design
section are far from convinced that it actually amounts to a sustainable ground for
objection, particularly with the close-knit groupings of buildings immediately opposite
(and Tesco beyond that), the site seems to relate more closely to the town centre
rather than the adjacent meadows.
Furthermore, the two new dwellings appear to slot fairly comfortably in between the
existing buildings and would leave sufficient space for reasonably sized gardens.
Whilst reworking the existing access, which would involve the partial demolition of the
oldest section of the boundary wall is rather unfortunate, the remaining historic
remnants have been heavily altered over time.
Therefore as there would be less than substantial harm the Conservation & Design
section do not consider that there are sufficient grounds to justify refusal of the
application.
English Heritage - Objects to the application on the basis that the proposed addition of
two dwellings plus ancillary structures to part of the Fakenham Conservation Area,
where open spaces and low density of buildings are positive elements, would harm the
historic significance of the area in terms of National Planning Policy Framework 132
and 134. Whilst the partial demolition of part of the frontage wall would have an
adverse visual impact on the area.
County Council (Highway) – Cromer – Indicates that although the access along Hall
Staithe onto Old Post Office Street is restricted in width, is unsuitable for two way traffic
and there is only a limited width footpath, given the proposed development is less
intense than that previously proposed, whilst there are some highway safety concerns,
given the relatively low key increase in use it would be difficult to sustain an objection,
in the event of an Appeal.
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
17
27 November 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 8: Fakenham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on Conservation Area
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
4. Highway safety
5. Flood Risk
APPRAISAL
The site is situated within the Development Boundary for Fakenham, a Principal
Settlement, as defined by the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core
Strategy in an area designated as being primarily in residential use, where subject to
complying Policies SS1, EN4, EN8, EN10, CT5 and CT6 the principle of development
is considered to be acceptable.
Policy SS1- states that the majority of new development in North Norfolk will take place
in the towns and larger villages, dependent on their local housing needs, their role as
employment, retail and service centres and particular environmental and infrastructure
constraints. Cromer, Holt, Fakenham and North Walsham are defined as Principal
Settlements where the majority of new commercial and residential development will
take place (approximately 75% of new employment land and 50% of new homes).
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. 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 and new dwellings
should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Policy EN8 - Requires that development proposals, including alterations and
extensions, should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated
assets in this case the Fakenham Conservation Area and other important historic
buildings, structures and their settings through high quality, sensitive design.
Development that would have an adverse impact on their special historic or
architectural interest will not be permitted.
Policy EN10 states in Flood Risk Zones 2 development will be restricted to the
following categories, and includes:Development Committee
18
27 November 2014
•
•
water compatible uses
‘Less vulnerable’ and more ‘Vulnerable uses’ where the sequential test has been
passed and any application for planning permission is accompanied by a site
specific Flood Risk Assessment which takes account of future climate change.
In addition, the following paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework,
(March 2012) are considered to be relevant.
Paragraph 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the
significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s
conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage
asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm
or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a
grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or
loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled
monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I
and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional.
Paragraph 134 - Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
Although this part of Fakenham consists primarily of buildings dating from the 18th and
19th Centuries there is also a mix of more recent development dating from the 1970s
and 80s to the north and east. Whilst in terms of the site itself the northern boundary
to Hall Staithe, which is formed by a brick and flint wall some 2.5 metres in height
provides a strong sense of enclosure with the former Fire Station and other single
storey buildings to the northern side of the road. As such, although the site is some 0.2
hectares in area this is not obvious from outside site with only the upper half of No. 9
Hall Staithe, being visible above the wall whilst No.11 can only be seen from the
access at the south western end of the site. Therefore, whilst it could be argued that
the site provides a transition between the built environment and open countryside to
the south and west it is not considered that the site makes an important contribution to
the open character of the area. Furthermore, given the dense forms of development
immediately to the north and east together with the enclosure afforded by the boundary
wall it is not considered that the loose knit form of two storey development proposed,
would harm the historic significance of the area. This view is supported by the
Council’s Conservation and Design section.
Whilst in terms of the design of the proposed dwellings given that the application is
only seeking outline permission with the access and layout under consideration at this
stage, no details of the elevational treatment of the dwellings has been provided and
would need to be the subject of a further application. This said, based on the layout
proposed it is considered that it would be possible to design dwellings the scale and
proportions of which would, subject to an appropriate palette of materials would blend
successfully with the surrounding area and make a positive contribute to the transition
between the built environment and countryside. Whilst in respect of the proposed
single storey extension to the southern gable end of No. 11 Hall Staithe this would not
be discernible from outside the site.
As far as the impact on neighbouring properties, with the exception of Nos. 9 and 11
Hall Staithe the nearest other dwellings to the site are No.17 Hall Staithe to the west,
which is a contemporary design flat roofed dwelling and two storey properties within
Development Committee
19
27 November 2014
Quaker Lane to the east which have west facing windows. As far as the proposed
dwelling to Plot 1 is concerned, given its proposed orientation it is envisaged that
predominantly the windows would face north south. As such the only potential for
overlooking would be to No. 11 to the south. This said, given that this bungalow has a
blank gable facing the proposed dwelling and the majority of its private amenity space
to the east and west it is not considered that there would be any significant amenity
issues it terms of overlooking or loss of privacy. Similarly, given the proposed
orientation of the proposed dwelling to Plot 2 it is considered that there would be a
satisfactory relationship with No. 9 Hall Staithe and properties in Quaker Lane to the
east.
Whilst in terms of the concerns raised by the objector in respect of the wall to the
southern boundary of the site this would form the rear garden wall of Plot 2 and with the
exception of the demolition of a small outbuilding no other works are proposed as part
of this application.
As far as the access is concerned in order to improve visibility from the site onto Hall
Staithe the scheme proposed would involve the removal and the setting back of a
small section of the existing boundary wall to either side of the entrance. The
Conservation and Design section has indicated that whilst these works to the oldest
section of the boundary wall are unfortunate, given that it has been heavily altered over
time, it is not considered that refusal of the application on this ground alone is
sustainable. Whilst from a highway perspective although the Highways Authority has
indicated that both the access and entry onto the pubic highway along Hall Staithe onto
Post Office Street is substandard given the relatively low key use of the proposed
development it does not consider an objection could be stained in the event of an
Appeal.
In terms of flood risk the site is situated in Flood Risk Zone 2 within which the provision
of buildings used for dwelling houses which are classed as "more vulnerable" are
acceptable. Furthermore, a Flood Risk Assessment submitted as part of the
application indicated that the risk of flooding is low and that finished floor levels would
have a freeboard of 0.30 metres, thereby giving protection against a 1 in 100 year flood
event.
It is therefore considered that the development would accord with Development Plan
policy and would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated
heritage asset. Furthermore, this harm would be outweighed through the public
benefits of the provision of two additional market houses.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
(6)
HOLT - PF/14/1373 - Demolition of existing timber merchant buildings and
erection of A1 (retail) food store, associated access, car parking and
landscaping; Thaxters Portable Buildings, Old Station Way for ALDI Stores Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 21 January 2015
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Development Committee
20
27 November 2014
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution) Archaeological Site
Unclassified Road
Development within 60m of Class A road
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19980205 PA - Erection of 15 metre free-standing telecommunications mast with
three directional antennas and one dish antenna and the provision of equipment cabin
Approved 16/03/1998
PF/12/0929 PF
Demolition of existing timber merchant buildings and erection of A1 (retail) food store,
associated accesses, car parking and servicing area
Approved 23/09/2013
PF/14/0538 PF
Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission ref: 12/0929 to permit increase in floor
retail space for non-convenience goods
Approved 12/06/2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish all buildings on the site and erect a retail supermarket with a gross
floor area of approximately 1,429 square metres on a site area of approximately 0.5
hectares (1.24 acres). The proposal also includes the provision of 83 vehicle parking
spaces (including 4 disabled bays and 9 parent and child spaces), 3 motorcycle
spaces, 12 cycle spaces for customers, together with provision of a service yard.
The net sales area of the store would be approximately 1,140 square metres using the
National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of sales area and 898 square metres
using the Competition Commission (CC) definition of sales area (see Appendix 2 for
full definition of sales areas).
Access to the site would be gained from Old Station Way which in turn is accessed
from Hempstead Road. The main A148 Holt bypass runs along the northern boundary
of the site.
A shared access is proposed for customers and service vehicles on the eastern side of
the proposed building. The edge of Holt town centre is approximately 400 metres away
by foot with a further walk of 80m to reach the defined Primary Shopping Area.
Pedestrians would cross the A148 bypass by using AN existing underpass.
The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing telecommunications mast and
associated equipment to be relocated on the eastern boundary of the site (not for
determination as part of this application).
The architecture of the store has drawn strong influence from the architecture of the
Midland and Great Northern Railway (MGNR) for the element facing onto Old Station
Way with a more contemporary approach to proposed elements facing onto Holt Road
. The building itself would have a maximum length of approximately 56.5m, a width of
approximately 30m and a maximum height of approximately 8.8m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE - At the request of Cllr Mike Baker on
the basis that the application is of considerable interest to the local community and
needs to be seen and debated in public.
TOWN COUNCIL – No Objection but have recommended a number of conditions
Development Committee
21
27 November 2014
including an additional zebra crossing the other side of the entrance into the proposed
car park on Old Station Way; 3 hours parking; deliveries only at night; all S106
contributions to remain as in the previous application; additional taller safety barriers to
front onto the bypass and wall boundary to the original specification with reference to
the heritage of the site.
REPRESENTATIONS
24 letters of representation have been received, 17 in support, 6 in objection and
commenting. Summary of objections:
1. The design of the store with the huge glass box is not in keeping with the
surroundings or the general style of building in Holt - it looks more like a car
showroom than a supermarket in a Georgian town.
2. The proposal will have less staff than originally proposed (30-40 rather than 100
under the previous iteration);
3. There will be a reduction in car parking below recognised parking standards;
4. Reduction is disabled bays (4 instead of 5);
5. Reduction in cycle parking (8 spaces instead of 36 spaces);
6. Reduction in motorcycle spaces (0 spaces instead of 4 spaces);
7. Service lorries will now have to share space with customers;
8. Businesses in Holt Town Centre will not be able to compete with proposed opening
hours;
9. Any further increase in non-convenience floor space should be resisted;
10. Staff and customer toilet provision has been reduced to inadequate levels;
11. There appears to be a lack of emergency exits for the size of store;
12. Three hours three parking should remain as per the previous permission;
13. There is insufficient boundary treatment next to the bypass;
14. The railway heritage cues of the building design appear to be somewhat
diminished;
15. It is important to encourage the use of local supply chains;
16. Aldi are a fast growing company and we need to ensure that retail impact is
acceptable and the previous RIA is still relevant;
17. The £50,000 S106 Obligation seems inadequate, a better compensation would be
for the developer to pay for extra storeys on the Station Road car park
Summary of comments in support:
1. I fully support the entrance and exit to the store being closer to the pedestrian
underpass to encourage linked-trips to the town centre and to support local
businesses via enhancement measures;
2. The store is very much needed in a town with little or no competition;
3. Are excellent employers and retailers;
4. Improved/better access can only be good for the traders in the town;
5. Design looks good;
6. This will be of benefit to elderly who cannot drive to Fakenham or Cromer;
7. Please make a quick decision - we need this store;
8. The provision of a new supermarket, car parking and local jobs is something to be
welcomed;
9. The new layout will protect the amenity of neighbouring residents better than
previous scheme;
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highway) – The site has an extant planning permission for a foodstore
and essentially this is a similar scale of development to permitted except that there is
slightly less car parking. The reduced level of car parking brings the level of car parking
in line with other Aldi developments in Norfolk should not have a detrimental impact on
the local highway network.
Development Committee
22
27 November 2014
Given the extant permission the Highway Authority recommends no objection subject
to conditions and informatives.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) - The site holds a
prominent position adjacent to the busy Holt bypass and terminating views from
Station Road. Whilst the development site lies outside of the historic core and
conservation area, its position on a key entranceway to the town and its relationship to
principal thoroughfares makes this both an important and sensitive location. Given the
previous approval (PF/12/0929) and the current condition of the site, C&D can have no
objection to the demolition and redevelopment in principle which represents an
opportunity for enhancement and investment to the area.
The proposal brings with it a strong design concept which pays tribute to the sites
historic development influenced by the Midland and Great Northern Railway (MGNR)
whilst also taking on a new 21st century architectural approach. In essence the scheme
emanates from the idea of extending a traditional MGNR building with a modern
contemporary extension. This concept of having the historic railway architecture
forming the dominant structure on the site with its brick and slate construction working
alongside contemporary finishes dominated by large areas of glazing is something
C&D support and makes for an intriguing building.
Initially the design concept works well, the principal north-east elevation which
emphasises the light-weight contemporary glazing, depth and articulation makes for a
strong entranceway to the store and reacts well to both the street-scene and customer
approach to the store. The treatment of the south elevation with its arch details and
brick plinth echoing the traditional railway architecture draws the eye along the
development. However, the further you travel around the building towards the west
end of the site the more the concept diminishes and becomes rather more ineffectual
in its flat roof form. The real weakness of the scheme are the long flat roof sections as
seen on the north and west elevations – whilst this has to an extent been addressed by
the introduction of a corner tower which lifts the north-west corner of the store and
helps in adding some much needed depth, there remains a lack of height variation and
an overall sense of the flat ‘boxy’ form dominating this element of the building. That
said, the weaker areas of the development along the west elevation in particular are
not the most visible from the public domain and form the service/delivery wing of the
store.
The treatment of the highway boundary will be key to the stores perception from the
street-scene – C&D understand the applicant has agreed to provide high-quality
boundary treatments particularly along the bypass, the detailing of this boundary
treatment will play an important role in knitting the site into the context.
The choice of materials is particularly important, further consideration needs to be
given to the ‘cottage blend’ brick choice and the use of Kingspan seam roofing if the
traditional pastiche section of the development is to work effectively.
Overall, C&D are supportive of the design approach which has been taken - the
general form, scale and footprint of the store raises no design cause for concern and
sits comfortably on the site. Whilst there are areas of the scheme which fail to reinforce
the design statement made elsewhere particularly the north-west elevation, on
balance the development represents an enhancement to the area - C&D must also be
mindful of the investment being made and wider economic benefits the development
brings.
Development Committee
23
27 November 2014
With the above in mind, C&D raise no objection to the application subject to the
inclusion of relevant conditions regarding materials and boundary treatments as
outlined above.
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) - No comment yet made
Environmental Health - No comment yet made
Holt Chamber of Trade - No comment yet made
Norfolk Historic Environment Services - The proposed development involves the
demolition of an industrial building described as a flour mill (and later used as a seed
warehouse). The application asserts that the mill was not constructed by the railway
company and was not owned by the company. This is supported by the date of the
building (between 1906 and 1946) and the lack of associated sidings. That said, the
building contributes to the industrial archaeological record, and hence is a heritage
asset of local significance.
If planning permission is granted, we request that it be subject to the following
condition, in accordance with Paragraph 141 of the NPPF:
No development shall take place until the applicant, their agent or successors in title
have secured the implementation of a programme of historic building recording in
accordance with a brief issued by Norfolk County Council Historic Environment
Service.
The programme of works in this instance will comprise a programme of 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 SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
24
27 November 2014
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• Planning Policy Context
• Principle of Development
• Retail Matters
• S106 Obligations
• Highway Safety and Accessibility
• Impact on Residential Amenity
• Design
• Sustainability
• Impact on Buildings of Local Interest
• Impact on Biodiversity
• Landscape
• Flood Risk and Drainage
• Contamination
• Summary
APPRAISAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Planning
Practice Guidance dated March 2014. The proposed development would involve the
construction of a supermarket and car park which would be likely to have impacts
related to the physical construction of the supermarket building, impacts from hard
surfacing works to provide the car park and impacts relating to additional traffic
movements into and out of the site. Nonetheless, whilst the proposal would have some
impacts it is not considered that those impacts would be significantly adverse on the
receiving environment so as to justify the proposal being EIA development. In any
event, the impacts of the proposal can be properly considered through the normal
planning application process, including consideration of any necessary mitigation.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Development Committee
25
27 November 2014
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008).
Local Policy
The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy EC 5
which suggests that retail units with a net sales area of 750sqm or greater will only be
permitted in the defined Primary Shopping Area of settlements with a large town
centre, whereas Holt is defined as a Small Town Centre. However, under Policy EC 5,
retail proposals which do not comply with this floor space limitation may be permitted
provided that:• A need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed; and
• no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with town
centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations); and
• the proposed development would not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant
adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres or nearby Service
Villages or Coastal Service Villages; and
• the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of transport,
including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012.
The Planning Practice Guidance was released on 06 March 2014 to assist/guide in the
interpretation of the Framework.
Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that applications for
planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The definition of Local Plans here
includes the Core Strategy and other current development plan documents. The CS
was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the
Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the
determination of this application.
Core principles of the replacement Framework are now that planning should
‘proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the
homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the
country needs...[and].......take account of the different roles and character of different
areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas’.
Paragraph 24 of the Framework states:
“Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for
main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with
an up-to-date Local Plan…".
Paragraph 26 of the Framework states:
“When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town
centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning
authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a
proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold....This should include assessment of:
Development Committee
26
27 November 2014
• The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private
investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
• The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local
consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years
from the time the application is made.‟
Paragraph 27 of the Framework states:
“Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant
adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused‟.
National policy advice is a material consideration to which the Committee should afford
appropriate weight when making its decision.
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
The principle of an A1 (retail) store at the Thaxter's site was established through the
grant of planning permission under application ref: PF/12/0929, subject to a number of
planning conditions. This application was subsequently amended by way of
permission granted under application ref: PF/14/0538 to vary condition 4 of
PF/12/0929 to permit the sale of 179sqm of non-convenience goods compared to
90sqm previously. These permissions remain extant and capable of implementation
and allow for the erection of a store with a net sales area of 895sqm of which 179sqm
may be used for the sale of non-convenience goods by a Limited Assortment Discount
(LAD) operator.
Whilst the Committee needs to satisfy itself that the proposed scheme is acceptable in
planning terms, clearly the previous grants of planning permission are material
considerations to which considerable weight should be attached in the determination
of this application.
RETAIL MATTERS
It is considered that, in light of the grant of permission for a similar sized A1 retail store
on the same site (PF/12/0929) and on the basis that no sequentially preferable sites
are considered to be available, suitable or viable, the applicant has satisfied the
requirements of the sequential test.
In respect of impact, the proposed retail store would, according to the applicant’s
Planning & Retail Statement, have a gross floor area of approximately 1,429sqm
(approx. 15,382sqft) with net sales areas of approximately 898sqm (9,666sqft) using
the Competition Commission (CC) definition of net sales area or 1,140sqm
(12,271sqft) using the National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of net sales
area.
The applicant has indicated that the net sales area would consist of approximately
80% convenience goods and 20% comparison goods. Using the Competition
Commission definition this would provide convenience floor space of approximately
718sqm and comparison floor space of 180sqm.
In considering the original supermarket proposal under application ref: PF/12/0929,
the applicant submitted a retail impact statement which assessed the likely impact of a
supermarket with a net sales area of 895 sqm. The specific operator of the store was
not known at the time of that application and therefore the retail impact statement
assessed impacts across a range of turnover levels from £4,000 per sqm to £12,000
per sqm and predicted a convenience goods turnover of between £3.24m and £9.72m
in 2017 with a predicted comparison goods turnover estimated to be £0.55m.
Development Committee
27
27 November 2014
The Council's appointed retail consultant advised that, whilst the level of impact is
likely to be greater than set out within the applicant's retail impact statement, on the
basis of the proposed development, ‘...There would be an impact on the town centre
but...our overall conclusion is that this would not be significantly adverse [on Holt town
centre] so as to undermine its vitality and viability as a whole. Nonetheless the Council
should recognise that a not insignificant proportion of convenience goods trade would
be ‘lost’ from the town centre and it would in our view be appropriate to request that the
Applicant accepts the need to mitigate this impact and agrees to fund improvements
which would directly address the loss of trade from the town centre’.
Now that the likely operator of the store is known (Aldi), a more accurate prediction of
impact can be made. Based on the proposed 80/20 split of convenience/comparison
goods the applicant has indicated a turnover of approximately £5.34 million (£7,435
per sqm) for convenience spend and £1.1 million (£6,011 per sqm for
non-convenience spend. Even allowing for a 'conservative' prediction by the applicant
and increasing turnover and market share from Aldi within the UK grocery sector, this
is considered to be at the lower threshold of impact as set out in the retail impact
statement in support of the original supermarket proposal. Therefore, whilst the sales
area of the store has increased by 3sqm (Using Competition Commission definitions)
and notwithstanding concerns from existing businesses within the town, the impact
resulting from the proposed operator is much less than could be the case with other
operators. However, the Committee needs to be mindful that any permission granted
goes with the land and not with the operator and therefore, as previously advised,
appropriate conditions will be required so as to ensure that the proposal does not result
in significant adverse impacts to the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre.
In respect of retail matters, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would
accord with relevant Development Plan policies.
S106 OBLIGATIONS
Approval of application ref: PF/12/0929 was subject to the completion of a S106
Obligation which secured a contribution sum of £50,000 to be used for improvements
as identified in 'A Vision For Holt 2012' or such other purposes as shall be agreed
between the Council and Holt Town Council to mitigate the impact of the Development
on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre. In addition the applicant was required
to provide an A4 folded leaflet with details promoting Holt Town Centre and the
Primary Shopping Area uses with the leaflets to be displayed between the checkouts
and the exit to the store. Furthermore an exterior display board measuring 2000mm x
1500mm is to be provided with information to promote the town centre.
Officers consider that a similar S106 Obligation will be required in this instance.
However, in view of the slight increase in floor area and the passage of time since the
first S106 Obligation was completed, it is reasonable to conclude that the Contribution
sum should be increased, particularly as any permission goes with the land and is not
tied to an operator and this could theoretically extend the turnover figures beyond the
upper limits previously assessed. Officers suggest this figure be increased by 10% to
£55,000. The landowner has given an initial indication that this would be acceptable.
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
In respect of accessibility, on foot and using existing pedestrian facilities, the proposed
store entrance is approximately 400m from the edge of the primary shopping area of
Holt. Whilst the town centre is not directly visible from the proposed supermarket site
until pedestrians walk along Station Road, the revised layout has nonetheless reduced
the distance to walk to the town centre and, in the opinion of Officers, has made the
Development Committee
28
27 November 2014
possibility of linked-trips between the store and the town centre even more likely. This
will be assisted by the requirements of the Section 106 Obligation and the planning
condition securing 3 hours of free parking for customers.
The applicant now proposes 12 cycle parking spaces whereas 36 were proposed
previously and 3 motor cycle spaces whereas 4 spaces were proposed previously. In
respect of vehicle parking 83 spaces are proposed whereas 90 were proposed
previously. The Council's adopted parking standards would require the provision of
102 vehicle parking spaces for the size of building proposed. However, the applicant is
entitled to propose the number of parking spaces it considers will be acceptable for its
operations, provided that the proposal will not result in severe highway impacts.
Notwithstanding the reduction in parking across the site further below adopted parking
standards, the Highway Authority have raised no objection to the revised scheme,
subject to the imposition of conditions.
In response to some concerns about loss of existing parking along Old Station Way,
the applicant has re-instated proposals for a lay-by on part of the southern side of Old
Station Way.
Based on the advice provided by the Highway Authority and subject to the imposition
of conditions, the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan Policies
CT5 and CT 6.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
As outlined when considering application ref: PF/12/0929, the closest residential
properties are those located on Hempstead Road (in particular Nos. 5 to 13 (odds))
and Coronation Road (in particular Nos. 2 to 32 (evens). Whilst the properties on
Hempstead Road would face the proposed development, the properties on Coronation
Road would have their rear elevations facing the proposed development.
Officers previously noted that Nos. 7 to 13 (odds) on Hempstead Road currently have
front doors which open directly onto Hempstead Road and it is these residents who
would notice the greatest impact from the proposed development, primarily from
vehicle movements into and out of the site. However Officers did not consider that the
proposed development would result in any overbearing or overshadowing impacts on
nearby residents, nor would development on the site be likely to cause noise or
disturbance issues.
In reaching its decision to approve the supermarket scheme in 2012, the Committee
were made aware that land to the south of the Holt Bypass has been allocated for
development and this will include the provision of a new access onto the A148. The net
benefit of this new access is likely to be a reduction in the number of commercial
vehicles currently using Hempstead Road and this benefit would be likely to be
achieved within the lifetime of the proposed supermarket development, if the
Committee were minded to approve it.
It is considered that the revised supermarket proposal would have no greater impact
on residential amenity and whilst Officers understand the concerns previously raised
by representations, taken as a whole the wider public benefits of the proposal could be
considered to outweigh any identified impact on the amenity of those residents living
adjacent to the site.
Subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal is considered to comply with
relevant Development Plan policy.
Development Committee
29
27 November 2014
DESIGN
In respect of design matters, whilst located outside the central core of the town and not
within the Conservation Area, the application site is in a prominent location adjacent to
the Holt bypass. Having regard to its setting and context, it is nonetheless considered
important to ensure that a god quality design solution is achieved.
The applicant behind application PF/12/0929 previously adopted a thematic approach
in respect of the architecture of the store and the approved design drew strong
influence from the architecture of the Midland and Great Northern Railway (MGNR).
The scheme before the Committee has adopted a slightly different design approach,
having the character of a traditional MGNR building that has been extended with a
contemporary extension.
The applicant has agreed to provide high quality boundary treatments, particularly
along the A148 Holt bypass, and which will further contribute to the character of the
area.
Officers consider that the scale and massing of the building are generally acceptable
and, subject to approval of external materials and subject to the use of correct detailing
for the 'MGNR' element, the proposed building would contribute positively to the
character and appearance of the area and the proposal would comply with relevant
Development Plan design policies.
SUSTAINABILITY
In consideration of the proposal against Core Strategy Policy EN 6, subject to the
imposition of conditions to secure the measures outlined by the applicant within the
submitted sustainable construction checklist and a condition to require 10% of the
energy required by the development to be secured from decentralised and renewable
or low-carbon energy sources, the proposal is considered to comply with Development
Plan policy
IMPACT ON BUILDINGS OF LOCAL INTEREST
The proposal would involve the demolition of all existing buildings on site to make way
for the proposed development. Representations previously raised concerns about the
loss of the existing brick building on site and a number of those representations
suggested that the building should be considered for local listing.
In respect of demolition it was considered previously that the existing buildings are not
sufficiently important or significant to justify their retention or inclusion within any
re-development and this view remains.
Officers therefore consider that, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a
photographic record of the building (which the applicant has previously agreed to
undertake), the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan Policy EN 8.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
The Landscape Officer has noted the findings of the Bat and European Protected
Species Survey carried out by Eco-Native dated 25 September 2012, as previously
submitted in support of application ref: PF/12/0929. Although the report is now two
years old and this brings into question whether the document remains valid, the site
conditions have not significantly changed since 2012 and the Committee needs to
have regard to the fact that the previously approved development which relied upon
the same report remains capable of implementation. Therefore, on balance, subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions it is considered that the development will be
unlikely to have a negligible impact on protected species and is consistent with policy
Development Committee
30
27 November 2014
EN9 of the Core Strategy.
LANDSCAPE
In respect of landscaping considerations, the revised scheme will enable larger areas
of planting which will help address some of the concerns previously expressed by the
Landscape Officer when considering application ref: PF/12/0929.
The applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping scheme and, subject to the
imposition of conditions, the proposal would generally accord with relevant
Development Plan policies
FLOOD RISK & DRAINAGE
The proposal development is not considered to give rise to significant flood risk
concerns subject to appropriate drainage systems being utilised. The Environmental
Protection Officer previously requested conditions to agree the type of drainage
systems to be used and subject to these conditions being re-imposed the proposal
would accord with Development Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the applicant has re-submitted a Phase 1 investigation
report and has also included a Ground Investigation Report.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to secure the remediation of any contamination
in the event that contamination is found, the proposal would accord with Development
Plan Policy EN 13.
SUMMARY
The proposed development seeks the erection of an A1 retail food store with a gross
floor area of 1,429sqm and a net sales areas of approximately 898sqm using the
Competition Commission (CC) definition of net sales area or 1,140sqm using the
National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of net sales area.
The basic principle of a similar sized A1 retail foodstore was granted on this site by way
of permission ref: PF/14/0929. This extant permission is a material consideration to
which significant weight should be afforded when assessing the current proposal.
The proposed revised scheme is considered to represent an overall improvement in
terms of layout, design and landscaping and whilst the revisions will result in a slight
reduction in vehicle parking spaces, the revised layout will provide a more attractive
and shorter route to the town centre on foot, which will encourage linked trips and
contribute to the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre through footfall along Station
Road.
A range of turnover figures were tested in terms of their potential impacts on the vitality
and viability of Holt Town Centre as part of the previous application (ref: PF/12/0929)
and subject to an agreed package of mitigation these impacts were judged to be
acceptable. The predicted turnover of the proposal before Committee falls within the
previously tested range.
Subject to the imposition of similar conditions imposed in relation to application ref:
PF/12/0929 and completion of a similar Section 106 Obligation, the proposed
development is considered to be compliant with Development Plan policy.
Development Committee
31
27 November 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation to secure a contribution sum of £55,000 to be used for improvements
as identified in 'A Vision For Holt 2012' or such other purposes as shall be
agreed between the Council and Holt Town Council to mitigate the impact of the
Development on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre; to provide an A4
folded leaflet with details promoting Holt Town Centre and the Primary
Shopping Area uses with the leaflets to be displayed between the checkouts
and the exit to the store. Furthermore an exterior display board measuring
2000mm x 1500mm to be provided with information to promote the town centre
and subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
1
Standard five year time limit for implementation
2
Except as where required by other conditions imposed on this permission, this permission is
granted in accordance with the plans first submitted with the application (drawing numbers:
1294-CHE-100 Rev.- Location Plan, 1294-CHE-111 Rev.C - Proposed Floor Plan,
1294-CHE-120 Rev.C - Proposed Elevations, 3787/139/301 - Drainage Strategy Layout and
V1294_L01 Rev.A - Landscape Plan as received by the Local Planning Authority on 22
October 2014 together with the amended plan drawing number: 1294-CHE-110 Rev.G as
received by the Local Planning Authority on 12 November 2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The total retail sales floor space of the supermarket hereby permitted shall not exceed 898
sqm (using the Competition Commission definition of sales area, which is defined as the sales
area within a building (i.e. all internal areas accessible to the customer), but excluding
checkouts, lobbies, concessions, restaurants, customer toilets and walkways behind the
checkouts).
Reason:
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant and to ensure that the size of the store
does not have a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre in
accordance with Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and guidance
contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Practice Guidance on need,
impact and the sequential approach.
4
Use of the retail supermarket hereby permitted and the amount of non-convenience floor
space shall be limited as follows:
a. In the event that the store is occupied by an operator defined as a Limited Assortment
Discounter (LAD), involving the display and sale of a limited range of primarily grocery
products, not more than 179sqm of the total retail sales floor space hereby permitted
shall be used for the sale of non-convenience goods;
b. In the event that the store is occupied by an operator falling outside of the definition of
a Limited Assortment Discounter, not more than 90sqm of the total retail sales floor
space hereby permitted shall be used for the sale of non-convenience goods.
Reason:
An unrestricted A1 retail use with a greater proportion of non-convenience goods floor area
has not been tested for impact and therefore may be likely to have a significant adverse impact
on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre and the condition is therefore necessary to
Development Committee
32
27 November 2014
protect the town centre in accordance with Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, whilst at
the same time offering a degree of flexibility as to the type of operator available to take on the
retail unit in the future.
5
The retail store hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the details approved
and no additional floor space, including any at mezzanine level, shall be constructed without
the express grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the development accords with the plans approved and does not have a
significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre in accordance with
Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and guidance contained within the
National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance on need, impact and the
sequential approach.
6
Within 3 months of the date of the retail foodstore hereby permitted first being opened to the
public, the applicant/agent or their successor in title shall submit a scheme for approval by the
Local Planning Authority which sets out the steps to be taken to establish and develop local
supply chains to support the store and a mechanism for review of the scheme. Thereafter the
applicant shall implement the approved scheme and shall review it and amend it where
necessary to ensure that local supply chains are used by the applicant wherever possible.
Reason:
To ensure that the store contributes positively to the vitality and viability of the town centre and
wider supply chains in the local area in accordance with the expressed intentions of the
applicant and in accordance with Policy EC 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7
Within 3 months of the date of the retail foodstore hereby permitted first being opened to the
public, the applicant/agent or successor in title shall submit a scheme for approval by the Local
Planning Authority which sets out the steps to be taken to advertise and promote businesses
located in and around Holt Town Centre from within the store and a mechanism for review of
the scheme. The primary aim of the scheme shall be to encourage shoppers to visit and
support Holt Town Centre thus adding footfall in the Town Centre and which would, in turn,
contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre. Thereafter the applicant shall
implement the approved scheme and shall review it and amend it where necessary to ensure
that it continues to achieve its primary aim.
Reason:
To ensure that the store contributes positively to the vitality and viability of the town centre in
accordance with the expressed intentions of the applicant and in accordance with Policy EC 5
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Prior to installation, full details of any plant and machinery, including but not limited to any
ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration or mechanical extractor system to be installed as part
of the approved development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The submitted details shall specify measures to control noise, dust and
odour from the equipment, including odour from any cooking process (where relevant).
Reason:
To control the noise, dust and odour emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity
in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
Development Committee
33
27 November 2014
9
Prior to the retail foodstore hereby permitted first being opened to the public, the proposed
vehicular access shall be built in accordance with highway industrial access specifications in
the position shown on the approved plan (drawing number: 1294-CHE-110 Rev. G). They shall
thereafter be so retained. In addition, arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to
be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the
highway carriageway.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or
surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
10 Prior to the retail foodstore hereby permitted first being opened to the public, a 2.4m wide
parallel visibility splay (as measured back from the near edge of the adjacent highway
carriageway) shall be provided across the whole of the proposed vehicular entrance onto Old
Station Way. The parallel visibility splay shall thereafter be maintained free from any
obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
11 Prior to the retail foodstore hereby permitted first being opened to the public, the proposed
on-site car and cycle parking and servicing, loading, unloading, waiting and turning areas shall
be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan.
They shall be retained thereafter for those specific uses.
Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the parking / manoeuvring areas, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
1
2
Development shall not commence until a scheme detailing provision for on site parking for
construction workers for the duration of the construction period has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented
throughout the construction period.
Reason:
To ensure adequate off street parking during construction in the interests of highway safety, in
accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13 No works shall commence on site until the details of wheel cleaning facilities for construction
vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway, in accordance with Policy CT
5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
14 For the duration of the construction period all traffic associated with the construction of the
development hereby permitted shall use the approved wheel cleaning facilities provided
referred to in condition number 13.
Reason:
To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway, in accordance with Policy CT
Development Committee
34
27 November 2014
5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
15 Securing off site highway works.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in
the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor, in
accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
16 Prior to the retail foodstore hereby permitted first being opened to the public, the off-site
highway improvement works referred to in condition number 15 shall be completed to the
written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed, in
accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
17 The retail foodstore hereby permitted shall not be first opened to the public until an Interim
Travel Plan has been submitted, approved and signed off by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority. Such a Travel Plan shall accord with Norfolk County
Council document `Guidance Notes for the Submission of Travel Plans` or be produced using
the Workplace Travel Plan Generator Tool, www.worktravelplan.net
Reason:
To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce the impact of
travel and transport on the environment, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
18 Within twelve months of the retail foodstore hereby permitted first being opened to the public,
an Approved Full Travel Plan based on the Interim Travel Plan referred to in condition 17 of
this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
in consultation with the Highway Authority. The Approved Full Travel Plan shall be
implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets contained therein and shall
continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied subject to
approved modifications agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Highway Authority as part of the annual review.
Reason:
To ensure that the development offers a wide range of travel choices to reduce the impact of
travel and transport on the environment, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
19 Customers of the supermarket hereby permitted shall be afforded a minimum of three hours
free parking on site on any one day.
Reason:
To enable linked-trips by foot to take place between the application site and the town centre in
order to contribute to the vitality and viability of Holt town centre in accordance with Policy EC
5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
20 Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be installed in accordance
with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Development Committee
35
27 November 2014
Reason:
In the interests of the visual amenities/residential amenities of the area and in the interests of
highway safety and convenience, and to avoid light pollution in accordance with Policy EN 13
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraph 3.3.70 of the
explanatory text.
21 Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application no development shall be carried
out until details of the means of sewage disposal from the development hereby permitted have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development
shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with those details.
Reason:
To ensure that satisfactory drainage is provided for the development in accordance with
Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
22 No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 07.00hrs to
23.00hrs on Mondays to Saturdays. No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the
site outside the hours of 09.00hrs to 18.00 hrs on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential amenity in accordance
with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs
3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
23 Unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority, the retail supermarket hereby
permitted shall not be open to customers except between the hours of 07.00 and 23.00 on
Mondays to Saturdays and 09.00 and 18.00 on Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason:
To protect the amenity of adjacent residential properties in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
24 Investigation into contamination and remediation.
Reason:
In the interests of public health and safety, and in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.71-3.3.72 of the
explanatory text.
25 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the
site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval
from the local planning authority for a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected
contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as
approved.
Reason:
To ensure that the proposed development does not cause pollution of Controlled Waters and
that development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled
Waters in accordance with Policies EN 10 and EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
Development Committee
36
27 November 2014
26 Landscaping details to be agreed.
Reason:
To ensure an acceptable landscaping scheme in accordance with Policies EN 2 and EN 4 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
27 Any new tree or shrub which within a period of ten years from the date of planting dies, is
removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next
planting season with another of a similar size and species to the Local Planning Authority's
satisfaction, unless prior written approval is given to any variation.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the requirements
of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
28 No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the approved plan to be retained shall be
topped, lopped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed, within ten years of the date of
this permission, without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority in writing.
Reason:
To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the requirements
of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy
29 Before the development hereby permitted is begun, all the existing trees identified on the
approved plan to be retained shall be protected from damage during the course of the
development by means of protective fencing in accordance with the details specified in
BS5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
The protective fencing shall be maintained during the period of construction works on the site
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Within the fenced areas no soil,
fuel, chemicals or materials shall be stored, temporary buildings erected plant or vehicles
parked or fires lit.
Reason:
In order to protect trees on the site, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
30 Notwithstanding the details set out within the submitted plans, prior to their first use in the
construction of the development hereby permitted, samples of the proposed materials to be
used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the building together with samples of
all proposed external hard-surfacing materials 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
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk
Design Guide.
31 Notwithstanding the details set out within the submitted plans, prior to their first erection,
details of the proposed design and materials to be used in the construction of boundary
treatments shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The
Development Committee
37
27 November 2014
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 design of boundaries and
proposed materials to be used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and
its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy
and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
32 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the building subject to
this permission shall be constructed in accordance with the sustainability measures set out
within Sections 4 and 5 of the Sustainability Statement (ref: 1294-CHE) prepared by The
Harris Partnership dated June 2014, as received by the Local Planning Authority on 22
October 2014.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in accordance with
Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
33 At least 10 percent of the energy supply of the development shall be secured from
decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources (as described in the glossary of
Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change (December 2007)). Details and a
timetable of how this is to be achieved, including details of physical works on site, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details
shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and retained as operational
thereafter.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving the required level of renewable energy supply in accordance with
Policy EN 6 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
34
No development shall take place within the site until the applicant has secured the
implementation of a programme of historic building recording in accordance with a written
scheme of investigation which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
In this instance the programme of historic building recording will comprise a photographic
survey of the structure for which a brief can be obtained from Norfolk County Historic
Environment Services, Union House, Gressenhall, Dereham, NR20 4DR, 01362 869293.
Reason:
In the interests of recording and preserving items of archaeological interest, in accordance
with Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
(7)
LITTLE SNORING - PO/14/1249 - Erection of twenty dwellings and associated
works; Land adjacent to Kettlestone Road and north of Holt Road for Mr Gray
and Mrs Stackwood
Major Development
- Target Date: 24 December 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Outline Planning Permission
Development Committee
38
27 November 2014
CONSTRAINTS
A Road
Unclassified Road
Proposed Residential Use Allocation
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Controlled Water Risk - Low (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Countryside
Principal Routes
Development within 60m of Class A road
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19872052 PO
Four houses (in two pairs)
Approved 10/03/1988
PLA/19940593 PO
Erection of four houses
Refused 11/07/1994
PLA/19901960 PO
Four houses (in two pairs)
Approved 04/02/1991
PLA/19791779 PO
Residential development
Refused 05/02/1980
PLA/20060866 PO
Residential development to provide affordable housing
Refused 31/08/2006
PLA/19920490 PM
Erection of dwelling
Approved 07/05/1992
THE APPLICATION
This is an outline planning application for residential development of 20 dwellings on a
0.85 hectare (approx) site. Access is the only matter of detail being formally applied for
at this stage, including off-site highway improvements for the provision of a new
footpath and the widening of an existing footpath to the Holt Road.
Indicative plans submitted with the application indicate that the site layout would
include a swale to the front of the site and the Planning Statement indicates that
dwellings would be a maximum of two storeys and constructed of traditional materials,
however, this is only indicative.
Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is proposed from the Kettlestone Road to
the south-west.
Also included with the application are draft Heads of Terms for a Section 106
Obligation.
These include the following obligations:
• £50 per dwelling towards mitigating potential impacts on the North Norfolk Coast
Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Areas (SAC/SPA);
Development Committee
39
27 November 2014
•
•
50% of affordable housing (subject to viability)
Contribution towards education, libraries and play provision as agreed with the
Local Planning Authority.
The application is also accompanied by the following documentation:
Planning, Design, Access, Affordable Housing and Heritage Statement
Surface Water Drainage Assessment
Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan, Method Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
An updated Biodiversity and European Protected Species Survey
•
•
•
•
•
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Green, having regard to the following planning reasons:
Concerns in respect of density, highways, drainage, children's safety and position of
the swale.
PARISH COUNCIL
Little Snoring Parish Council has the following concerns in respect of the proposal for
developing the land adjacent to Kettlestone Road and north of Holt Road in Little
Snoring.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Density. The allocation for development of 26 dwellings in the LDF for Little
Snoring is split between two sites in order to avoid high density and associated
social difficulties. A maximum of 15 for this site would be preferable.
SWALE:
• Concern about the location, potential flooding /water-logging
neighbouring land /property and the road. Could it be repositioned?
• Is a SWALE the best option for this site? Would it not be possible to link
into the existing drainage system for surface water?
• Concern about the long term maintenance as ‘amenity land’ and / or
wildlife area for the enjoyment of the residents.
While there is capacity at the sewage works, the infrastructure through the
village already has problems particularly from the top of Kettlestone Road,
along Thursford Road (including Manor Close) to The Hill. It is requested that
this section of the sewer system is upgraded in order to deal effectively with
the extra waste from this new development.
Highways:
• Problems of increased traffic using the junction of Kettlestone Road and
Holt Road / A148
• Creation of potentially dangerous junction with Kettlestone Road and
the Croft. Please note that Victory Housing is planning a further
development on The Croft which will also increase the level of traffic.
• Request to re-configure the layout of the roads to improve safety.
Road safety and traffic calming measures to be put in place to ensure the
safety of children who will need to cross Kettlestone Road to access the
Playing Field and recreation ground as well as the pavement to the school and
the shop.
The new development will have a detrimental effect on broadband speeds in
the rest of the village. It is requested that fibre optic is extended to the rest of
the village.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two objections received raising the following issues (summarised):
• Proximity of access road to neighbouring property;
Development Committee
40
27 November 2014
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proximity of any dwellings and lagoon/swale/soakaway to neighbouring property;
Street lighting would not be in keeping with the rest of the village;
Council tax increase concerns;
Potential anti-social behaviour;
No communication from the Parish Council;
Impact on trees;
Inadequate and out-of-date wildlife survey;
Impact on wildlife;
Sewage and water supply concerns. Capacity issues;
Future maintenance of swale, soakaways and paving;
Highway safety issues;
Increased traffic and traffic disturbance;
Impact from traffic noise and headlights;
Helpfulness of an off-site roundabout;
Impact on neighbouring property;
Previous refusals on the site;
Between 1994 and 2006 there have been approximately 80 houses built upon the
land surrounding Kettlestone Road totally changing the character of the village.
There has also been development of industrial units on the airfield;
Proposed development does not appear to be in keeping with the rest of the
village, there is no local demand for it, there is no local employment to encourage
people to move to it;
Understand site is classified as a meadow and should be kept as such;
Large housing development proposed in Fakenham (Rudham Stile Lane,
Fakenham (F01) less than 3 miles away which would be more suitable for local
services such as schools, doctors and direct transport links;
Building 20 houses in two acres of land, with drainage issues is far too excessive
for a small village and would not enhance the village;
Nearby property unable to get planning permission from a lapsed permission to
build a property on their land due to Highway objection and increased traffic
concerns. Traffic volume has increased since that time;
Site outside development area.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways)- Conditions required on any approval relating to plans of
roads, footways, foul and surface water drainage, surfacing construction, visibility
splay, on-site parking for construction workers, wheel cleaning facilities for
construction workers, footpath provision along the site frontage with Holt Road and
Kettlestone Road and a Traffic Regulation Order for Waiting restrictions on the
Kettlestone Road.
The Highways Officer has commented that the proposed access road is positioned at
the northern extremity to the site in order to maximise the distance from the junction
with Holt Road, in the interests of highway safety.
The Highways Officer has also commented in respect of requirement 'a' for Policy
SN01:
This has previously been discussed and notwithstanding the statement in the policy, it
was not considered to be feasible.
The land required, would be likely to prevent any development from happening on this
site. Additionally, the County Council have no scheme and no plans in the future for
such an improvement, so they would not know what land to safeguard.
As a result this was discussed at the County Council’s Development Team where it
Development Committee
41
27 November 2014
was agreed not to request this element be enforced and that we would raise no
objection to an application on the basis of that submitted.
The Highways Officer has also commented in respect of the comments raised by the
Countryside and Parks Manager regarding pedestrian access to the playing field:
With regards the need for traffic calming on Kettlestone Road, this would not be
supported or considered necessary by the County Council. Kettlestone Road is subject
to a 30mph speed limit and traffic is already slowing on the approach to the junction
with the A148. Additional any traffic management measures on Kettlestone Road
would need to be part of a wider package of measures if they were to proceed, which
would not be reasonable in scale or necessary for a development of 20 dwellings.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design)- The site is
immediately bordered by a variety of the building types which are characterised by the
mixture of development form, age and scale. The mature hedgerow boundary to Holt
Road which turns the corner and dominates the junction with Kettlestone Road is also
a strong prevailing feature of the street-scene.
Given the nature of the surrounding development, the density of the proposed
dwellings does reflect the scale and pattern of the immediate context and raises no
overriding cause for concern from a design perspective. Importantly the scheme does
succeed in addressing both Holt Road and Kettlestone Road by maintaining the
balance between buildings enclosing/fronting the street and the vegetation boundary
characteristic of the existing site. With this in mind the general rhythm and pattern of
the street-scene will be retained.
The variety of building types within the proposal and their siting within the indicative
layout will help in adding visual interest and the layering of views within and outside of
to the development confines. The design of the dwellings and proposed pallet of
materials will reflect the prevailing character and vernacular construction of the village
and wider context.
There are no designated heritage assets within the immediate vicinity of the proposed
site – therefore no immediate heritage cause for concern.
Overall, Conservation and Design have no objection in principle to the development as
proposed, the scale, density and plan form sit relatively comfortably within the plot and
in relation to the wider setting of the village. The key to the schemes eventual success
will be the quality of the design, elevational treatment and attention to detailing of the
dwellings working in conjunction with the landscape treatment.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)- The application was
supported by a Biodiversity and Protected Species Report prepared by Aurum Ecology
Ltd dated 25 October 2014. The report concludes that the proposed development will
not impact on any international, national or locally designated sites for nature
conservation, The Landscape team has no reason to dispute this conclusion.
The site was previously used as an arable field but has been colonised over the
intervening years by scrub, rank grassland and ruderal vegetation, the Phase 1
Habitat Survey identified a mature hawthorn hedge and two mature oak trees on the
edge of the site as important features. The trees and hedge are indicated to be
retained as part of the indicative layout proposals which is welcomed. The survey did
not reveal any protected plant species on site but small numbers of bats were recorded
foraging within the site as well as breeding birds within the perimeter
hedges. Anecdotal evidence has been received which indicates the presence of
Development Committee
42
27 November 2014
hedgehogs and deer within the site. Hedgehogs are locally listed as a priority species
however deer do not receive any specific protection other than the Wild Mammals
(Protection) Act 2006. The overall assessment of the ecological value of the site was
‘low’.
Mitigation and compensation has been suggested which includes aims to safeguard
bats, hedgehogs and breeding birds during and after construction and it is
recommended that these measures are incorporated into a Landscape and Ecological
Mitigation Scheme which should be secured via condition. Subject to the
implementation of this condition, it is considered the development adheres to local and
national policies on biodiversity conservation. An indicative landscape scheme has
been submitted which is acceptable in principle, however full details will need to be
submitted via the above recommended condition as part of the reserved matters
application.
An Arboricultural Report has also been submitted, this details that the trees and
hedging along the western boundary will need to be removed to facilitate the proposed
access to the site. This is acceptable subject to the remaining arboricultural features
being protected and retained in accordance with the Method Statement and Tree
Protection Plan submitted and with replacement planting secured via the landscape
scheme. Again this should be secured via condition.
Subject to the above, the Landscape team does not object to the application.
Environmental Health- Conditions required in respect of contaminated land, and
sewage disposal.
Strategic Housing- There is a need for affordable housing in Little Snoring with 47
households on the Housing Register and in addition there are a further 45 households
on the Transfer Register and 402 households on the Housing Options Register who
have stated that they require housing in Little Snoring. The proposed development
would therefore assist in meeting some of the proven housing need.
This outline application has all matters reserved except access, however, an indicative
block layout plan has been submitted. The applicants have also submitted a Planning,
Design, Access, Affordable Housing and Heritage Statement and draft Heads of
Terms for section 106 agreement requirements. It is stated at 2.13 of the statement
that “The insistence on the provision of 50% affordable housing has the potential to
delay delivery of the proposed development and as such should be waived in favour of
delivering new housing.” The draft Heads of Terms states “The provision of a
proportion of affordable housing (50%) across a defined tenure mix as part of the
scheme will be negotiated with the Council to reflect policy and the economic viability
of the development.” However, the applicants have not submitted a viability
assessment to show the amount of affordable housing which the site is viable to
provide, in accordance with the requirements of Policy H03. However, as this site is an
outline with only access included it would be more appropriate to consider viability at
reserved matters stage when the exact layout and number of dwellings is known.
It is clear from the submitted indicative layout that it would be possible to provide 50%
of the proposed dwellings as affordable housing, subject to viability. The applicant’s
statement also confirms that the layout has been designed to accommodate the
affordable housing requirement for this site.
If this application is approved, a Section 106 Agreement should be completed which
will require that 50% of the dwellings are provided as affordable housing, subject to
Development Committee
43
27 November 2014
viability. This ensures that the Council’s policy requirements are clear whilst also
providing flexibility to address any future viability issues with the site.
To conclude, the Housing Strategy team does not raise any objections to approval of
this application on the basis that if this application is approved, a Section 106
Agreement will be completed which will require 50% affordable housing to be provided
on the site, subject to viability. This will enable any viability issues which would affect
the level of affordable housing which the site is viable to provide to be addressed as
part of a reserved matters application.
Anglian WaterWastewater Treatment
The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Little Snoring Water
Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows.
Foul Sewerage Network
The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows.
Surface Water Disposal
The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning
application is not relevant to Anglian Water and therefore this is outside our jurisdiction
for comment and the Planning Authority will need to seek the views of the Environment
Agency. Request that the agreed strategy is conditioned in the planning approval.
Natural England- The application site is in close proximity to the North Norfolk Coast
Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which are
European sites. This site is also listed as North Norfolk Coast Ramsar site and also
notified at a national level as North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI).
The consultation documents provided by your authority do not include information to
demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats
Regulations have been considered by your authority, i.e. the consultation does not
include a Habitats Regulations Assessment.
In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations
Assessment, and to assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects,
based on the information provided, Natural England offers the following advice:
• the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site
• the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can
therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment
The North Norfolk District Council Site Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD)
highlights the potential risk of in-combination impacts of recreational disturbance to the
above European sites due to increased visitation as a result of local population growth
in the district. The document identifies that a scheme of mitigation and a programme of
monitoring such measures are necessary in order to mitigate against these impacts
and to enable a conclusion of no likely significant effect to be reached.
Natural England notes that this application is of a relatively small scale and is not in
immediate proximity to an internationally designated site; therefore it is our view that
there are unlikely to be direct impacts when this application is considered alone. As
discussed above, the Site Allocation DPD highlights the risk of in-combination effects
and proposes a mechanism (£50 per proposed dwelling contribution towards
monitoring and mitigation) as mitigation at a strategic scale. As the applicant has
accepted the requirement upon them to contribute this sum towards the scheme of
Development Committee
44
27 November 2014
mitigation and monitoring, we advise that this provides sufficient strategic mitigation to
enable you to conclude no likely significant effect on the aforementioned European
sites as a result of the proposed development.
Should your authority be minded to grant this application, a suitably worded planning
condition will be required to secure this contribution and ensure compliance with the
Habitat Regulations at a strategic level.
Other advice
We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other
possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this
application:
• local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity);
• local landscape character; and
• local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.
Biodiversity enhancements
This application provides opportunities to incorporate features into the design which
are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or
the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to
enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant
permission for this application.
Protected species
The Local Planning Authority should apply the Natural England Standing Advice to this
application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-OrdinatorEducation- Given there is sufficient space at all the local schools the County Council
Children’s Services department will not be claiming Developer Contributions on this
occasion.
Norfolk Fire Services have indicated that the proposed development will require 1
hydrant.
Library provision- A development of 20 dwellings would place increased pressure on
the existing library service particularly in relation to library stock, such as books and
information technology. This stock is required to increase the capacity of the library. It
has been calculated that a development of this scale would require a total contribution
of £1,200 (i.e. £60 per dwelling) to Fakenham Library.
Environment- Future maintenance of biodiversity areas should also be considered. A
commuted sum may be required where appropriate to cover the future maintenance of
existing and new areas habitat. These may require different management to the
standard landscaped areas.
Planning Legal- No comments on the application itself but note that a Section 106
agreement will be required if the application is approved.
Countryside and Parks Manager- The methodology set out in the Council’s interim
practice guide to open space provision has been applied to this application in terms of
the relationship between additional population generated and public open space and
the corresponding theoretical requirement has been calculated as follows:
Development Committee
45
27 November 2014
On- site provision
Type of open space
Parks
Play
Green space
Allotments
m2
620
184
477
305
Off- site contribution
Type of open space
Parks
Play
Green space
Allotments
Contribution £
21704
9200
8109
10685
(based on population increase of 48 of which 23 are children)
Approximately 120m2 of green space / swale is to be provided on-site but no further
open space is planned.
The open space standards are intended to address shortfalls in open space and play
provision where shortfalls exist. Little Snoring is well served for amenity space in the
form of a large playing field which includes play equipment installed only about 6 years
ago.
There is no demand for allotments locally.
I therefore suggest that no contribution for open space provision is required from the
developer as existing open space provision is adequate. I have discussed this with
the Parish Clerk who agrees that no further provision is necessary.
People walking to the playing field from the new development will need to cross
Kettlestone Road. The crossing point will be near the junction of Kettlestone Road with
the A148 and also near the entrance into the Croft. Whilst Kettlestone Road is not
especially fast or busy it may be pertinent to include some form of traffic calming to
alert drivers of increased pedestrian activity.
With regard to the maintenance of the on-site green space I wish to advise that North
Norfolk District Council would not wish to adopt it.
Environment Agency- Response awaited. The Committee will be updated 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.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Development Committee
46
27 November 2014
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and infrastructure
issues).
Policy HO2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
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 EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Land allocated for residential development in the Site Specific Allocations
Development Plan document adopted by the Council in February 2011 (SN01).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Principle of the development
Extent of the current application
Highway issues
Affordable housing
Housing density
Drainage
Landscaping and biodiversity
Impact on neighbouring amenities
Other issues
APPRAISAL
Principle of the development
The site is allocated for residential development in the Site Allocations Development
Plan Document, which was adopted in February 2011.
Policy SN01 identified the site as being an area of undeveloped and overgrown land,
located fairly centrally within Little Snoring and well-contained, being bordered on
three sides by existing housing developments. The Policy identifies the below:
Land amounting to 0.9 hectares is allocated for residential development of
approximately 15-20 dwellings. Development will be subject to compliance with
adopted Core Strategy policies including on-site provision of the required proportion of
affordable housing (currently 50%) and contributions towards infrastructure, services
Development Committee
47
27 November 2014
and other community needs as required and:
a. Land is retained to allow for the future improvement of the Kettlestone Road/A148
junction;
b. retention and enhancement of mature hedgerows and trees around the site and
other wildlife mitigation and improvement measures as required; and,
c. prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the North
Norfolk Coast SAC / SPA arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, and on-going
monitoring of such measures.
The principle of residential development on the site is therefore established.
Extent of the current application
The only specific detail applied for at this stage relates to access. Accordingly details
relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would have to be the subject of a
subsequent application for reserved matters in the event of outline permission being
granted.
Notwithstanding this, the applicants have submitted a 'Parameters Plan', which
indicates those trees to be retained along the site boundaries, the internal road and
drives layout, an area of green space/swale, parking courts, and the siting and scale
and the dwellings. It is considered that the extent of detail included on the Site
Parameters Plan is acceptable as a basis for informing any future application for
reserved matters should outline planning permission for access be granted.
Highway issues
The submitted plans shows that vehicular access to the site would be from a single
point on the 30mph Kettlestone Road.
The off-site highway improvements proposed are represented by drawings submitted
with the application and indicates that the existing footpath would be extended along
the Kettlestone Road to the junction with the Holt Road. The footpath on the Holt Road
would be widened to 1.8m.
The Committee will note the comments from the County Council Highways, that the
proposed access road is positioned at the northern extremity to the site in order to
maximise the distance from the junction with Holt Road, in the interests of highway
safety. Subject to the imposition of conditions, County Council Highways have not
raised any objection to the scheme.
Notwithstanding highway safety concerns raised by the Parish Council and public
representations, in the absence of objections being raised by Highways, it is not
considered that the application could be refused on Highway grounds.
Affordable housing
Assuming the principle of the development is accepted, Policy SN01 would require
50% affordable housing (subject to viability).
The requirement for 50% affordable housing has been proposed in the draft S.106
Heads of Terms, allowing for the issue of viability and affordable housing provision to
be properly considered at the time when the full details are submitted with any
reserved matters application.
Development Committee
48
27 November 2014
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Policy generally encourages
housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare.
In this instance, the scheme would represent a housing density of approximately 23
dwellings per hectare. With consideration given to the context of the site and
surrounding densities, it is considered that the density proposed would be acceptable.
The density is in compliance with the upper approximate number of dwellings provided
for in the Site Allocation document.
Drainage
The application indicates that surface water would be discharged with the use of a
sustainable drainage system, to include plot soakaways and runoff from the adopted
road discharging into a soakaway with a swale located above. Environmental Health
have considered the information submitted and have not raised any objections. The
Committee will note that a response is awaited from the Environment Agency.
The application indicates that the method of foul sewage disposal has not yet been
determined.
Landscaping and biodiversity
The site is currently delineated by mature vegetated boundaries, although the
application proposes the removal of trees and hedging along the south-west boundary
to allow access to the site. The Committee will note that, subject to the remaining
arboricultural features being protected and retained in accordance with the submitted
information and subject to replacement planting being secured by a landscape
scheme, the Landscape Officer does not raise an objection.
In respect of biodiversity, a biodiversity and European Protected Species Survey has
been submitted and the Committee will note no objection has been raised by the
Landscape Officer subject to conditions in this respect.
Impact on neighbouring amenities
It is not considered that the siting of the proposed access would have a significantly
detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, which has been
sited at the northern extremity to the site in order to maximise the distance from the
junction with Holt Road, in the interests of highway safety.
Other issues
Policy EN6 requires dwellings to be constructed in accordance with Code Level 3 of
the Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Policy EN6. A condition would be
imposed to secure this.
Policy EN6 also requires 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the development
to be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. Details of how this would be
achieved have not been submitted under this application. Again, a condition would be
imposed to secure this.
In respect of land contamination, Environmental Health have advised that further
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants affecting the
site is required. This will form part of a condition on any approval.
Other issues associated with the development of the site (eg. layout, design, scale and
Development Committee
49
27 November 2014
relationships with adjoining properties) would be addressed at the submission of
reserved matters stage, and it is considered that the site could accommodate this level
of development, subject to the detail being acceptable.
S.106 requirements
If planning permission is to be granted for this development, a S.106 Obligation will
need to be completed to secure the following:
•
•
•
The provision of affordable housing which would be 50% subject to viability at
reserved matters stage;
County Council contributions towards library provision;
£50 per dwelling towards mitigating potential impacts on the North Norfolk Coast
Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Areas (SAC/SPA).
Conclusions
The site is allocated for residential development in the adopted Site Allocations DPD
and consequently, as this application is considering access only and as no objection
has been raised by the Highway Authority, it is considered to accord with Development
Plan policies.
Accordingly delegated authority to grant outline planning permission is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms set out in
the report.
(ii) The imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning,
including those required by the Highways Authority.
(8)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1116 - Demolition of youth centre to extend the
car-parking facilities for proposed retail unit; 7-9 Yarmouth Road for Lidl UK
GmbH
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 October 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Settlement Boundary
Town Centre
Primary Shopping Area
Residential Area
Contaminated Land
Adjacent Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19960863 PO - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of class A1(food)
retail unit and associated car parking
Approved 10/12/1996
Development Committee
50
27 November 2014
PLA/20010060 PF - Demolition of buildings and construction of foodstore and
ancillary works
Approved 03/09/2001
PF/13/1274 PF - Erection of extensions to house storage, office, preparation and
freezer facilities with related increase in net sales area from 807m² to 1056m²,
provision of additional parking area and re-cladding of gables to the existing store.
Approved 20/12/2013
PF/14/0286 PF
Demolition of A1 (retail) food store and residential dwelling and erection of
replacement A1 (retail) food store
Approved 03/06/2014
AI/14/1081 AI
2 No 2.5mx2.5m internally illuminated gable sign 1 No directional sign and stand
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to demolish existing buildings to make way for an enlarged car park
for the existing Lidl A1 retail supermarket (currently being re-built following the grant of
planning permission ref: PF/14/0286). The proposal would enable the provision of a
further 21 car parking spaces. The car park, as extended, would provide a total of 97
vehicle parking spaces (including 4 disabled bays and two parent and child spaces
next to the store entrance). The proposal would also provide a pedestrian access point
at the eastern end to enable access into/out of the car park to the Library, Community
Centre and park beyond. The extended car park would also include additional
landscape planting. Amended plans have been received which have re-located the
position of the pedestrian access point to allow for, amongst other things, improved
landscaping.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE - At the request of Cllr Nigel Lloyd on
the basis of concerns regarding the loss of a community facility.
TOWN COUNCIL - No Objection
REPRESENTATIONS
Three representations have been received, two objecting and one commenting.
Summary of objections:
1. The Youth Centre has been closed for some time due to lack of funding;
2. If funds are found to run a Youth Centre, the loss of the building will prevent a
Youth Centre from re-opening;
3. Why is there no youth centre in North Walsham;
4. When the town is expanding, this is short-term thinking which will result in the loss
of a local facility;
Summary of comments:
1. Would expect the developer to provide a substantial fence to boundary with
properties on Farman Avenue;
2. Concerned about lighting from the car park;
3. Concerned the car park will be a magnet for youths congregating in the car park;
4. We need access to maintain our hedge
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to advisory notes relating to noise and
contaminated land and subject to lighting details as proposed by the applicant.
Development Committee
51
27 November 2014
County Council (Highway) - No objection subject to condition securing layout of
extended car park as proposed.
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 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria for
new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
• Principle;
• Loss of existing Youth Centre/Community Facility;
• Highway Safety
• Footpath links
• Contribution to the Vitality and Viability of North Walsham Town Centre
• Impact on Residential Amenity
• Impact on Conservation Area
APPRAISAL
Principle
The site is located within the defined Town Centre and adjacent to the Primary
Shopping Area of North Walsham where there would be support in principle for the
provision of car parking extension in relation to an existing A1 retail use, subject to
Development Committee
52
27 November 2014
compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Loss of existing Youth Centre/Community Facility
The site of the proposed car park extension contains former County Council owned
buildings including buildings formerly housing Children's Services and North Walsham
Youth & Community Centre. Whilst these buildings are now vacant and are understood
to have been sold by Norfolk County Council to Lidl UK, in considering development
proposals involving the loss of existing local facilities, the Committee are required to
have regard to the provisions set out within Core Strategy Policy CT 3. This is relevant
in so far as the former North Walsham Youth & Community Centre is concerned
because Policy CT 3 would regard the building as a public hall and therefore as an
'important local facility'.
The key test within Policy CT 3 is to establish whether the public hall building housing
the former Youth & Community Centre is 'the last of its kind within a Principal or
Secondary Settlement or Service Village'. Given the existence of the adjacent North
Walsham Community Centre and other facilities catering for a range of age groups
including The Atrium at North Walsham High School, Officers would consider that the
former North Walsham Youth & Community Centre building is not the last of kind in
North Walsham and there is alternative provision of equivalent or better quality
available in the area. As such, Officers consider that the proposed demolition of the
former North Walsham Youth & Community Centre building to make way for the
proposed supermarket car park expansion would not be contrary to Development Plan
Policy CT 3.
Highway Safety
The proposed car park extension does not give rise to any unacceptable highway
impacts and, subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure the layout of the car park
is built as approved, the proposal would comply with Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and
CT 6.
Footpath links
Following Officer intervention at pre-application stage, the proposed car park
extension would also now provide a pedestrian access point at the eastern end to
enable access into/out of the car park to the Library, Community Centre and park
beyond. This will improve permeability for those wishing to access the site on foot and
will avoid the need for a convoluted route around New Road/Yarmouth Road to reach
the store entrance and/or Town Centre.
Contribution to the Vitality and Viability of North Walsham Town Centre
A retail supermarket on this site has and will continue, once the re-built store is
opened, to play an important role in increasing footfall within North Walsham town
centre. The benefit of these linked trips stem from the availability of 90 mins free
parking and the extension of the car parking facility will provide further capacity to
enable this function to continue. Officers would recommend that the 90mins free
parking be secured by way of planning condition.
Impact on Residential Amenity
The extended car park would have part of its southern boundary with residential
properties along Farman Avenue. Concerns have been expressed by some residents
about noise, car park lighting, anti-social behaviour and a need to maintain access so
that residents can maintain their hedges.
Whilst the proposed development would inevitably result in additional movements
(both vehicular and pedestrian) in an area not currently subject to such activity, the key
Development Committee
53
27 November 2014
test is whether such activities would result in significant adverse impacts for nearby
residential properties. The Environmental Protection Officer has not raised concerns
regarding noise and disturbance and, in respect of lighting, is satisfied with the
proposal put forward by the applicant. On this basis, it is considered that whilst it is
likely that the activities will result in some disturbance to residents on Farman Avenue,
such impacts are unlikely to be so harmful as to justify refusal on grounds of noise and
disturbance. Nonetheless, officers would recommend that appropriate mitigation be
put in place and this could include the provision of 1.8m high timber/acoustic fencing
along the southern boundary with residents on Farman Avenue to provide some
additional protection from noise and disturbance. Therefore, subject to the imposition
of conditions, on balance the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policy EN 13.
Impact on Conservation Area
Whilst the site is not located within the Conservation Area of North Walsham, the site
lies approximately 75m due east of the main part of the Conservation Area and
therefore has the potential to affect views into and out of the Area. In respect of the
effect of the development on Conservation Areas, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a general duty on planning
authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the
character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This is coupled with the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN8, which requires development to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The demolition of existing buildings and erection of the proposed car park will open up
views of the Conservation Area from the east. This is likely to marginally enhance the
visibility of the wider Conservation Area and, overall the provision of the car park would
not conflict with the aims of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and would generally accord with the requirements of
Core Strategy Policy EN 8.
Summary
The proposal will enable the creation of an enlarged car park which will provide a total
of 97 vehicle parking spaces and which will contribute positively to the vitality and
viability of North Walsham town centre through the provision of 90 mins free parking.
Whilst the proposal will result in the demolition of the former North Walsham Youth &
Community Centre building, which would be regarded as a public hall and therefore as
an 'important local facility' under Core Strategy Policy CT 3, Officers would consider
that the former North Walsham Youth & Community Centre building is not the last of its
kind in North Walsham and there is alternative provision of equivalent or better quality
available in the area. As such, Officers consider that the proposed demolition of the
former North Walsham Youth & Community Centre building to make way for the
proposed supermarket car park expansion would not be contrary to Development Plan
Policy CT 3. .
In other respects, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include the
provision of 90 mins free parking and appropriate boundary treatment, the proposal
would accord with Development Plan Policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions including 90 minutes free
parking, completion of landscaping works and subject to other conditions
considered appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
54
27 November 2014
(9)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0887 - Partial demolition of hotel and erection of six
residential apartments and single-storey rear extension to hotel; Burlington
Hotel, The Esplanade for Mr S McDermott
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 October 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19901395 PF
Velux rooflight north elevation - window west gable (4th floor)
Approved 22/10/1990
PLA/19970888 PF
Change of use from hotel rooms on second and third floors to eight self-contained
residential flats
Approved 02/09/1997
PLA/19741025 PF
Proposed erection of fire escapes
Approved 15/11/1974
PLA/19970134 LE
Demolition of outbuildings
Approved 11/04/1997
THE APPLICATION
Is for the demolition of the west wing of the existing hotel to allow for the construction of
six residential apartments and single storey rear extension.
The single storey rear extension would allow for the re-siting of the hotel bar and toilet
areas at the upper ground floor level.
Car parking would be provided at the lower ground floor level and consist of 12 car
parking spaces. There would be an additional six floors above the car parking level
containing the six apartments. The extension would be no taller than the ridge height of
the existing hotel which is approximately 20m in height. There would be a lift serving
each floor.
The vehicular access remains unchanged. The site being served by the private drive to
the rear off The Boulevard and The Esplanade.
The external materials to be used on the front and rear of the extension consist of
terracotta red and natural stone coloured clay modular panels on the external walls,
with contrasting string, head and cill courses. The west facing gable and projecting pier
adjacent to the west gable would be constructed in smooth red facing brick, and buff
coloured brick for the string, head and cill courses. All external windows and doors are
to be grey powder coated metal frames. The roof material would be zinc, with an
upstanding seam.
Development Committee
55
27 November 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Smith having regard to the following planning issue(s):
1. Design
2. Impact upon Conservation Area
3. Retention of local business
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that the extension is unacceptable as it is out of keeping for this
iconic building and not sympathetically designed and also there should be better use
of the proposed materials.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident on the grounds of the
proposal being inappropriate and out of keeping with the adjacent hotel,
unsympathetic cheap design, materials out of keeping with the locally listed building.
Two letters of support received.
In the supporting information submitted with the application the agent has advised that
the reasons for considering redevelopment are as follows:
• The current premises, as a hotel, are only used at a maximum of 60% potential for
specific time-slot periods of the year.
• The main clientele of the business are an ageing population of coach party type
holiday accommodation and occasional wedding type functions.
• With the ongoing demands of clientele requirements for updated facilities and
expected standards of comfort, plus the ever increasing demands of regular
updates regarding health and safety, environmental health and fire standards, the
large premises have an ever-increasing annual drain on financial resources set
against a declining market.
• The external fabric of the buildings detailing mixture of red brick and stonework is
suffering from the harsh climate of salt laden air and strong northerly winds.
Serious finances are required to meet the cost of repair of the decay and erosion of
areas of external walls, roof and original timber windows.
The agent's conclusion in respect of addressing the above points is as follows:
• A self-financing exercise is required in order to bring the current property up to the
standards required and expected of the current day hotel.
• A smaller hotel accommodation is needed to meet the current declining demands.
• Redevelopment of under-utilised areas of the hotel into self-contained luxury
apartments for sale will release capital required for the overhaul needed.
The supporting statement from the Agent is attached at Appendix 3.
The agent has responded to the original consultation response from the Highway
Authority and does not agree with the views expressed. The agent has advised that
they would be willing to agree to signage on the site prohibiting the use of a right turn
along this private access land when exiting the site.
The agent has submitted an amended plan showing the proposed means of access to
the development.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways (Original comments) - Access is proposed via the existing
Development Committee
56
27 November 2014
unmade access tracks to the side and rear of the site, which appear to be outside of
the applicants control. These unmade access tracks are generally unsuitable for two
way traffic movement due to their limited width, particularly at their intersections with
the adopted highway. At the junction with The Boulevard, the access opening
measures 4.6m, however, only 3.7m of that width is available for use given the
presence of planted borders and a manhole cover, this would be insufficient to allow
two way movement, resulting in vehicles potentially waiting or reversing on The
Boulevard, to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and therefore highway safety.
A similar situation exists at the access with The Esplanade. The proposed
development would be considered to engender an additional 48-60 daily movements
associated with the 6 units (TRiCS database details 8-10 daily movements for a single
residential property), which would take place over the narrow unmade access routes
entering the adopted highway over substandard access points which are outside of the
applicant's control. As the application is currently presented, I would recommend
refusal on the grounds of intensification of use of substandard accesses and I would
request that this is considered to be a holding objection to allow investigation of the
potential for access improvements.
Comments following receipt of amended plan - Thank you for the amended
consultation received recently relating to the above development proposal, which now
details means of access for the proposed development. With consideration of this
revised proposal, together with the correspondence regarding improvements to the
access points and internal signage, I am now able to revise my response. Should your
Authority be minded to the grant of consent a condition regarding upgrading of the
vehicular accesses is required.
Conservation and Design - Have made a number of detailed comments and have
raised a number of concerns (see Appendix 3).
English Heritage - Object. The Burlington Hotel is an important building in the
Sheringham Conservation Area and the proposed development will have a major
impact on the Conservation Area. The proposal would result in harm to the historic
significance of the Burlington Hotel and the Sheringham Conservation Area through
partial demolition of the building and new development in terms of paragraphs 132 and
134 of the NPPF. The Council should also consider if the design could be substantially
amended so as to make the new building more appropriate for the conservation area,
but as the application stands we would recommend permission is refused. The full and
comprehensive response from English Heritage is contained in Appendix 3.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to advisory notes being imposed on any
approval regarding asbestos removal and demolition.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
Development Committee
57
27 November 2014
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon the Conservation Area
4. Impact upon neighbouring properties
5. Highway safety and car parking
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Residential Policy Area (Policy SS3) of Sheringham
where appropriate residential development is permitted providing the proposal
complies with other relevant Development Plan policies.
Officers are mindful of the continual maintenance requirements of a building of this
period and scale, and that this is a local business and employer which contributes to
the local economy. Such a development as proposed would allow the capital from the
sale of the apartments to be used to improve and update facilities and address the
condition of the building.
The principle of an extension to the hotel to provide residential accommodation is
acceptable in this location, in accordance with Policy SS3 of the Core Strategy.
However, the Burlington is an iconic building in the Sheringham Conservation Area,
commanding a prominent position over the eastern end of The Esplanade. It is referred
to in the Sheringham Conservation Area Appraisal (Draft Summer 2013). Whilst this is
only a draft document and not adopted it recognises the Burlington as worthy of being
included on the District Council's provisional local list, and worth submitting for national
listing. The building has been selected in the Draft Conservation Area Appraisal for
local listing due to its positive contribution to the townscape. Notwithstanding that this
document is only in draft the Burlington is considered to be an important building in the
town. Any alterations to the existing building therefore requires careful consideration in
terms of design, scale, massing, materials and relationship to surrounding
neighbouring dwellings.
The Committee will note the consultation responses received from the Conservation
and Design Officer and English Heritage. The Conservation and Design Officer
explains the difficulties and constraints that have come to light in seeking a
development proposal that would co-exist comfortably with the existing building. There
are significant doubts over whether a successful 'dialogue' would be established
Development Committee
58
27 November 2014
between the existing and proposed elements. The Conservation and Design Officer
has highlighted that it is rare for them to object to the principle of a contemporary
approach. However, there are two main factors of concerns regarding the proposal as
follows:
•
•
Alongside the existing building, the proposed roofscape would feature a relatively
complicated arrangement of wedge shapes which would surely emphasize the
impact of the extension at high level. Particularly with the building being so visible
from a number of vantage points, it is difficult to imagine how this grouping of
mono-pitched roofslopes would subserviently complement the original building.
Similarly, with no space available to create a separating link, the new build would
have to ‘plug’ directly into the existing elevations with their strong vertical rhythm
and well-defined bays. In practice this becomes extremely difficult as soon as an
extra storey is introduced as floor levels and openings no longer correspond or
sync. That is very much the case here. Whilst overall the extension would have a
vertical emphasis, the rhythm and definition up through the floors and across the
main façade appears on the whole to juxtapose uneasily with the host building –
certainly it seems to offer much stronger horizontal desire lines principally through
the proposed balconies.
There are also concerns that the main focal point of the building would be
compromised by the new work. It is not considered that the proposal would be
subordinate or respectful of the existing, but would have an assertive presence taking
centre stage and working against the original notion of balance. This is a major
concern and as a result it is not considered that the proposal would preserve or
enhance the appearance and character of the conservation area.
Officers have no doubts over the considerable time and effort that the agent and
applicant have put into the submitted proposal. The agent has been undertaking
informal discussions with Officers since April 2013. More recent informal discussions
took place with the agent prior to the submission of the application this year, when the
agent was advised that Officers would be unable to support the proposal primarily on
design grounds. Matters regarding the impact of the proposal on the privacy and
amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and car parking were also
discussed.
A recent meeting has taken place between Officers, the agent and applicant to discuss
Officer concerns. At that meeting possible amendments to the scheme were
suggested. These were primarily in relation to simplifying the roof design and
continuing the horizontal rhythm of the existing building, along with balancing the front
elevation with a bay of proportions to that of the existing building. The agent advised
that these suggestions were not practical and did not work in terms of the proposed
layout. It was therefore suggested by Officers that it may be the case that too much
accommodation is being sought. However, it is recognised that a reduction in the
number of units proposed may have an impact in terms of the viability of the scheme as
a whole.
Unfortunately, Officers, the agent and applicant have been unable to reach agreement
in terms of the acceptability of the design of the scheme, as submitted.
Whilst the principle of the proposal is acceptable the difficulty for Officers and the agent
has been how to best achieve such a proposal in design terms which is appropriate for
the significance of the building.
The Council has to consider whether the proposal will preserve or enhance the
Development Committee
59
27 November 2014
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In terms of considering the design of the proposal the NPPF is also a material
consideration and there are relevant paragraphs which have been considered as part
of this application, as follows:
Paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that "Planning policies and decisions should aim to
ensure that developments:
•
•
•
will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term
but over the lifetime of the development and
respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings
and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; and
are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate
landscaping".
Paragraph 61 of the NPPF states that "planning policies and decisions should address
the connections between people and places and the integration of new development
into the natural, built and historic environment"
It is not considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of the NPPF as
above.
Paragraph 64 states that "permission should be refused for development of poor
design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and
quality of an area and the way it functions".
English Heritage are in agreement with the Conservation and Design Officer as you
will note from their consultation response contained in Appendix 3. English Heritage
consider that the proposal would result in harm to the historic significance of the
Burlington Hotel and the Sheringham Conservation Area contrary to the requirements
of paragraphs 132 and 134 of NPPF. Furthermore, they do not consider that the
information submitted fulfils the requirements of paragraph 128 of the NPPF.
Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires applicants to describe the significance of any
heritage assets affected by a development including any contribution made by their
setting.
English Heritage state that the Council may consider if the new housing provided by
the development might deliver a degree of public benefit as noted in paragraph 134 of
the NPPF. However, English Heritage does not consider it necessary to deliver such
benefit through the design proposed which would result in harm to the heritage asset.
English Heritage also refer to the Council considering if the design could be
substantially amended to make the new development more appropriate for the
Conservation Area.
Whilst this proposal would create 6 new dwellings Officers are in agreement with
English Heritage that the degree of harm that would be caused to the heritage asset
would outweigh the benefits of providing new housing in this case. As explained earlier
in this report informal discussions had taken place with Officers prior to the submission
of this application. Whilst Officers have made suggestions the agent considers that the
scheme as submitted is the most appropriate in order to bring the development
forward. This is not a view shared by Officers or the consultees. It is not considered
that the proposal is acceptable in design terms or in accordance with Policy EN4 of the
Core Strategy. It is considered that the proposal would result in harm to the heritage
Development Committee
60
27 November 2014
asset of the building and the Conservation Area contrary to Policy EN8 of the Core
Strategy.
Furthermore it would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
In terms of impact upon neighbouring dwellings the extension would be six storeys with
a ridge height no higher than that of the existing Burlington building. The orientation of
the building on the site means the front elevation faces north over The Esplanade and
the rear elevation faces south. Whilst there are balconies to the front of the proposed
building they are serving bedrooms apart from the upper ground floor which would
serve a bedroom and living/dining/kitchen. Whilst the front elevation has the sea views
it also has a northerly aspect. Understandably, the agent has designed the apartments
so that the main living/dining/kitchen areas to the remainder of the apartments takes
advantage of the southerly aspect. However, by doing this the southern facing
balconies would significantly increase the potential for overlooking of private garden
areas to the surrounding neighbouring dwellings. Whilst the balconies have side walls
this is not considered to be sufficient to prevent overlooking from taking place. Whilst it
is understood that any extension to the Burlington in this location would require
windows on the southern elevation it is the level to which overlooking could occur that
is being considered. The neighbouring dwellings which are located directly to the south
of the area of the Burlington to be extended are between approximately 25-27m away.
In accordance with the Design Guide when considering Amenity Criteria, which is the
guidance on acceptable distances between dwellings, an additional 3m should be
added to the Amenity Criteria guidance for each additional storey when considering
proposals for flats. The guidance would therefore suggest up to 33m between the
properties to the south and the Burlington. This means there would be a shortfall of
between 6 - 8m in terms of amenity criteria. There are therefore concerns regarding
the current scheme in terms of relationship to neighbouring dwellings, but it is not
considered insurmountable as it may be possible to reduce the impact by altering
internal layouts and external fenestration.
The Committee will note that following the receipt of an amended plan detailing means
of access to the proposed development that the Highway Authority now have no
objection to the application subject to a condition for the existing vehicular accesses to
be upgraded.
In terms of car parking the proposed six units would require 12 car parking spaces as
proposed. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Council's car parking
standards.
In conclusion, there is no objection in principle to an extension of the building in order
for funds to be raised to help maintain this important building in the Conservation Area,
and to improve facilities in order to allow the hotel to continue to function as a business
and local employer. However, whilst Officers are mindful of this situation consideration
also has to be given to the significance of the impact that such a proposal would have
on the town's built environment. The public benefits of such a proposal have therefore
been carefully considered in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF. However, it
is concluded that the proposal as submitted would cause significant harm the heritage
asset contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan and NPPF.
In addition, it is considered that the proposal as submitted would be detrimental to the
privacy and residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Development Plan policies and
Development Committee
61
27 November 2014
the requirements of the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 3 - Housing
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would result in
an unacceptable and inappropriate form of development in this location.
By virtue of the design the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal
would not result in significant harm to the historic significance of the Burlington
Hotel and the Sheringham Conservation Area.
The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a
significant detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers
of neighbouring dwellings to the south, south west and west of the site.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development
Plan policies and paragraphs 128, 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
(10)
SHERINGHAM - PO/14/1126 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling;
Threeways, 47 St Austins Grove for Ms J Rayner and Ms S Thirtle
Minor Development
- Target Date: 27 October 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19880795 PO
Dwelling
Refused 12/05/1988 D 09/03/1989
DE21/14/0041 ENQ
Erection of a Two-Storey Dwelling
06/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
Outline planning permission for the erection of a single-storey detached dwelling
Development Committee
62
27 November 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred for a site visit at the last meeting.
The request for a site visit came from Councillor Richard Smith and supported by the
other local Member.
TOWN COUNCIL
The Town Council object to the application on the following grounds:
1) Insufficient space on the site to allow for turning a vehicle
2) Over development of the site
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection have been received on the following grounds
• Over-intensification of development
• Gross overdevelopment of the site
• Detriment to the character of the area and amenity of adjacent dwellings
• Question the ownership of the land (verge) to the front of 47 St. Austins Grove
• Covenant on each in plot St. Austins Grove limiting one house per plot (HM Land
Registry Title No. NK90587 paragraph 4 of Schedule of Restrictive Covenants)
• Previous application (PO/88/0795) was refused by NNDC and dismissed by the
Planning Inspectorate - there does not appear to be any difference between the
previously refused dwelling and that which is currently proposed
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority: The following is a summary of the highway
engineer's report:
From a highways perspective there would be no change to the level of use associated
with the existing access onto Curtis Lane. The proposed access to St. Austins Grove is
considered to be acceptable to serve the additional use engendered by the donor
dwelling. Highway rights extend to the fenceline on Curtis Lane, as such, the planting
currently along the roadside frontage is considered to be within the public highway and
would need to be removed. This would improve the visibility for all users of St Austins
Grove and the proposed dwelling. In terms of highway safety and subject to the
imposition of conditions the Norfolk County Council Highway Authority does not wish to
resist the grant of permission.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Development Committee
63
27 November 2014
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Principle of Development
Effect of development on the character of the area
Highway Safety
APPRAISAL
St Austins Grove lies in a designated residential area within the settlement boundary of
Sheringham. Sheringham is defined by the North Norfolk Core Strategy as a
secondary settlement where the principle of erecting new dwellings is considered
acceptable, providing compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies. Core Strategy
Policy SS3 specifies that a range of property types, sizes and tenancies should be
provided within secondary settlements so as to meet the housing need of the
population.
The applicant seeks outline permission to erect a single-storey two bed dwelling within
the side garden of 47 St Austins Grove. The principle of a development complies with
policies SS1, SS3 and SS12 of the adopted Core Strategy.
It is considered that all development within North Norfolk should respect the density,
character, landscape and biodiversity of the area. St Austin’s Grove has a clearly
defined development pattern of 20th Century two-storey dwellings. The locality has a
well-established suburban character derived from the building size to plot ratio/spacing
as well as form, scale and palate of materials. Furthermore, Policy EN4 states that
proposals should not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby
occupiers.
The entire site including the existing dwelling is estimated to measure 22m by 24m.
Once divided in two this would create a plot of land 12m by 22m for the new dwelling;
when compared to the surrounding plot sizes this is particularly small, raising fears that
the proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site. Whilst a single-storey
dwelling would lessen the possibility for overshadowing and overlooking and the
perception of overbearing to neighbouring properties the proposal raises concern that
once built it would not leave much in the way of remaining land for private amenity
space.
The North Norfolk Design Guide suggests that private amenity space should be no
less than the footprint of the dwelling on the site. Bearing in mind that adequate parking
and turning space also has to be achieved in order to satisfy Policies CT 5 and CT6 of
the Core Strategy. The plans propose a property of 66sqm., after removing
approximately 40 sq.m for parking/turning that leaves approximately 55 sqm. of
private amenity space to the rear of the property.
Attention also needs to be drawn to the impact the proposed dwelling would have on
the donor property. It is considered the division of the plot would be to the detriment of
the donor property as its private amenity space would be greatly reduced.
Furthermore, the prominence of the site at the junction between Curtis Lane and St
Austins Grove raises fears that any development in this area would have an adverse
Development Committee
64
27 November 2014
impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding context.
Given the size of the plot and subsequent issues over adequate private amenity space,
as well as being located on a prominent corner plot, it is considered that the proposed
dwelling would represent a cramped form of development, have an adverse impact
upon the form and character of the area and be detrimental to the amenity of a
neighbouring property. For these reasons the proposal fails to accord with Adopted
Development Plan policies. The application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
To REFUSE for the reasons specified below:
The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy EN4 in that:
i.
The proposed dwelling would result in a cramped and over-intensive form of
development out of keeping with and damaging to the low-density suburban
character of the area.
ii. The proposed plot subdivision would result in a sub-standard level of amenity
space being retained for the existing dwelling.
(11)
STALHAM - PF/14/0801 - Conversion of storage building to residential dwelling
and erection of attached car-port; Horse Barns, Wayford Road for Mrs K Attree
Minor Development
- Target Date: 25 August 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19931107 PF
Conversion of barns to eight residential units
Approved 22/11/1993
PLA/19883085 PF
Conversion of barns to dwellings & erection of 4 new dwellings
Refused 22/02/1989
PLA/19891726 PF
Convert two barn buildings to seven residential units, garaging and parking spaces
Approved 22/05/1990
PLA/19940758 PF
Conversion of barn a into 3 dwellings
Approved 19/08/1994
CL/13/0283 CL
Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use of building for B8 (storage)
Was Lawful Use 11/07/2013
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission for the conversion of a storage building to a residential dwelling
Development Committee
65
27 November 2014
and erection of attached car port.
The existing building is approximately 22m in length and 6m wide, with a ridge height
of approximately 4m. The extension to create a car port would measure approximately
7m x 5.5m, and just under 4m in height to the ridge.
The building would be clad in black stained horizontal boarding with a clay pantile roof.
The external joinery would be grey stained wood.
The conversion to a dwelling would create a three bedroom property.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Stevens due to the level of local interest.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received raising the following points:
1. The proposed East Elevation in the middle of Drg. 2 should I think be the South
Elevation;
2. The proposal to stain the north elevation black will create a large expanse of
"blackness" facing my property. Could consideration be given to toning this down a
little. I accept that black was the colour adopted when Horse Barns development was
approved (which makes the choice of grey woodwork on the proposed bungalow a little
questionable), but the expanse of paintwork was somewhat less.
3. My main concern centres on maintenance of the access road from the main A149 to
the proposed bungalow. At present, the current 10 no. householders contribute to the
cost of maintenance when required, and I feel that the applicant must be obliged to
enter the same covenant that we were obliged to accept when we bought our
properties.
4. The Wild Life reports, in protecting the habitats of bats etc, effectively restrict
construction to the winter months. This is likely to have an adverse effect on the
access construction which was never designed to take the heavier lorries which
bungalow construction is likely to require. The access last underwent maintenance in
the summer months of 2013, and I consider that the application should lodge a bond
of, say £500-£8000 to repair at her sole cost, any damage caused by construction
traffic.
One letter of comment has been received raising the following:
I have looked at drawings for new bungalow on footprint of the "Turkey Shed" at
Horsebarns - and have no objection to the development, the only inclusion I would
propose that the property please included the responsibility of maintenance, repairs
etc of our residents roadway.
One letter of support has been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - A contaminated land questionnaire has been requested before
further comments are made on this matter. Clarification is also sought regarding
potential of noise and disturbance uses from the adjacent site. An advisory note is
required in relation to foul drainage.
Landscape Officer - No objection. Condition recommended in respect of protected
species.
Development Committee
66
27 November 2014
County Council Highway Authority - Awaiting comments.
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
re-use 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).
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 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Impact upon neighbouring dwellings
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside Policy Area (Policy SS2) where there is a
general presumption against residential development. However, the site is also
located in the Policy H09 zone, where the conversion and re-use of rural buildings as
dwellings is acceptable in principle providing the requirements of Policy H09 can be
met.
There are five criteria set out in Policy H09, which are required to be met. They are as
follows:
1. the building is located within an area identified on the Proposals Map for that
purpose, and
2. the building is worthy of retention due to its appearance, historic, architectural or
landscape value, and
Development Committee
67
27 November 2014
3. the building is structurally sound and suitable for conversion to a residential use
without substantial rebuilding and its setting, and
4. the scheme is of an appropriate scale in terms of the number of dwellings proposed
for the location, and
5. where it is viable to do so, on all schemes resulting in two or more units, not less
than 50% of the total number of dwellings proposed are affordable, or an
equivalent contribution is made in accordance with the requirements of Policy
HO2.
The proposal would comply with criteria 1 and 4, as the site is located within the Policy
H09 zone and the proposal is for a single dwelling which is considered to be
acceptable in this location in terms of number of dwellings. Criteria 5 does not apply in
this case as one dwelling does not trigger the affordable housing requirements. This
leaves criteria 2 and 3 for consideration.
In terms of criteria 2, the building has the appearance of a modest and basic structure,
with a low ridge height, narrow width and a slack roof pitch. A Structural Survey Report
has been submitted with the application and describes the building as 'not substantial'
and that it is a former 'turkey shed'. The Structural Survey Report describes the
building as a 'timber frame', and consisting 'of modest posts at close centres, clad with
horizontal timber boarding. The roof is currently clay pantiles but may well have been
of a sheeted material originally. An inner skin of blockwork apparently is not original
and has been subsequently added'.
It is considered to be a simple construction with no historic or architectural merit. It is
located in between traditional former agricultural buildings to the north (now
converted), and modern agricultural and commercial buildings to the south. It is not
considered that the building has any significant landscape value in this setting. It is as
a result of the appearance of the building, that the proposed residential conversion fails
to demonstrate that it its worthy of retention. It is not therefore considered that the
proposal complies with criteria 2 of Policy H09.
With regard to criteria 3 the Structural Survey confirms that the existing structure is 'not
particularly robust having initially been used for agricultural purposes', and 'as a
storage building it has been allowed to deteriorate'. The clay pantiles on the roof are
considered to be heavier than the original roof finish and this has caused some roof
spread. The timber cladding has suffered deterioration and rot, apart from the area to
the north where it has has been replaced, and the frame requires treatment and
repairs. The roofing material will need to be removed and the supporting structure
strengthened to support the reintroduction of pantiles. The cladding will therefore need
to be removed to allow the introduction of insulation. The Structural Report concludes
that it is considered a substantial proportion of the existing fabric can be retained. The
inner skin of blockwork will remain and whilst the roofing material will be removed this
will allow the structural integrity of the roof trusses to be assessed and enhanced
where necessary. It would therefore appear that the actual structure of the building
would remain with the external materials being replaced, and insulation added. Whilst
an extension, in the form of a car port, is proposed it is not considered that this
constitutes a substantial extension in comparison to the scale of the existing building. It
could therefore be argued that the proposal complies with criteria 3 of Policy H09.
The dwelling has been designed in such a way that the relationship to neighbouring
dwellings to the north is considered to be acceptable. There are no windows facing
north other than high level roof lights. The fenestration has been kept primarily to the
south away from neighbouring dwellings. The amenity space provided would be
acceptable.
Development Committee
68
27 November 2014
At the time of writing this report a response from the Highway Authority was awaited,
and further information requested by Environmental Health in relation to contamination
and noise. The Committee will be updated at the meeting on these matters.
However, notwithstanding the above, or any responses from Environmental Health
and the Highway Authority, the proposal fails to comply with Policy H09 in terms of the
existing building being worthy of retention due to its appearance, historic, architectural
or landscape value and is recommended for refusal accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is one of refusal as set out below
and any other reasons for refusal that may be received from Environmental
Health and the Highway Authority.
1
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS2: Development in the Countryside.
HO9: Conversion & Re-use of Rural Buildings as Dwellings.
The proposal fails to comply with Policy HO9 as the existing building is not
considered to be a good quality building worthy of retention having regard to its
appearance, lack of historic, architectural or landscape value.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the adopted
Development Plan policies.
12.
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 application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
BACTON – PF/14/1181 – Variation of condition 1 of planning permission ref:
SM5180 to permit revised road layout, and changes to design, including
elevations, to units 57-72; Rainbow’s End Chalet Park, Mill Lane for Tingdene
Holiday Parks Ltd.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to allow the Committee to see the site in context
in order to expedite processing of the application.
SCOTTOW – PF/14/1334 – Installation and operation of a ground mounted solar
photo voltaic array to generate electricity of up to 50MW capacity comprising
photo voltaic panels, inverters, security fencing, cameras and other association
infrastructure for Scottow Moor Solar Limited
Development Committee
69
27 November 2014
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
13.
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
July to September 2014, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 4 – to follow) sets out performance for processing planning
applications for the second quarter of 2014/15.
9 major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 128 minor
applications and 176 other applications, a total of 313 applications, a decrease of 44
compared with the previous quarter.
The most recent quarter saw 5 of the 9 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, i.e. 55.56%. Although this is down from 72.73% for the
previous quarter, the cumulative figure for 2013/14 at 66.67% remains comfortably
above the 40% figure set for special measures by the Government.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance decreased by 6.69% to 55.47% over the
previous quarter, as against the Council’s target of 72%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance decreased by 0.06% to
81.25%, above the Council’s target of 80%.
Members will appreciate that performance has dropped over the last quarter, which
has been a time of staff turnover, re-structuring and holidays.
Pre-application enquiries were the same as the previous quarter. Discharge of
Condition applications were up and ‘Do I Need Planning Permission’ enquiries were
down. Duty Officer enquiries were up.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went up to 95.82%, continuing
to be above the Council’s target.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter only
one decision was made, which was dismissed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 564 were submitted and handled during the
quarter, a decrease of 50 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the second quarter of the year has again seen a dip in performance, as
the Service has experienced a period of staff turnover, coupled with re-structuring and
the holiday period of the year. The Service will continue to go through the
Development Committee
70
27 November 2014
re-structuring process for the next quarter. Whilst this will undoubtedly impact on
performance in the short term, steps are being taken to try and minimise that impact.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager ext. 6149)
(14) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/14/1175 - Erection of two-storey replacement rear extension
and creation of link to garage; Barley Cottage, The Green, Aldborough, Norwich,
NR11 7AA for Mr & Mrs Gray
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/14/1157 - Erection of side extension to existing detached garage;
The Would, Walcott Road, Bacton, Norwich, NR12 0LS for Mr C Pealing
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/1199 - Erection of single storey rear extension; 4 School
Road, Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8AT for Mr & Mrs Wilcox
(Householder application)
BINHAM - PF/14/0617 - Conversion and extension of barn to provide habitable
accommodation, erection of extension to 'privy', re-instatement of boundary wall
and installation of side rooflights in main dwelling; The Hyde, 66 Warham Road,
Binham, Fakenham, NR21 0DQ for Ms J Martin Wright
(Householder application)
BINHAM - LA/14/0618 - Internal and external alterations, alterations and
extension of barn, erection of extension to 'privy' and re-instatement of boundary
wall; The Hyde, 66 Warham Road, Binham, Fakenham, NR21 0DQ for Ms J Martin
Wright
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1114 - Conversion of car-port to detached ancillary annexe;
Sedges, Back Lane, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NP for Mrs N Jones
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1092 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential
garden; Jasmine House, Saxlingham Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PB for Mr F
Chalmers
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1168 - Erection of replacement rear conservatory; 70 High
Street, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7AL for Mr Jones
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/14/1169 - Erection of replacement rear conservatory; 70 High
Street, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7AL for Mr T Jones
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1281 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Sea Grass,
Saxlingham Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PB for Mr and Mrs C Miller
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
71
27 November 2014
BRININGHAM - NMA1/12/0242 - Non material amendment to permit change of
windows to ground floor west and north elevations and door and window to
window in east elevation and rooflight to south elevation; Moriah Cottage,
Dereham Road, Briningham, Melton Constable, NR24 2QJ for Mr P Williams
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BRINTON - LA/14/1074 - Installation of two conservation roof lights; Daubeney
Hall Farm, Lower Hall Lane, Sharrington, Melton Constable, NR24 2PQ for Mr
Burkitt
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/14/0862 - Erection of two-storey/first floor rear extension; 49
Fakenham Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2HL for Mr G Gomer
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/14/1203 - Erection of side extension & raise roof height to existing
detached garage; 4 Thornton Close, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2LZ for Mr
and Mrs Coles
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - LA/14/1097 - Demolition of existing front porch and erection of
replacement porch; The Cottage, Wood Street, Catfield, Great Yarmouth, NR29
5DF for Mr Miller
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1132 - Insertion of dormer window to facilitate attic
to be used as accommodation, refurbishment of existing outbuildings to home
office and alterations to windows and doors; Sunbeams, High Street,
Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RN for Mr Clark
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/1133 - Internal and external alterations to windows
and doors, insertion of dormer windows to facilitate conversion of attic space to
habitable accommodation and outbuildings to home office/store/gym/playroom;
Sunbeams, High Street, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RN for Mr Clark
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1127 - Demolition of single-storey side extension
and erection of two-storey side extension and conservatory, insertion of first
floor front balcony, alteration to windows and re-location of car-parking facility.;
Quay House, High Street, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RR for Mr A Livsey
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1282 - Removal of condition 4, 5 and 6 of planning
permission 10/1070 to permit permanent residential occupation; 2 Rectory Hill
Barns, Holt Road, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7TX for Mr Lacoste
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PF/14/0990 - Erection of single-storey detached annexe; Pond Cottage,
North Walsham Road, Banningham, Norwich, NR11 7DU for Mr & Mrs Hewitt
(Householder application)
Development Committee
72
27 November 2014
COLBY - LA/14/0991 - Erection of single-storey detached annexe; Pond Cottage,
North Walsham Road, Banningham, Norwich, NR11 7DU for Mr & Mrs Hewitt
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/14/1054 - Erection of rear single-storey extension and raised
decking and steps; 32 Clifton Park, Cromer, NR27 9BG for Mr M Lyden
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0863 - Erection of two and a half storey dwelling and garage;
Plots 4 & 5 The Embankment, Jubilee Lane, Cromer, NR27 0EN for Priory Homes
(Norfolk) Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0865 - Erection of three dwellings (revised siting) revised siting
of entrance retaining wall and revised parking layout; The Embankment, Jubilee
Lane, Cromer, NR27 0EN for Priory Homes (Norfolk) Ltd.
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/1014 - Erection of single-storey rear extension.; 1 Bittern Rise,
Cromer, NR27 9GU for Mr Richmond
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0975 - Erection of summer house; Estate Managers Office,
Hanover Court, Overstrand Road, Cromer, NR27 0DH for Hanover Housing
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/1201 - Erection of side extension above garage; 5 Holt Road,
Cromer, NR27 9EB for Mr Wilson
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/1237 - Erection of replacement two-storey side/rear extension;
The Watch House, The Gangway, Cromer, NR27 9ET for Mr Hill
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/14/1238 - Erection of two-storey side/rear extension, replacement
single-storey rear extension with roof terrace and internal and external
alterations; The Watch House, The Gangway, Cromer, NR27 9ET for Mr Hill
(Listed Building Alterations)
DILHAM - PF/14/1152 - Conversion of agricultural barn to residential dwelling and
erection of detached single garage and creation of new access; New Barn,
Honing Road, Dilham, North Walsham, NR28 9PR for Fyebridge Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
DUNTON - PF/14/1131 - Variation of condition 9 planning appeal approval ref:
APP/Y2620/A/1127523 (planning permission ref:03/0792) to permit unrestricted
residential occupation.; Shereford Barn, The Street, Shereford, Fakenham, NR21
7PP for Raynham Farm (Co) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/14/1050 - Conversion of workshop to habitable
accommodation; Chapel House, Chapel Road, Erpingham, Norwich, NR11 7QJ
for Mr J Claxton
(Householder application)
Development Committee
73
27 November 2014
ERPINGHAM - NMA1/14/0780 - Non-material amendment request to erect a one
and a half storey rear extension (amended design); Willow Cottage, The Street,
Erpingham, Norwich, NR11 7QB for Mr and Mrs Garwood
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0386 - Erection of five two-storey dwellings; Land at Great
Eastern Way, Fakenham for Ms C R Jackson
(Full Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/1176 - Erection of double stable block; The White House,
Gimingham Road, Trimingham, Norwich, NR11 8HP for Mrs Stackwood
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/14/1170 - Demolition of pitched roof and erection of flat
roof to linked extension, insertion and re-location of doors and windows.;
Methodist Chapel, The Street, Hindolveston for Mrs Webb
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDOLVESTON - LA/14/1171 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
conversion of chapel to residential dwelling; Methodist Chapel, The Street,
Hindolveston for Mrs Webb
(Listed Building Alterations)
HOLT - PF/14/1075 - Alterations to rear extension including construction of
hipped roof, part retrospective; 4 Cley Road, Holt, NR25 6JD for Mrs Allinson
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/14/1049 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 14/0633
to allow re-positioning of detached garage/home office.; Jenis Barn, Thornage
Road, Holt, NR25 6ST for Mr R Woods
(Full Planning Permission)
HONING - PF/14/1135 - Erection of single-storey side/front extension; Mill House,
Lock Road, Honing, North Walsham, NR28 9PJ for Mrs A Waite
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/14/1210 - Erection of rear & side single storey extensions; 15
Broadwater Way, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8LG for Mrs Moore
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/14/1148 - Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of
replacement garden room; Belmont House, Tunstead Road, Hoveton, Norwich,
NR12 8QN for Mr R Bickle
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/14/0852 - Conversion and extension of garage to form
residential dwelling; 93B The Street, Kettlestone, Fakenham, NR21 0AU for Mr &
Mrs T Brown
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/14/1156 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; Colvenor,
Mundesley Road, Knapton, North Walsham, NR28 0RU for Mr Bonham
(Householder application)
Development Committee
74
27 November 2014
LUDHAM - PF/14/1247 - Erection of two-storey rear extension (Revised design of
planning permission 14/0696 omitting dormer & replacing with rooflight); Yew
Tree Cottage, Staithe Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5NP for Mr V Enever
(Householder application)
MATLASKE - LA/14/1167 - Installation of stabilisation piles to south gable;
Jubilee Cottage, The Street, Matlaske, Norwich, NR11 7AQ for Mott- Radclyffe
Farms & Assoc
(Listed Building Alterations)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/1122 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission reference 13/0925 to permit re-location of detached double
garage/store; Ostlers, Burgh Parva Barns, Holt Road, Melton Constable, NR24
2PU for Mrs K Paterson
(Full Planning Permission)
MUNDESLEY - NMA1/14/0290 - Non material amendment request to permit
insertion of window to first floor side extension; 6 Back Street, Mundesley,
Norwich, NR11 8JJ for Mr J Matthews
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/1177 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 1 Beach
Close, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8BH for Mrs Tucker
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1119 - Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection
of detached double garage with accommodation above and installation of
external staircase; Mill House, Bradfield Road, North Walsham, NR28 0ND for Mr
Rossi
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0711 - Change of use from car showroom to D1 (place
of worship); 13-21 Bacton Road, North Walsham, NR28 9DR for New Life
Community Church
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1137 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 13/1364 to permit revised parking and turning layout; Adjacent
Oakfield, 77 Cromer Road, North Walsham, NR28 0HB for Mr H Harvey
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1164 - Demolition of existing side conservatory and
erection of two-storey side extension; 29 Recreation Road, North Walsham,
NR28 0ES for Mr and Mrs Middleton
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/14/1219 - Retention of replacement front porch; 20 Pauls
Lane, Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0PE for Mr Thompson
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - NMA1/14/0984 - Non material amendment to permit to enlargen
proposed double garage by 0.7m; Silver Birches, 1 Pauls Lane, Overstrand,
Cromer, NR27 0PE for Mr C Browne
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
75
27 November 2014
PASTON - NMA1/13/1242 - Non material amendment request to permit insertion
of door and window to east elevation and fenestration revisions to north, south
and west elevations of the proposed garage conversion to holiday
accommodation; Sundial Cottage, Chapel Road, Paston, North Walsham, NR28
9TD for Mr J Manricks
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
RAYNHAM - PF/14/1196 - Retention of perspex roof canopy; 45 Hollow Lane,
West Raynham, Fakenham, NR21 7ET for Mr Sweeney
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PF/14/1183 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
13/1417 to permit single-storey side/front extension; Hill House Farm, Norwich
Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11 8ND for D & M Hickling Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/14/1128 - Demolition of single-storey detached dwelling and
erection of replacement part two-storey/single-storey dwelling; Woodland
Pytchley, Shawcross Road, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9NA for John Loake
Family Settlement
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - NMA1/14/0794 - Non material amendment request to permit the
increase of proposed single storey side extension width to 2.08m; Saxonholme,
Home Close, West Runton, Cromer, NR27 9QF for Mr M Hogan
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
RYBURGH - PF/14/1111 - Erection of detached single-storey annexe
accommodation; Lawn Cottage, Westwood Lane, Great Ryburgh, Fakenham,
NR21 7AP for Mr Dale
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/14/1038 - Change of use of hanger to B2 and B1 use (general and
light industrial use) and associated outside storage; Hanger 4, Former RAF
Coltishall, Scottow, NR105GB for Norfolk County Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1112 - Erection of Jubilee beacon; The Lea's Gardens, The
Esplanade, Sheringham for Sheringham Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AI/14/0892 - Display of illuminated fascia and projecting sign; 29
High Street, Sheringham, NR26 8DS for Yorkshire Building Society
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1083 - Retention of French Doors Conversion of Flat Roof
to Balcony and Creation of Fencing and Trellis; 12 High Street, Sheringham,
NR26 8JR for Mr and Mrs Gray
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0774 - Continued use of A3 (café) for a mixed use of A3
(café)/A5 (hot food take-away) and retention of flue; 26 High Street, Sheringham,
NR26 8JR for Mr A Stevenson
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
76
27 November 2014
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1107 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions,
insertion of replacement dormer windows to north and south roofs; Cobblers, 8A
The Driftway, Sheringham, NR26 8LD for Mr and Mrs J Hampson
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1124 - Continued use of residential property as part
residential and two self-contained holiday units; Magnolia Cottage, 8 Holt Road,
Sheringham, NR26 8NA for Mrs Hornshaw
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1230 - Erection of rear porch and replacement of flat roof
to pitched on garage to facilitate conversion to ancillary accommodation; 8
Uplands Park, Sheringham, NR26 8NE for Mr and Mrs N Catchpole
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/14/1125 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to mixed use of A1 (retail)
and A2 (estate agents); 8 High Street, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9AN for Savannah
Estates and Neuvo
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - PF/14/1134 - Erection of 1.5m boundary wall and two gates; Mill
Pightle House, Hollow Lane, Stiffkey, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1QQ for Ms
Hussain
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/14/1221 - Erection of single-storey side extension;
Brick Kiln Farmhouse, St Giles Road, Swanton Novers, Melton Constable, NR24
2RB for Mr Jenny
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - HN/14/1194 - Prior notification of intention to erect rear
conservatory which would project from the original wall by 5m, would have a
maximum height of 3.35m and would have an eaves height of 2.75m; Manor
House, Dunton Road, Tatterford, Fakenham, NR21 7AX for Mr D Addison
(Householder Prior Notification)
THORNAGE - LA/14/1161 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate the
removal of existing chimney; Thornage Watermill, Holt Road, Thornage, Holt,
NR25 7QN for Thornage Watermill
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1045 - Insertion of first floor window to north
elevation; 7 Tunns Yard, Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1DF for Mr W Lewin
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1150 - Variation of condition 2 of planning
permission ref: 14/0080 to permit single-storey rear extension and the cladding
and rendering of the west elevation's gable wall.; 1 Mill Court,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1HF for Hodgkinson Builders
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1180 - Demolition of front extension & erection of
replacement single-storey front extension; Sea Breeze, Plummers Drive,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1ET for Mr and Mrs Wynne
(Householder application)
Development Committee
77
27 November 2014
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/1004 - Installation of Biomass boiler with associated
housing and storage hopper; The Ship, The Street, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7SZ
for Timewell Properties Limited Pension Fund
(Full Planning Permission)
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/1146 - Erection of two-storey front/side and single-storey
rear extensions and insertion of replacement front dormer windows; 4 All Saints
Close, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7HH for Mr & Mrs Hemsley
(Householder application)
WITTON - PM/14/1153 - Erection of two one and a half storey dwellings; Ash Tree
Farm, Well Street, Witton, North Walsham, NR28 9TR for Mr & Mrs Leggett
(Reserved Matters)
WOOD NORTON - PF/14/1231 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension
with attached car port; The Bungalow, Lyng Hall Road, Wood Norton, Dereham,
NR20 5BJ for Mr and Mrs Henderson
(Householder application)
(15) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ANTINGHAM - PU/14/1192 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to (C3) dwelling house; Wilds Farm, Bradfield Road,
Antingham, North Walsham, NR28 0NG for A W Ditch & Son
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
BACTON - PF/14/1234 - Use of converted out-buildings as separate dwelling; Bay
Cottage, The Green, Edingthorpe, North Walsham, NR28 9SR for Mr Sidebotham
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1228 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
two and a half-storey dwelling.; Hartland, 57 New Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25
7PA for Swan Homes
(Full Planning Permission)
DILHAM - PU/14/1149 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to dwelling house (C3); Tin Lodge, Broad Fen Lane, Dilham
for Bindwell Ltd
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
HAPPISBURGH - PO/14/0937 - Erection of single storey dwelling; Rear of
Danegate, Church Street, Happisburgh, Norwich, NR12 0PL for Mr T Hall
(Outline Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/14/1117 - Installation of replacement first floor windows to front
elevation; 16 High Street, Holt, NR25 6BQ for Dentons SIPP AB Graham
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/14/0824 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement
four-storey dwelling; Hill House Farm, Norwich Road, Roughton, Norwich, NR11
8ND for D & M Hickling Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
78
27 November 2014
APPEALS SECTION
(16) NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park and
ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9JJ
for Crematoria Management Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
LUDHAM - PF/14/0664 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 14 Catfield
Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5QT for Mr A Tedder
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0728 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling and
detached garage; Rear of 3 Benets Avenue, North Walsham, Norfolk for Mr G
Sexton
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
(17) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
No items
(18) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BARSHAM - PF/13/1494 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 01/0855 to permit full residential occupation; Barsham Barns, Green
Way, North Barsham, Walsingham, NR22 6AP for Mr A Hudson
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one
two-storey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills, Cromer,
NR27 9LW for PP3
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0159 - Erection of four semi-detached two-storey
dwellings; 12 Astley Terrace, Melton Constable, NR24 2BS for Melbobby Limited
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0158 - Erection of two detached two-storey
dwellings; 14 Melton Street, Melton Constable, NR24 2DB for Melbobby Limited
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SA for Mr R Banester
WALCOTT - ENF/14/0020 - 2 metre high fence adjacent to highway.; Desamy,
Lynton Road, Walcott, Norwich, NR12 0NA
(19) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
HICKLING – PO/14/0250 – Erection of a Detached Agricultural Dwelling with
double garage details: Land at Poplar Farm Sutton Road Hickling Norfolk NR12
0AS for Mr Harvey Norman APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Planning application PO/14/0250 was for outline permission for a detached agricultural
dwelling with double garage.
Development Committee
79
27 November 2014
The Inspector stated that the main issue was whether or not there are circumstances
justifying the proposed dwelling as an exception to local and national policies that
generally seek to resist development in the countryside.
In the decision-letter the Inspector outlined the relevant national policy (NPPF,
paragraph 55) and the Council’s policies contained in the Core Strategy (policies SS2
and HO5). He then assessed the appellant’s case for the need for a dwelling in this
location, based on current and planned agricultural activities, against the criteria in
policy HO5.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed development would “significantly fail” to
comply with policy HO5 and that, for the purposes of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, it had
not been demonstrated that the proposed development is necessary to meet the
essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
(20) COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
None
Development Committee
80
27 November 2014