Development Committee
Please contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
20 May 2015
A meeting of the Development Committee will be held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices,
Holt Road, Cromer on Thursday 28 May 2015 at 9.30am.
Coffee will be available for Members at 9.00am and 11.00am when there will be a short break in the
meeting. A break of at least 30 minutes will be taken at 1.00pm if the meeting is still in session.
Any site inspections will take place on Thursday 18 June 2015.
Members of the public who wish to speak on applications are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes
before the start of the meeting. It will not be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to
allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of
members of the public. For information on the procedure please read the Council‟s leaflet „Have Your
Say on Planning Applications‟ available from the Planning Reception, on the Council‟s website
www.north-norfolk.org or by telephoning 01263 516159/516154.
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and report
on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so, must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of the public
and you wish to speak, please be aware that you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: (Committee to be appointed at Full Council 20 May 2015)
Substitutes: (To be appointed)
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in
a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE: THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE CHAIRMAN
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1.
CHAIRMAN‟S INTRODUCTIONS
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE
MEMBER(S)
3.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 23
April 2015
4.
5.
6.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS (to be taken under items 9 or 11 below)
(a)
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should
be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(b)
To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of
Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
(a)
To consider any requests to defer determination of an application included in
this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public
attending for such applications.
(b)
To determine the order of business for the meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
7.
OFFICERS‟ REPORT
ITEMS FOR DECISION
(1)
THE GRAHAM ALLEN AWARD FOR CONSERVATION AND DESIGN Pages 1 - 2
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(2)
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/14/1688 - Conversion of agricultural barns to 7
residential dwellings; Barns at Thwaite Hill Farm, Thwaite Road for Mr
Romanos
Pages 2 - 7
(3)
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 57-74; Rainbows End Chalet Park, Mill Lane for Tingdene
Holiday Parks Ltd
Pages 8 - 9
(4)
HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill
for Mr Bradley
Pages 9 – 14
(5)
HOVETON - PF/15/0123 - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of
replacement single-storey dwelling; 2 Summer Drive, for Mr Shepherd
Pages 14 - 16
(6)
ROUGHTON - PO/14/0986 - Erection of thirty dwellings with open space to
provide sports pitch, wetland habitat, space for community facility, car park
and footpath link to village; Land at Back Lane for Mr J T C Mermagen
Pages 17 - 25
(7)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
Pages 25 - 32
(8)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0001 - Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 32
no. dwellings, accesses, roads, open space and associated works; Hilbre,
Holway Road for Norfolk Homes
Pages 32 - 39
(9)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
(10)
SALTHOUSE - APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF S106 OBLIGATION, BARDS
HILL BARNS (Report to follow)
Page 40
(11)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
(12)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
(13)
NEW APPEALS
Page 51
(14)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
Page 51
(15)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
(16)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
Page 52
(17)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
Page 52
8.
ATTENDANCE AT SITE INSPECTIONS
Pages 39 - 40
Pages 40 - 50
Page 50 - 51
Page 51 - 52
Members are requested to confirm whether or not they will be able to attend the site
inspections to be held on 18 June 2015.
9.
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN
AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
10.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and
public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the
grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
PRIVATE BUSINESS
11.
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
12.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Circulation:
Councillors
To be appointed at Full Council 20 May 2015
Substitutes
To be appointed at Full Council 20 May 2015
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of Management Team and other appropriate Officers.
Press and Public.
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 28 MAY 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
THE GRAHAM ALLEN AWARD FOR CONSERVATION AND DESIGN
This report outlines the need to establish a Judging Panel for this year’s Graham
Allen Award and to agree the proposed dates for the judging and presentation of the
awards. There is also an update on the eligibility requirements for entries.
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design was inaugurated in 1982 as a
memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk District
Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the scheme
considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment within the
District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of historic
properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make innovative use of
traditional building forms and detailing.
A Judging Panel needs to be set up to consider, evaluate and judge submissions
under the award scheme, and make awards accordingly. Membership of this Panel will
be drawn from the Development Committee and does not need to be politically
balanced. The Panel comprises nine Members (one of whom will be elected
Chairman), the relevant Portfolio Member, and Mr Edward Allen, Graham Allen’s
eldest son, who once again has kindly agreed to be the permanent representative from
the Allen family. The closing date for entries is 30 June 2015.
It is suggested that the Judging Panel convenes on 12 August 2015 at the Council
Offices to consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will commence
with a short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by a tour of
those short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the Council
Chamber on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with members of the
Judging Panel voting on the entries. The awards will then be presented at a ceremony
later in the year. At the time of writing this report 17 September 2015 after
Development Control Committee would appear to be the preferred date.
The eligibility criteria for entries to the awards have been updated and can be seen in
Appendix 1. These changes include provisions for the use of submitted material for
publicity purposes and confirmation that entries must be located within NNDC’s
planning administrative area.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
That the Committee nominates a total of nine Members to form the
Graham Allen Award Judging Panel, one of whom will be elected
Chairman.
Development Committee
1
28 May 2015
2.
That the date for judging the entries and presentation of the awards be
accepted.
3.
That the revised eligibility criteria for entries be accepted.
(Source: Paul Rhymes, Ext: 6367 – File Reference: GA Award)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/14/1688 - Conversion of agricultural barns to 7
residential dwellings; Barns at Thwaite Hill Farm, Thwaite Road for Mr Romanos
Minor Development
- Target Date: 09 March 2015
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
C Road
Countryside
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Tree Works
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19981302 PF
Formation of vehicular access and driveway
Refused 16/11/1998
THE APPLICATION
Is for the conversion of barns to seven permanent dwellings with associated gardens
and garaging/parking. Proposed unit 5 and parts of proposed units 4 and 7 would
require significant rebuilding/reinstatement.
Two accesses are proposed (following a request from the Highway Authority to reduce
the number of accesses proposed from three to two), an existing access towards the
south of the site and reinstatement of an historic access at the north of the site.
Amended plans have been received in relation to the number of openings proposed to
the northern elevation and roof slope of units 6 and 7 and in relation to the proposed
parking arrangements.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Norman Smith for the following planning reasons:
 Design and Layout
 Landscape impact
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects – The proposal for 7 dwellings, 5 bedroom, 4 bedroom, 3 bedroom and 2
bedroom and only 2 covered parking bays out of 21 will not be in keeping with the rural
Development Committee
2
28 May 2015
aspect. Access is poor, the lane known as Middle Hill is narrow and is used twice daily
by the local school traffic. Perhaps a plan for less dwellings and more discreet parking
bays would be considered more acceptable.
REPRESENTATIONS
5 representations have been received; 3 in support and 2 objecting.
Support on the following grounds:
 There has always been a gateway to the field nearest to the farm entrance that
come out onto Middle Hill
 This access has accommodated all farm machines including combines
 The access is not on a blind bend and visibility was always fine, at least 100m to
the right and 50m to the left
 Proposal will greatly improve the appearance of the barns and the farm yard
 At the moment I live next to a farm that is falling apart with pigs and chickens
running about as they like
 Previously at peak times vehicles would be coming and going through the farm
entrance on Middle Hill every 30mins
 20 ton articulated lorries would enter and exit onto Middle Hill with no problems
 The proposal would generate less traffic than a working farm
 I believe a comment made about a pond along the roadside is incorrect having
worked on the farm for 10-12 years there was never a pond but there was an area
of rough ground with a small building that I believe was used to keep pigs
 What are the alternatives?
 Stay with what we already have (you must be joking)
 The site could not be returned to a working family farm as the buildings are not
suitable for modern farming
 Industrial units; good for jobs but traffic would probably be much higher & noise
pollution could be a problem
 Family homes; sounds good to me – site probably capable of having twice the
number of houses proposed
 The planning department are more than capable of ensuring these homes are built
to a high standard using appropriate materials and resolving any problems that
might arise












Objecting on the following grounds:
Number of dwellings and parking bays proposed is not in keeping with the rural
aspect of the area
too many dwellings proposed
Poor access
The lane Middle Hill, is narrow and winding and used twice a day by school traffic
Access road proposed at the point where the road bends
Plans do not comply with the Core Strategy – too much glazing and quality of single
storey buildings is questionable
Access proposed to the north does not exist
No properties in the area are on main drainage and the land is not suitable for that
many soakaways
With a high water table the number of dwellings proposed the run off would be too
great
A pond has been filled in at the side of the site on Middle Hill, this has been
inadequately filled in and the road floods
Proposed shared drive in this area would probably need serious shoring up
There is really only one access which is the one currently in use
Development Committee
3
28 May 2015

Revised proposal for 2 or 3 dwellings would be appreciated
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No principle objection to this proposal. However, the
number of proposed dwellings appears excessive given the apparent condition of the
barns, the nature of the surrounding highway network and the location of the proposal
in transport sustainability terms. In the particular circumstance of the application the
Highway Authority are willing to be guided by your Authority on the merits of the
application in regard to the above points of concern. I note that this proposal indicates
3 separate points of access to the narrow Middle Hill (U14393). Whilst, subject to
improvements, I have no objection to the central and northern access being utilised the
southern access appears unnecessary and should be removed from the proposal. The
applicants’ suggestion that all three of these accesses are historic is of no bearing as
the southern and northern accesses have clearly not been used for a considerable
period of time. Should your Authority be minded to approve the application I would be
grateful for the inclusion of requested conditions and informative note.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): No objection. The
application was supported by a Protected Species Survey report which included the
results of a building inspection carried out in July 2014 and an emergence survey
carried out in August 2014. The physical survey identified evidence of brown
long-eared bats in the main barn. As a result further survey work was carried out in
accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust’s Good Practice Guidelines. The report
was prepared by Chris Vine a Suitably Qualified Ecologist, the results and conclusions
are deemed sound.
The nocturnal survey identified that a brown long-eared bat is roosting in the main barn
with small numbers of bats potentially roosting in nearby buildings or trees. The barns
provide roosting opportunity throughout the site therefore it is likely that bats will be
encountered during the conversion process.
The report specifies that bats will be disturbed if present however suggests that by
undertaking a check for bats immediately before works commence disturbance can be
avoided. Furthermore the report indicates that to avoid the loss of the bat roost, a roof
void can be incorporated into the conversion maintaining favourable roosting provision
for brown long-eared bats.
Disturbing bats and destroying bat lofts (whether or not bats are present) are offences
under the Habitats Regulations. It is considered that the recommendations proposed
in the report to mitigate the impact on bats would not be achievable and would not
avoid committing an offence under the Regulations. The conversion works involve
creating bedrooms on the first floor of the main barn (where the confirmed bat roost is)
thereby leaving no space for a bat loft. Furthermore specific timing details and
construction methodologies are likely to be required to avoid disturbing bats during
construction.
Although the consulting ecologist has not specified that a European Protected Species
(EPS) Licence will be required to carry out the works to convert the buildings it is
considered that a licence is likely to be necessary. As the conservation status of
non-breeding brown long-eared and pipistrelle bats is relatively low, mitigation and
compensation could be provided which would safeguard the bats during development
and ensure continued roosting opportunities at the barn thereby safeguarding the
population of the bats at the local population level.
The Landscape Section considers that with respect to the impact on bats, an offence
under Article 12 of the European Directive and Regulation 41 of The Conservation of
Development Committee
4
28 May 2015
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) will occur, with or without
mitigation.
In accordance with the Standing Advice issued by Natural England, as part of the
decision making process, the Local Planning Authority must consider whether an EPS
Licence is likely to be granted by Natural England in order to derogate from the
protection of the Habitats Regulations 2010. For the reasons stated above it is
considered that the favourable conservation status of the local bat populations affected
could be maintained.
With reference to the ‘over riding public interest’ and ‘no satisfactory alternative’
elements of Regulation 53, it is considered that reasons such as safeguarding the
sustainable future of historic agricultural buildings worthy of retention in the
countryside, economic viability reasons, and the need to repair and maintain the
buildings would be sufficient to overcome the requirements of Regulations 53.
Based on the evidence provided, I can see no reason why a Natural England EPS
Licence would not be forthcoming subject to the provision of appropriate mitigation and
compensation measures.
In addition to bats, it is not considered that other protected species will be affected by
the development. Evidence of barn owls or nesting birds was not found on any of the
surveys therefore no mitigation is suggested.
Numerous mature trees are located on the site, these would benefit from protection
during construction activities. Furthermore a landscape scheme should be submitted
to ensure that appropriate landscape treatments are incorporated into the scheme
maintaining the local landscape character of the site. To this I would recommend
placing a condition on the permission requiring the submission of a landscape scheme
detailing all the trees on the site, those to be retained and methods for their protection
plus hard and soft landscape treatments.
I would also recommend that permitted development rights are removed with respect
to erecting structures and boundary treatments.
The British Standard for Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development
(BS 42020:2013) indicates that where a European protected species is affected by
development and where an offence cannot be avoided through mitigation, the
competent authority should impose a planning condition preventing development from
proceeding without first receiving a copy of the EPS licence. The Landscape Section
recommends that such a condition is included on any permission given.
Environmental Health: No objection. Conditions requested in respect of disposal of
sewage and surface water
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, 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
5
28 May 2015
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
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 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. Design
2. Highway safety
3. Landscape impact
APPRAISAL
The application site is located within the Countryside Policy Area and within an area
designated as a suitable location for the conversion of rural buildings for residential
use under Policy HO9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
This policy permits the conversion of buildings in the countryside to permanent
dwellings subject to the buildings being worthy of retention due to their appearance,
historic, architectural or landscape value. It is considered that the barns are of quality
and of historic, architectural and landscape merit and in good condition except for the
barns to the southern boundary of the site. Part of barn 4 and the majority of barn 5
consist of the original rear wall only with the existing structure being timber frame with
corrugated sheet roof. In addition some new build is proposed to the barns to the north
of the site (units 6 and 7). Criterion 3 of Policy HO9 requires the building to be
structurally sound and suitable for conversion to a residential use without substantial
rebuilding or extension and that the alterations protect or enhance the character of the
building and its setting. Supporting evidence has been submitted illustrating the
original form of the historic complex and reasons why parts of the original building
(barn 5/4) had been lost. It is considered that in this instance the amount of rebuilding
proposed is acceptable and would benefit the scheme by reinstating the historic form
of the farm complex and improve the relationship of the site with nearby neighbours.
Development Committee
6
28 May 2015
In terms of highway safety an amended plan has been submitted which reduced the
number of accesses proposed form three to two. On this basis the highway authority
has no objection to the proposal. Objection has been raised by the Parish Council and
by public representations on the suitability of the proposed accesses to the site;
notwithstanding these objections it is considered that a refusal on highway safety
grounds, without any objection raised by the highway authority, would be difficult to
justify. It is recommended that any approval should be subject to the imposition of
conditions relating to appropriate surfacing of the proposed accesses and provision of
visibility splays as requested by the highway authority.
The number and mix of units proposed is considered to be acceptable given the
historic layout of the site. Policy HO1 regarding dwelling mix and type would normally
require, on schemes of five or more dwellings, for at least 40% to comprise not more
than 70sqm internal floorspace and incorporate two bedrooms or fewer. The proposal
would provide one two-bedroom unit with approximately 95sqm internal floorspace,
one three-bedroom unit, one five-bedroom unit and four four-bedroom units. However,
it is considered that compliance with Policy HO1 would result in the conversion
requiring unacceptable levels of alteration by way of new openings and would increase
the number of units proposed such that overall the proposal would fail to protect the
rural character of the area. It is not considered that non-compliance with this policy
alone would be sufficient grounds for a refusal, particularly as the Government has
removed the ability of the District Council to require affordable housing contributions
on schemes of less than 10 dwellings. Members are therefore advised that Policy HO2
does not apply in this instance.
Concerns have also been raised in relation to the proposed parking layout. Amended
plans have been submitted which have removed 12 parking spaces from adjacent the
northern access and the area immediately to the west of unit 7 replacing with 4 spaces
located to the south western corner of unit 7 and to the south eastern corner of unit 6.
Covered parking spaces to be provide for units 3 and 4 at the south eastern corner of
the site. It is considered that the level of parking spaces provided meets the car parking
standards required by the Core Strategy and that proposed parking will be largely
screened from outside of the site by landscaping and existing boundary treatments.
The Committee will also note that the Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the
application in terms of impact upon the landscape, biodiversity and Protected Species
subject to the requested conditions being imposed on any approval.
Whilst this application may not comply with Policy H01 the proposal is considered to be
in accordance with other relevant policies of the North Norfolk Core Strategy and is
therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions referred to in the report
above and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
Development Committee
7
28 May 2015
3.
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 57-74; Rainbows End Chalet Park, Mill Lane for Tingdene
Holiday Parks Ltd
This application was previously considered by the Development Committee on the 18
December 2014. The original report to that Committee is attached as Appendix 2.
Members resolved to approve the application conditional upon the submission of a
legal agreement from the applicant not to build chalets identified as numbers 74, 57,
58, 59 and 60 on the extant planning permission as it would otherwise increase the
total number of chalets that could be erected on the site. The agent indicated prior to
the Development Committee their willingness to enter into a unilateral agreement (a
form of section 106 agreement) agreeing that those chalets would not be built.
A revised siting for units 59 and 60 together with a satisfactory parking layout was
received prior to the previous Development Committee and reported verbally at the
time. It was resolved at that meeting:
“That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions, including agreement to ensure that
only one approved scheme is implemented.”
Appraisal
Rainbow Chalet Park is outside the Development Boundary for Bacton where new
dwellings or holiday units such as those proposed are contrary to Policy SS 1, and in
this location Policy EC 7 makes it clear that new build unserviced holiday
accommodation should be regarded as new dwellings. It is understood that the chalet
park does not operate as a holiday park but that the chalets are sold on long leases as
holiday homes though their maybe some individual lettings for holiday purposed. In
the circumstances any proposal that results in a net gain in the number of chalets
should be regarded as new dwelling and contrary to the Council’s housing strategy.
The unilateral undertaking was sought as in order to make the scheme acceptable in
the Countryside policy area there should be no overall increase in numbers of chalets
on the site for the reason explained above. Moreover, it would also ensure that four of
the five chalets with extant permission would not be built in the 100 year Coastal
Erosion zone. The applicant agreed this approach and to provide a unilateral
undertaking. This was reported verbally at the Development Committee meeting and
the resolution made on that basis.
Members will be aware that a S106 legal agreement and a Unilateral Undertaking are
both forms of planning obligations sanctioned under the Town and Country Planning
Acts. They are used where the applicant needs to undertake actions or as in this case
inaction for the development to be acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. The
main differences being that a S106 agreement is signed by the applicant and any party
with an interest in the land as well as the Local Planning Authority, whereas a unilateral
undertaking is signed by the applicant and any party with an interest in the land. A
unilateral undertaking is generally regarded as the faster method of providing such a
legal agreement. Either form of planning obligation is equally binding on the land and
subsequent owners.
The unilateral undertaking forms part of the Decision Notice and the wording of the
undertaking must be agreed prior to issuing a planning permission. In this instance
no agreement over the wording could be reached. The applicant retracted their
Development Committee
8
28 May 2015
decision to provide a unilateral undertaking because the company refused to accept a
clause that the undertaking being binding on successors in title to Tingdene Holiday
Parks Limited.
Consequently, the application is being reported back to Development Committee with
a recommendation that the application be refused as the increase in chalet numbers
would be contrary to the policies of the Development Plan.
Reason for refusal
The proposal would, if approved, lead to an increase in the number of holiday units that
could be built on site. Such holiday units would provide unserviced accommodation
and are therefore treated as new dwellings in planning terms. Therefore, the proposal
constitutes an unacceptable form of development in the Countryside policy area where
there is a general presumption against residential development. It is considered that
the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that there are material
considerations to justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this case or that
compliance with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework has been
achieved.
4.
HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill for
Mr Bradley
Target Date: 27 May 2015
Case Officer: Miss J Smith
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Listed Building
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
N/A
THE APPLICATION
The application is for the change of use from hairdresser (A1) to a pizza restaurant
(A3) at 4 Fish Hill in Holt.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Baker due to the impact upon residential amenity.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the application. There appear to be inadequate information on relevant
points such as vent system, provision for large trade bins, parking, danger of fire, hot
gas escaping and no vent system. This is not a change of use from a café and the
new use of a restaurant would have far reaching implications with regard to smell and
noise, and other properties in the town would be better suited to this kind of business.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, 13 representations have been received (12 objections/1 comment) raising the
following:
Development Committee
9
28 May 2015





















Length of opening hours.
Concern with the impact of litter and request assurances that this will be addressed
by the operator the business.
More competition for existing A3 businesses in Holt.
Concerned with the potential for noise and disturbance with adjoining residential
flats, by virtue of the proposed business, small courtyard, extractor unit and
opening hours.
Concerned about the impacts upon the party wall.
A further food outlet would impact upon the existing character of the Georgian
town.
Holt needs more shop not food outlets.
Concern with respect to location of proposed commercial wheelie bins and their
proposed collection.
Concern with the impact of the proposed flue.
Questions whether the premised will serve alcohol and lack of information in
respect to this issue within the planning application.
Lack of parking proposed.
Potential fire hazard due to the small rear courtyard.
Concerned with the proposed wheelie bin being located within the public alley.
Confirmation of land ownership of land within the rear courtyard.
Concerns as to the impact of water, utilities and shared pipes of these older
buildings.
Concern as to adequate sound proofing.
Lack of information in respect to extractor fans, air conditioning and the impact
upon the listed building.
Concerns with the proposed location on the rear of the building and impact upon
existing window openings.
Questions whether gas bottles are being proposed.
Concern that no fire exit is shown.
Has taken legal advice, no right to install anything overhanging neighbour's land.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways: Given the town centre location of the site in an area
covered by well controlled waiting restrictions, limited waiting parking bays and good
access to public transport links and public car parking, no objections are raised in
respect to highway safety.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to satisfying conditions relating to the
following: noise level insulation, noise level scheme to be submitted, and instillation of
an extractor/ventilation system, opening hours and noise from kitchen operations.
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
28 May 2015
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (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 EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
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
 Change of use
 Residential amenity
 Highway safety
 Impact on listed building
APPRAISAL
Location and principle of development
The vacant unit in question occupies the ground floor of a two-storey building located
within a group of buildings fronting Fish Hill, leading to the Market Place in the centre of
Holt town. The unit was formerly used as hairdressers, an A1 use. As the unit is
situated within the Town Centre policy designation for Holt, under Policy SS 5 of the
North Norfolk Core Strategy, the use for retail and other uses compatible with the town
centre are deemed to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other
relevant Core Strategy policies.
Change of use - North Norfolk Core Strategy Policy EC 5
The site is within the Primary Shopping Area but it is not within a Primary Retail
Frontage where the policy seeks to protect premises for A1 (retail) shopping uses.
Therefore, the principle of change of uses from an A1 ‘Hairdressers’ to an A3
‘Restaurant’ is acceptable.
National Planning Policy Framework - Town Centres
The government is taking an increasingly flexible approach to town centre uses.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities should 'promote competitive
town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer...'. Although a
number of restaurants/cafes already exist in the town, allowing this proposal will add to
competition and choice which will be of benefit to consumers. Competition with other
similar businesses is inevitable and is not a planning reason for refusal.
Paragraph 10 of the NPPF also states that 'Plans and decisions need to take local
circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunities for
achieving sustainable development in different areas.' Furthermore, paragraph 19 of
the NPPF states that 'Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an
Development Committee
11
28 May 2015
impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on
the need to support economic growth through the planning system.' Taking the issue
of sustainable development into account, the proposal could be argued as sustainable
as it is located in the town centre, with good links to public transport and adjacent to an
existing car park. It also brings a vacant listed building back into use and therefore
represents a good opportunity to revitalise a sustainable brownfield site.
It is also worth noting that the flexible approach to town centres is also made clear
through the Government's recent changes to Permitted Development Rights relating to
retail units. Under these rights, it is possible to the change the use of the unit in
question to an A3 use for a temporary period of up to two years without planning
permission. Whilst this flexibility does not apply to statutory listed buildings, it is clear
from the changes in recent Permitted Development Rights that the exclusion of listed
building is to ensure that special historic or architectural interest of the heritage asset is
not compromised.
Design and appearance (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
The building lies within the Conservation Area of Holt and is a Grade II Listed Building.
Design and impact upon the Listed Building and Conservation Area
The application is simply for the change of use only and whilst indicative details have
been provided illustrating the proposed internal layout and seating plan, the application
has stated that no changes are proposed to the external façade fronting Fish Hill. In
respect to any proposed flue or ventilation system, no formal details have been
provided as part of the planning application. However, informal discussion with the
Conservation and Design Team have indicated that if the flue is situated to the left
hand side of a modern extension, it is unlikely to harm the overall significant of the
Listed Building or be seen within the Conservation Area. In respect to the impact of
sound proofing, if it principally involves the under drawing of existing ceilings then this
would unlikely cause concern. In these circumstances, it is considered appropriate to
attach a note to any planning permission granted that the permission relates solely to
the change of use of the building and that any internal or external alterations to the
building may require further Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission. This
would be to ensure that the development would preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of designated assets, in this case the listed building and its setting through
high quality, sensitive design and ensure that no adverse impact would occur on the
special historic or architectural interest of the listed building.
As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 in
terms of the change of use.
Amenity
In respect to noise, emissions, hours of use and waste concerns, it is recommended
that these can effectively be resolved with conditions imposed for the prior approval of
ventilation and extraction systems, as well as the hours of use, close of business and
storage of waste. This would allow the Council to ensure that any conditions imposed
are satisfactory discharged and are compliant with Environmental Health
requirements.
The applicant has confirmed that the following can be conditioned to any planning
permission granted as advised by Environmental Health:
Development Committee
12
28 May 2015


The opening hours as stated identified within the application of 08:00-22:30 from
Monday to Saturday and 08:00 – 22:00 Sunday.
The closure of doors and windows from 9pm (except for access or egress) and bins
are not emptied between 11pm and 7am.
Any installation of extractor equipment will be dealt with under conditions requested by
Environmental Health. To address concerns surrounding residential amenity, the
applicant has been advised to provide information surrounding noise, odour and
extraction/ventilation equipment ‘up front’ and members will be updated verbally at
Committee on any submitted proposals.
Turning to the storage of waste, the Environmental Health Officer has advised that
providing that any proposed bins are enclosed and located on land that the applicant
has a right of access to then this would be comparable to other restaurants in the
locality and no objection would likely be raised A condition will be attached to any
planning permission granted requiring details of the refuse storage areas to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Environmental Health Officer has requested further notes being attached to any
planning permission granted in association with trade waste and demolition.
The Environmental Health Officer raised no objections subject to conditions.
The restriction on anything projecting/overhanging neighbouring property is a civil
matter.
Access and Parking (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The building is located within the town centre and adjacent to existing car parks where
ample parking currently exists. The building is also within short walking distance of
public transport services. Furthermore, the Highway Authority have raised no
objection to the proposal in regards to parking and current flows of traffic and as
such, it is considered to be compliant with Policies CT 5 and CT 6.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy SS
5, SS 9, EN 4, EN 8, EC5, CT 5 and CT 6.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve subject to the following conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
2. The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
3. Before the use is commenced, the building shall be insulated in accordance with a
scheme to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a scheme shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which
specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site.
5. Prior to the first use of the restaurant hereby permitted full details of the installation
Development Committee
13
28 May 2015
of any extractor or ventilation equipment shall be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority for approval. The submitted details shall include measures to control
noise and odour. The equipment shall be installed and thereafter maintained in
accordance with the approved details.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of refuse
storage areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
7. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following
times, 08:00-22:30 from Monday to Saturday and 08:00 – 22:00 Sunday.
8. All external doors and windows to the building shall be kept shut from 9pm (except
for access or egress) and bins are not emptied between 11pm and 7am.
5.
HOVETON - PF/15/0123 - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of
replacement single-storey dwelling; 2 Summer Drive for Mr Shepherd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 22 April 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Major Hazard Outer Zone
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/15/0123 PF
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement single-storey dwelling
THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for a replacement single-storey four bedroom dwelling, consisting of a
hipped roof, along with a small porch and single attached garage. The footprint of the
dwelling will more than double in size, whilst the materials proposed are dark grey tiles
and coloured render, along with upvc doors and windows. The positioning of the
proposed garage will change from the existing garage position, with the access point
from the private drive remaining in the same position.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr N Dixon in regards to the scale of the proposed development,
taking account of the density, form and character of the surrounding area.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - no objection.
Conservation, Design & Landscape (Landscape) - no objection subject to conditions.
Development Committee
14
28 May 2015
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Scale of proposed development
2. Form and character of the surrounding area
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The dwelling lies within the residential area of Hoveton, as defined under Policy SS 3
of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this area, proposals for replacement
dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with
other relevant Core Strategy policies.
Design and scale (Policy EN 4)
The single-storey design with a hipped roof, along with the use of the materials as
mentioned above, are considered to be appropriate for the location and its
surroundings. The proposed increase in the footprint of the dwelling is substantial,
indeed doubling in size. The form and character of the settlement in this particular
location is one of relatively modest dwellings within substantially large plots and as
such, the proposed dwelling would not necessarily conform with this pattern of
development.
The density of development on the remainder of Summer Drive is approximately 9
dwellings per hectare, the application proposal equates to 11 per hectare with the
estate opposite having a density of 15 dwellings per hectare (when block of open
space included). However, given that the property will remain single-storey, situated
within a corner plot on the edge of the estate, and benefits from boundary fencing and
a hedge along the south-eastern boundary, it is not considered that overdevelopment
is a justifiable reason for refusal in this particular case.
It should be also noted that under current Permitted Development Rights, the property
could be substantially extended without the need for planning permission, thus it is
argued that the current arrangement provides a more cohesive design than that which
Development Committee
15
28 May 2015
could have been previously achieved under these rights in a piecemeal fashion. Given
the increase in size, it is deemed appropriate that should the application be approved,
permitted development rights to extend the property further would be removed.
In terms of outdoor amenity space, the North Norfolk Design Guide requires than this
space should be no less than the footprint of the proposed dwelling. Although a lot of
the existing amenity space would be covered by the new dwelling, there would be
enough left to comply with this standard. As such, in terms of design, it is considered
that the proposal complies with Policy EN 4.
Neighbouring amenity (Policy EN 4)
Although the increase in size brings the dwelling closer to the neighbouring
boundaries, as all the proposed windows are at ground floor level with fencing around
the boundaries of the site, none of the proposed windows should have any detrimental
impact in terms of privacy. Furthermore, given that the dwelling is single-storey, there
should be no significant loss of light to any neighbouring properties. Originally the
roof of the proposed garage was slightly higher than the rest of the bungalow and as
such, may have possibly affected the front window of the neighbouring property to the
northwest, however, amended plans have been received that show that this has been
dropped in height to now be in line with the rest of the bungalow. As such, in terms of
residential amenity, it is considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy EN 4.
It is also noted that there are existing trees in the south-east corner of the site, which
are deemed as being of importance by the Landscape Officer, and as such should be
protected by way of conditions.
Major Hazard Zone - Outer Zone (Policy EN 13)
The site lies within a Major Hazard Zone - Outer Zone. A PADHI assessment has been
run for the site and the proposal, which confirms that there is no objection to a
replacement dwelling. As such, the proposal is compliant with Policy EN 13.
Parking (Policy CT 6)
Given that the number of bedrooms is rising from three to four, there is a requirement
for four bedroom dwellings to provide three parking spaces. There is ample room on
the site to provide this and as such, the Highway Authority have not raised an
objection. The access point for the dwelling will remain the same. The proposal is
therefore compliant with Policy CT 6.
Conclusion
It is acknowledged that the size of the proposed bungalow is substantially larger than
the existing bungalow and thus does not wholly conform to the character of the
surrounding settlement. it is not, however, considered that this matter alone is of
sufficient weight to warrant refusal of this particular application and in all other
respects, the proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate
by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
16
28 May 2015
6.
ROUGHTON - PO/14/0986 - Erection of thirty dwellings with open space to
provide sports pitch, wetland habitat, space for community facility, car park and
footpath link to village; Land at Back Lane for Mr J T C Mermagen
Major Development
- Target Date: 09 January 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Flood Zone 2 (part)
Flood Zone 3 (part)
Contaminated Land Buffer
Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)
THE APPLICATION
The application is for 30 dwellings, together with the provision of community facilities
and off-site highway improvement works. Details of access and layout are the only
matters being formally applied for at this stage. The application site (3ha) is divided
into two distinct areas comprising the housing development to its front half bordering
onto Back Lane, and the proposed sports pitch, car park (18 spaces), area for a future
community facility and wetland habitat covering the rear half of the site. A footpath is
indicated from the proposed housing development across the open space to link with
the village's main facilities (onto Old Turnpike Road).
Amended layout and access plans have been submitted during the course of the
application.
A single access road is proposed off Back Lane which would meander through the
housing site to terminate at the car park. A series of private drives serving small groups
of dwellings would link onto the main access road. No dwellings would have direct
vehicular access onto Back Lane. Off-site highway works are proposed to include the
provision of a footpath along Back Lane, a small section of footpath on nearby Old
Turnpike Road, the part widening of Back Lane, junction alterations at Back
Lane/Norwich Road and the introduction of a 20mph speed limit along part of Back
Lane and Old Turnpike Road.
The housing layout indicates a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced
properties with an adjoining drainage attenuation pond
The application is supported by the following documents:
 Design & Access Statement
 Flood Risk Assessment
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Draft S106 Heads of Terms Agreement
 Contamination Report
 Archaeological Report
 Footpath Appraisal Report
 Wetland Restoration Plan
 Ecological Survey
 Arboricultural Implications Assessment/Method Statement
 Viability Appraisal (confidential)
Development Committee
17
28 May 2015
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Comment that agreement should be reached for the maintenance of the mature
trees/hedges along the boundary adjoining 1 Orchard Close. There is a concern that a
6ft fence would be installed leaving responsibility for the trees with the owner of 1
Orchard Close, when they are actually owned by the landowner of the application site.
Also want to secure the handover of the land and football pitch to the Parish Council
prior to the 16th house being occupied under the S106 agreement, together with
confirmation that the infiltration basin of 445m2 will be able to accommodate the level
of water which will impact this and the surrounding area.
Further comments - the Parish Council would agree to adopt the open space, subject
to a substantial maintenance contribution for maintenance purposes. Also comment
that the proposed roadways are extremely wide which are out of character for the rural
area.
REPRESENTATIONS
5 letters of objection received raising the following issues:















Boundary fencing and the maintenance of tree/hedges between the site and
properties along Orchard Close
Security of the proposed drainage basin.
Traffic volume along Back Lane, which it used as a 'rat-run' and its ability to
accommodate extra traffic.
Practicality of increasing the width of Back Lane and pedestrian safety along the
lane
Concerns regarding the visibility of the junctions onto Back Lane
Concerns over the potential for an increase in volume/speeding of traffic down Old
Turnpike Road
Inappropriate proposals for a wetland area, questioning maintenance of proposed
fruit trees and Hagon Beck
The proposed pond is in the wrong place and too much grass cutting is proposed
The siting of the footpath is not good and is unsafe.
Concerns over drainage of the football pitch.
Houses should have environmentally friendly features and features to enhance
biodiversity
Concerns over drainage and increased flooding as a result of the proposals
Noise pollution from the recreational area/footpath and antisocial behaviour
Potential for dog mess
Concerns around the provision of the wetland habitat and the effect this will have
on existing wildlife.
8 letters of support have been received raising the following points:





Not enough properties to go round so will provide more supply
Provides a safe area for children away from main roads
Will provide needed recreational facilities
Will improve the traffic situation in Roughton
Further detailed comments provided with regard to the registering of the open
space land as 'village green' and the relocation of play equipment from elsewhere
in the village to this site.
Development Committee
18
28 May 2015
In addition, a letter has been received from the Open Spaces Society who consider it
vital that the open space is voluntarily registered as a village green, and any planning
approval conditioned as such. Consideration should also be given towards the
relocation of the play space in Roughton to this site. Also comment that the proposed
footpath link is vital, but would prefer to see a link of bridleway status or higher and
should be a permanent public right of way. Would prefer to see the widths of any new
public rights of way adhere to those sought in Section 6.3.3 of the Norfolk Rights of
Way Improvement Plan.
In view of the vital, ongoing importance of the path link in this case, in relation to the
proposed development, we would suggest that the path would need to become a
publicly maintainable highway and any consent should be conditional on this basis.
The design of the path would therefore appear to be deficient in terms of its apparent
lack of viability as a path which the Norfolk County Council would be prepared to
accept as a highway maintainable at the public expense. It would therefore appear to
be desirable that a design of path construction instead be proposed whereby this
would be capable of becoming a publicly maintainable path, to the satisfaction of the
County Council.
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways)
No objection to the revised plans, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to
road construction details, visibility splays, construction traffic, off-site improvement
works and promotion of a 20mph speed limit.
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations)
Advises that there is sufficient available capacity in nearby schools to cater for the
development. Requests that a financial contribution towards library provision (£60 per
dwelling) is secured by a S.106 Planning Obligation together with the provision of one
fire hydrant. Recommends incorporation of green infrastructure features in and around
the site to be secured by planning condition.
Strategic Housing
The applicant has submitted a viability assessment to evidence that there is no viability
to provide any affordable housing on the site. The submitted viability information has
been thoroughly assessed and reviewed and as a result it has been concluded that
there is no viability to provide any onsite affordable housing due to the specific
circumstances of this site. The assessment of the viability showed that whilst not all
of the inputs were accepted, amending these to reflect figures which were considered
appropriate did not generate sufficient viability in accordance with guidance on how
viability assessments should be assessed to allow for the inclusion of any onsite
affordable housing.
The viability assessment reflects the financial position now of the proposed
development, however, the viability of the development may change as the site is
developed and therefore the Section 106 Agreement should include the Council’s
standard affordable housing uplift clauses to enable the viability of the development to
be assessed near the end of the development to ensure that if the viability of the site
has improved, this improvement results in a financial contribution for affordable
housing.
To conclude, the Housing Strategy Team does not object to the approval of this
application without any onsite affordable housing on the basis that the Section 106
Agreement for this site contains the Council’s standard affordable housing uplift
provisions. If the application was to be approved without the standard affordable
Development Committee
19
28 May 2015
housing uplift provisions being included in the Section 106 Agreement for the site, the
Housing Strategy Team would object to the approval of this application.
Conservation, Design & Landscape (Conservation & Design)
No objection in principle to the number of units being proposed or the mixture of
dwelling types being incorporated within the scheme. The revised layout represents a
significant improvement on the original submission. The scheme now incorporates
much more potential from a design perspective, more visual interest, better
interrelationship between dwellings and improved amenity space.
Conservation, Design & Landscape (Landscape)
Submitted as part of the application is an Ecological Survey prepared by Norfolk
Wildlife Services dated May 2013, together with a Wetland Restoration Plan and
Schedule of Works dated January 2014. The survey highlights a number of significant
ecological features both within and surrounding the site (such as the County Wildlife
Sites downstream) that may be affected by the development. This includes wet
grassland habitat, an intact mature hedgerow, potential for water vole, otter,
amphibians, grass snakes and breeding birds. Some of the effects on these features
can be mitigated for, however some elements may be lost or the extent of the effect is
unclear.
Of concern is the loss of the wet grassland to provide the football pitch and the
potential for the County Wildlife Sites downstream of the site to become contaminated
with pollutants from run off. The loss of the wet grassland may be compensated for by
the proper management of the remaining wet meadow for conservation
purposes. However, although a Wetland Restoration Plan and Schedule of Works
has been submitted it is not clear who will implement it and how it will be funded? In
addition, there is no information on how the wetland will be managed in the long term
and again how this will be funded? The Wetland Restoration Plan and Schedule of
Works does not provide any detail on how the raised boardwalk and cycleway will be
constructed or how this will be maintained. The Ecological Report also identified that
Hagon Beck could be improved to reduce the siltation that occurs yet there is no
mention of this habitat improvement in the Restoration Plan. This should be included
to optimise the restoration of the significant habitats. Although restoration is proposed
in accordance with the policy requirements there is currently no guarantee that the
restoration is achievable, sustainable in the long term or will adequately compensate
for the loss of the wet grassland.
With reference to the potential for pollutants to enter Hagon Beck via run off, it is noted
that an attenuation lagoon is proposed (although this is not referenced in the
Ecological report). It is assumed that this will intercept the surface water runoff from
the site development. Full details for this lagoon should be submitted as part of any
reserved matters application to illustrate that this is capable of intercepting the run off
and filtering the pollutants before the water enters the ground water.
The amended layout plan illustrates that dwellings off the ‘mews’ area will back directly
onto the mature hedge. Not only does this result in a strange relationship between the
dwellings and the hedge it also places a strain on the hedge in terms of future
management and retention and could also be damaged during construction. These
dwellings should be moved back away from the hedge and the Arboricultural Report
and Tree Protection Plan amended to account for the new layout.
Environment Agency
No objection subject to a condition relating to the submission of a surface water
drainage scheme.
Development Committee
20
28 May 2015
Anglian Water
Advises that there is available capacity at the Roughton Water Recycling Centre and
sewerage system to accommodate the development. Recommends that details of
surface water drainage should be subject to a condition of approval.
Environmental Health
Requests conditions to require further land contamination investigation and details of
sewage disposal.
Norfolk Wildlife Trust
No objection in principle to the proposal, but is concerned that permission should only
be granted if the proposed measures for biodiversity mitigation and enhancement
referred to in the submitted ecological survey, the wetland restoration plan and
schedule of works are secured by means of legal agreement or planning condition(s).
These measures include the creation of a local nature reserve, restoration of Hagen
Beck and the prevention of pollution to downstream County Wildlife Sites.
Parks & Countryside Manager
Advises that in order to be fit for purpose, the sports pitch which is to be provided
should be properly constructed by a qualified contractor with land drainage, thorough
cultivation, levelling and seeding. The pitch would require an on-going annual
maintenance regime to include mowing, aeration, pest control, fertiliser application and
overseeding. Such a maintenance regime is likely to cost approximately £4-6K a year.
The pitch is close to private properties in places and consideration should be given to
whether fencing should be provided to prevent balls going into gardens and the visual
impact that such fencing could have.
Queries whether sufficient demand exists for the sports field and suggests it may be
better to replace it with a general informal open space. This could then accommodate a
children's play facility. The existing children's play area in Roughton is at the other side
of a busy road and would not be best located to serve the new development.
Norfolk Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer)
No objection to the amended layout.
Norfolk County Council (Archaeology)
Requests a condition to require the submission of a programme of archaeological
work.
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 Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted
February 2011)
Development Committee
21
28 May 2015
Policy ROU03/10 (Land at Back Lane, Roughton).
Land amounting to 3 hectares is allocated for residential development of
approximately 30 dwellings and at least 1.7 hectares of public open space and
community facilities. 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 and other
community needs as required and:
a. provision of vehicle access to Back Lane;
b. submission of a satisfactory highways scheme to mitigate the effect of additional
traffic on Back Lane;
c. completion of a legal agreement to secure the provision of community facilities and
public open space in perpetuity; (open space referring to the football pitch, wetland
habitat, parking facilities and village hall site)
d. provision of pedestrian routes through the site to link to village facilities;
e. provision of a footway along the site frontage linking to Orchard Close;
f. retention and enhancement of hedgerows;
g. wildlife mitigation and improvement measures;
h. no residential development shall be located in areas of flood risk as demonstrated
by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment; and
i. a scheme of improvements to land drainage.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy 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 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 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
 Site Layout
 Access / Highways
Development Committee
22
28 May 2015


Development Viability / Provision of Affordable Housing
S.106 Obligations
APPRAISAL
The site, most of which is currently an agricultural field, borders the south-western
boundary to the built up area of Roughton, with residential properties adjoining its
eastern side. The northern end of the site comprises a wetland area adjacent to Hagen
Beck. To the south and west of the site is open countryside.
The site is allocated for residential development and public open space in the Site
Allocations Development Plan Document (refer to Policy ROU03/10 above). The
principle of developing the site for the purposes applied for is therefore established.
It should be noted that the application site excludes an area (approx. 0.25ha.) of the
allocated land which is in a separate ownership.
Site layout / access
The revised site layout plan illustrates a mixture of detached, semi-detached and
terraced dwellings serviced by a 5m wide road through the site and a number of
smaller private drives served off it. A surface water attenuation basin is proposed, to be
sited to the rear of the housing development. Beyond the housing land the plan
indicates a car park to serve the proposed open space, a sports pitch, land to be
reserved for community use (possibly for a new village hall), and beyond that the
wetland habitat and footpath link through to Old Turnpike Road.
The relationships between the proposed housing development and existing properties
to the north and east, bordering the site, would appear to be acceptable. Notably the
proposed properties which would directly abut the neighbouring dwellings to the east
are indicated to be single-storey.
Historically, the Highway Authority had objected to this site being allocated for
residential development in view of the nature of the road network surrounding the site.
However following the public examination into the Site Allocations document the
planning inspector concluded that the highway problems could be overcome by a
package of measures included with a planning application. Initially, the Highway
Authority objected to the proposals put forward with this application but following
negotiation and the submission of amended plans to include an upgrading of the
internal road specification and additional off-site highway improvements, the Highway
Authority no longer raises an objection.
These elements are considered acceptable and accord with the relevant policy
requirements of the Site Allocations document.
Dwelling mix and type
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms and with an internal
floorspace of not more than 70sqm. Whilst the application is only in outline form the
submitted layout plan provides a schedule of accommodation which illustrates that 12
of the dwellings would be two bedroom properties with a floorspace of 76sqm. This
equates to 40% in accordance with the policy requirement, with the slightly larger
floorspace accepted.
Development Viability / Provision of Affordable Housing
Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires that in selected service villages (which Roughton is
one), for residential developments of this size, 50% of the dwellings should be
Development Committee
23
28 May 2015
'affordable' subject to viability. This requirement is also reflected in Policy ROU03/10
relating to this site allocation.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the following guidance
on the issue of development viability and land values under the heading of 'Ensuring
viability and deliverability' (paragraph 173):
Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in
plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites
and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a
scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is
threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any affordable housing, standards,
infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the
normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing
land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.
A (confidential) development viability report has been submitted with the application.
The report includes an assessment of the total costs of developing the site (including
the costs of providing the open space, wetland area, car park, footpath link, off-site
highway works and S.106 contributions) together with a developer profit. These costs
are then deducted from the total predicted sale revenues of the completed dwellings to
calculate a 'residual land value' (i.e. the value the landowner, in this case the applicant,
can expect to receive from the sale of the land). The conclusions of the viability report
are that due to the specific circumstances of the site and in order to allow a reasonable
return for the landowner as assessed by a benchmark land value established using
comparable sites, it would not be viable in this case to provide any affordable housing
on the site (the provision of affordable housing reduces the sales revenues and in turn
reduces the 'residual land value').
The viability of the development may change over the build period and any increase in
viability to provide affordable housing can be captured by including the Council’s
standard affordable housing uplift clauses in the Section 106 Agreement for the
site. This will allow a further assessment of the viability of the site towards the end of
the development and if the viability improves, allow for 50% of the increased
profitability to be provided as a financial contribution to the Council for the provision of
offsite affordable housing.
S.106 Planning Obligation requirements
Policy ROU03/10 relating to this site allocation requires the completion of a legal
agreement (S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act) to secure the provision of
community facilities and public open space in perpetuity. Specifically, the policy relates
this to the following:





Financing and building a football pitch
Financing regeneration of the wetland habitat
Financing and constructing parking facilities for a village hall/sports pavilion
Co-financing the re-location of the village hall
Donation of the land for public use
The draft S.106 heads of terms submitted with the application refers to the laying out of
the public open space and transfer of the land prior to the 16th dwelling being occupied
together with the payment of a maintenance contribution. The land to be transferred
would comprise the open space to be used for sport/recreation, the associated car
park, land for future potential community use, the wetland area and the footpath link.
It is envisaged that the S.106 would firstly require the submission of a scheme for the
Development Committee
24
28 May 2015
laying of these areas to be approved and secondly a requirement upon the developer
to implement the approved scheme and maintain it for an agreed period. Subject to
negotiation over the details of the S.106 this should cover the above requirements of
Policy ROU03/10 with the exception of 'co-financing the re-location of the village hall'.
Given the development viability issues associated with the application in relation to the
provision of affordable housing, it is concluded that this particular requirement is an
unrealistic expectation. The land subject to the S.106 is most likely to be transferred
to either the parish council or the district council.
In addition to the above the S.106 should include a financial contribution towards
library provision and, as mentioned above, the Council's standard affordable housing
uplift clause.
Conclusions
The site is allocated for residential development in the adopted Site Allocations DPD
and consequently, the principle of residential development on the site is accepted. In
terms of access, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with adequate off-site
Highways Works being proposed, with no objection from the Highway Authority.
Similarly, the layout proposed for the housing development is appropriate, with the
open space/community facilities set out in the most sensible positions. Although no
affordable housing is proposed, the viability assessment provided by the applicant has
been accepted, whilst recognising that the scheme offers a number of community
facilities and off-site Highway works.
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; and
(ii) The imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
7.
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
- Target Date: 14 April 2015
Case Officer: Mr C Reuben
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
C Road
Conservation Area
Contaminated Land Buffer
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20030168 PF
Conversion and extension of office to form a dwelling
Approved 18/03/2003
PF/12/0904 PF
Change of use from residential to mixed use of residential and A5 (hot food takeaway)
Approved 10/01/2013 (Adjacent property)
THE APPLICATION
Development Committee
25
28 May 2015
The application is to change the use of an existing residential property to a tearoom.
The property is attached to an existing building currently used as a Fish and Chip shop,
which was granted planning permission in 2013 (application reference PF/12/0904,
which subdivided the then existing building into the shop and a dwelling.
A modest rear extension to the property is proposed to allow for the provision of toilets
and a kitchen/prep room. The extension will be cedar wood clad with pantiles and will
square off the rear of the building. The land in front of the building will be landscaped
with a mix of gravel, planters and low level lighting, along with a brickweave path
serving the entrance. A pergola will also be added to the front of the building.
Designated parking for staff is proposed at the end of a private road, the access for
which is between 19 and 21 Station Road.
No customer on-site parking proposed.
Existing residential dwellings lie to the north, east and south of the site, with a nursery
on the opposite side of Station Road.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr A Green with regard to Highway concerns.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application, raising concerns regarding highway safety, impact upon
residential amenity, sustainability due to existing businesses and incorrect information
supplied by the applicant including site area, opening hours, parking and land
ownership.
REPRESENTATIONS
To date, 133 representations in total have been received.
Of these, 106 are in support of the application, providing (in summary) the following
comments:

















Will enhance the village
Will provide a good community facility
No experience of any traffic/parking issues
Offers a local employment opportunity
The positive aspects of the application outweigh the highway impact
Site has previous been used as a community facility
Lack of tearooms/toilets in small villages
Will not be a nuisance to local residents
Within walking distance for local residents and would provide a good meeting place
Landscaping will add to the village surroundings
A unique, small start-up business
Although on a road bend, is well lit with advisory parking lines.
Provides a facility for the elderly, young mothers and people with dementia and
their carers
Will promote tourism and the local church/attractions.
Building is in a dominant position where it has a better chance of survival
Will support local farmers and boost the rural economy
It falls in line with the NNDC development plan.
In addition to the above, a further statement has been provided by the applicant
outlining the following:
Development Committee
26
28 May 2015




Land registry title deeds have been provided indicating rights of way over land
Highways have made no mention of improvements in place including a no stopping
white line around the bend in question
The existing highway copes very well with current traffic with a traffic survey
showing that the average speed of cars approaching the bend is under the 30mph
limit
The existing soakway on the site works well
27 of the representations received object to the application, raising (in summary) the
following issues:





















A number of serious concerns regarding road safety
Accidents have occurred near the site
Over-trafficked village where lorries pose a constant traffic hazard
Due to parked vehicles, may necessitate driving on the wrong side of the road on a
blind bend
No parking provision and parking situation would become worse due to more
tourists/customers and delivery vehicles
Increase in traffic poses a risk to nursery children
Would be negligent planning to allow the proposal
Threatens the sustainability of existing valued facilities in the village
Anomalies in the submitted application regarding opening times and stating that
the existing building is vacant
Similar objections were raised under a previous application
Many customers will drive to the venue
Will result in the loss of low-cost housing
Concerns regarding late opening hours and potential for noise and disturbance
How does the alcohol licence relate to the tearoom? Also, no mention of a licence
in the application
Questioning the boundaries of the site, rights of way and land ownership
Signage and lighting would be a distraction to drivers
Due to parking, pedestrians have to walk in the road
Drainage using the soakaway is an issue
No consideration of odour controls
Proposal would resemble a pub
Proposed woodburner would pose a fire hazard
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - Object to the application. This development
proposes to change the use of a single bedroom residential dwelling currently provided
with two parking spaces situated to the front of the premises, into a tea shop with a
single re-located parking space served by a different inappropriate access to the rear.
The residential dwelling was retained following sub-division of the original dwelling
under application PF/12/0904, which created the adjacent fish and chip shop. As you
may recall, the previous application to subdivide the dwelling received a
recommendation of refusal from the Local Highway Authority (LHA) on highway safety
grounds, but was subsequently granted consent by Development Committee contrary
to our advice.
The proposal site is situated on the C355 Station Road on the outside of a near 90
degree bend, on a section of the C355 which is restricted in width to 5.25m wide.
Development Committee
27
28 May 2015
Fronting the application site, the footpath varies in width ranging from a base width of
1.04m along the frontage of no.21, widening up to 3.6m to the northern boundary of
no.19 (where the yellow grit salt bin is located), then back to approximately 1.0m over a
short radial distance of 17-18 m. The available footway width is below that
recommended for pedestrians with restricted mobility or parents with pushchairs.
Opposite the site the footpath measures approximately 1.4m in width around the
frontage wall and fence to the Children's Nursery.
The frontage of the application site is already served by an existing dropped kerb
arrangement to allow parking for two vehicles to the front of the residential donor
dwelling, however this parking facility is proposed to be removed, with potential staff
parking (at best only 1 space, but difficult to ascertain from the submitted plan) being
relocated to the rear of 21 Station Road. The new parking arrangement will be
accessed by a narrow track with restricted visibility to the south, due to the frontage
wall of number 21. Given the restricted levels of visibility, the access is considered to
be substandard and unsuitable for the increase in vehicular activity.
No parking for customers is currently provided for the Fish and Chip shop and none is
proposed for the Tea Rooms.
Forward visibility around the nearby bends is poor, due to the existence of high
security fencing around the Children's Nursery play area and the gable wall of the
Public House with the lack of forward visibility restricting the ability of approaching
motorists to see parked cars. This in turn results in drivers having to brake suddenly or
to overtake parked vehicles without a clear line of sight.
With consideration of the road layout and the type of traffic using the C355 Station
Road, concerns were raised by the LHA in the earlier application PF/12/0904; that the
lack of any parking provision for the fish and chip shop would result in customers
parking on the public highway on, or close to a near 90 degree bend in the road
alignment.
This has been found to be the case with colleagues within Environmental Health
having photographic evidence of parking causing drivers having to overtake parked
vehicles around the bends on the opposing carriageway, with restricted levels of
forward visibility, which is clearly detrimental to highway safety. I hope to have these
photographs available for perusal shortly.
It is evident that large goods vehicles regularly use this route and require the full width
of the C355 Station Road to negotiate this and another severe bend in close proximity
to the proposal site.
With consideration that the proposed development does not provide any customer
parking, resulting in the potential for another significant increase in on-street customer
and delivery parking, at a point on the highway where forward visibility is restricted and
large vehicles regularly utilise the full road width to negotiate a series of near right
angled bends, I find that the proposed change of use, without any customer or delivery
parking would be detrimental to highway safety and therefore, Norfolk County Council
recommends refusal.
Environmental Health - No objection. Request conditions relating to the installation of
future extraction/ventilation/air conditioning systems and external lighting.
Development Committee
28
28 May 2015
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
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 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 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 EC 2: The re-use of buildings in the Countryside (specifies criteria for converting
buildings for non-residential purposes).
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
1. Principle of development
2. Highways impact - access/parking/safety
3. Residential amenity
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The property lies within the Countryside policy area of North Norfolk as defined under
Policy SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy. Within this area, proposals to use
existing buildings for economic/community uses are considered to be acceptable in
principle, subject to compliance with other relevant Core Strategy policies. Under
Policy EC 2, such buildings would need to be appropriate in scale and nature to the
location and the building would need to be soundly built and suitable for the intended
use. The proposal, given the small-scale nature of the proposal and the fact that it is
in an existing building with previous permission for a dwelling, means that it is
compliant with Policy EC 2.
In addition, Policy CT 3 of the Core Strategy allows for new local facilities/services
within the Countryside Policy area where they meet the identified needs of the local
community. Although the need has not necessarily been proven, it is recognised that a
tearoom could function as a locally important facility, serving as an attraction for
Development Committee
29
28 May 2015
visitors and a meeting place for local residents. The National Planning policy
Framework (NPPF) is similarly supportive of development which supports economic
growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity and promotes the retention
and development of local services and community facilities in villages.
Design/use (Policies EN 4 and EN 8)
In terms of design, the proposed works are considered to be acceptable. The building
is situated in a Conservation Area where proposals should seek to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the area. The rear extension, although
consisting of cedar cladding of which there is none on the existing building, will be
largely hidden from view from the public domain and no concerns with regard to its
appearance. Similarly, the landscaping for the front of the building is considered to be
acceptable and may even enhance the appearance of the front of the building.
As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policies EN 4 and EN8 in
terms of design.
Residential amenity (Policies EN 4 and EN 13)
Neither the proposed extension nor use of the building is considered to have a
significantly detrimental impact with regard to privacy, further helped by the fact that
fencing is proposed around the site boundary. Given that the building is single-storey,
the proposed extension again should have no detrimental impact upon neighbouring
amenity in terms of light loss.
It should be noted that the application refers to three sets of opening times, the first in
the submitted Design and Access Statement being 11:00-16:00, the others being
between 08:00-22:00 Monday to Saturday and until 23:00 on Sunday/Bank Holidays
The later of these times reflects an alcohol licence currently held by the applicant for
the building. It is understood that the opening hours of the tearoom would be between
11:00-16:00, however with the flexibility to allow the tearoom to host occasional events
to be held later into the afternoon/evening - the Design and Access Statement refers to
the fact that the stated opening hours 'may vary due to seasonal requirements and
village events'.
Referring to the use of the building and the stated opening hours, there is some
concern raised by objectors that it could cause significant nuisance in terms of noise
coming from the site, especially given the potentially licensed nature of the premises. It
should be noted that limiting the hours to the public to between 11:00 and 16:00 is
considered to be prudent in this case, and any future detrimental noise or disturbance
caused by the use of the premises is a matter that could be investigated by the
Council's Environmental Health team should the need arise. It should further be noted
that it is not unusual for villages to have a such a premises within a built up area and
adjacent to residential properties. Given the small-scale nature of the proposal, it is not
considered that these concerns would warrant a refusal on this basis.
The matter of rights of way/land ownership has been raised by some objectors, with a
number of objections referring to the use of the private road. The question of land
ownership is a civil matter.
Ventilation/extraction/lighting (Policy EN 13)
Environmental Health have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposals,
including the lighting proposed and indicated on the submitted plans. Further details in
regards to future additional lighting or extraction/ventilation/air conditioning systems
would need to be submitted prior to their installation.
Development Committee
30
28 May 2015
As such, subject to conditions, the proposal is compliant with Policy EN 13.
Highways Impact (Policies CT 5 and CT 6)
The main issues of contention for this particular application has been the highway
impact of the proposal. It should be noted that similar concerns were raised as part of
the application for the adjacent Fish and Chip shop.
Two parking spaces were provided to the front of the existing building to serve the
bungalow, which will be removed as part of this application to allow for the landscaping
as mentioned above. Staff parking for the proposed tearoom would be accessed via
private road to the south.
The Highway Authority, as part of this application, have raised a number of concerns
relating to the proposed use of the building. These concerns include:






the footway width in front of the premises being lower than that recommended for
pedestrians with restricted mobility or pushchairs;
restricted visibility from the access road and as such, is considered to be
substandard and unsuitable for an increase in vehicular activity;
Lack of parking available for customers of both the fish and chip shop and the
proposed tearoom;
Poor visibility on the nearby bends in the road, the site itself sitting on the corner of
such a bend, combined with parked vehicles on the road;
HGVs using the route;
The possibility of further increased on-street parking, including delivery vehicles.
It is noted that loading and waiting restrictions could be introduced, however this does
not overcome issues in regards to the lack of parking provision for the proposed use
nor the increased use of a substandard access road. Under Policy CT 6, a tearoom of
the size proposed (approx. 30sqm) would need to provide a minimum of 6 spaces, in
addition to 1 space per 4 staff members (in this case the application form refers to 3
staff members).
In addition, the Highway Authority have themselves been contacted by Norfolk Police
who have stated that there is a significant problem being caused in this particular area
in regards to the obstruction caused by vehicles parking on the Highway outside and
near to the building in question, which has resulted in HGVs serving the Maltings site
not being able to get through and having to divert. It is also suggested that the situation
has become worse since the opening of the adjacent Fish and Chip shop.
As such, having considered the above matters, it is considered that the proposal would
be contrary to policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Conclusion
Although it is acknowledged that the provision of a tearoom would serve as a desirable
community asset, it is not considered that the benefits it could bring would outweigh
the serious concerns with regard to highway safety raised by the Highway Authority.
An additional facility such as the one proposed, without any significant parking
provision or control, would only exacerbate the existing traffic situation. As such, the
application is contrary to Development Plan policies CT5 and CT6 and is
recommended for refusal.
Development Committee
31
28 May 2015
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reason specified below:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008,
and subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes.
The following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development
Policy CT 6: Parking provision
The unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the
development proposed, by reason of its poor alignment and restricted forward visibility.
Furthermore, the proposal does not incorporate adequate on-site vehicular parking
and manoeuvring facilities to the standard required by the Local Planning Authority.
The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to an undesirable increase in
on-street parking and conditions detrimental to highway safety.
Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the Development
Plan.
8.
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0001 - Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 32 no.
dwellings, accesses, roads, open space and associated works; Hilbre, Holway
Road for Norfolk Homes
Major Development
- Target Date: 06 April 2015
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Cycleway
Development within 60m of Class A road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Area
S106
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/2003/0995 - Residential development
Approved 10/04/2008
PO/11/0440 - Residential development (extension of time limit for implementation of
permission ref: 03/0995)
Approved 26/06/2013
DP/14/1200 - Prior notification of intention to demolish former school building with
classroom block
Approved 09/10/2014
THE APPLICATION
The proposals are for a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached two storey
properties. Dwelling sizes range from one to five bedroom units.
Three points of access are proposed; two via an existing road junction onto Holway
Road (which also serves the adjoining community centre) and one via Snaefell Park,
an adjacent housing estate. Fourteen of the dwellings would have their vehicular
Development Committee
32
28 May 2015
access from Holway Road and eighteen from Snaefell Park. A 2m wide footpath is
proposed through the site to provide a pedestrian link between Snaefell Park and
Holway Road.
An area of public open space is proposed (700 sqm approx).
External building materials are to comprise a mix of brick, coloured render, timber
cladding and slate coloured tiles.
Surface and foul water disposal is proposed via mains connections at the adjoining
Snaefell Park estate. An on site attenuation tank is proposed to regulate surface water
flows.
Amended plans have been submitted which incorporate minor re-positioning of certain
plots, detailed house design revisions and changes to certain roof and brick materials
and render colours.
Accompanying the planning application is an application under the Council's Housing
Incentive Scheme to reduce the amount of affordable housing to 20% (6 units)
together with a relaxation of renewable energy and sustainable homes code level
requirements.
Submitted with the application are the following documents:
Planning/Design and Access Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Protected Species Survey
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Landscape Statement
Contamination Report
Draft S.106 Planning Obligation
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Raises no objection to the design and materials to be used for the dwellings but does
object to the main access being from Snaefell Park. Would like to see the main point of
access being from Holway Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters received from nine local residents raising the following objections and
concerns:
 Vehicle access to a major part of the development via Snaefell Park estate in
terms of highway / pedestrian safety and residential amenity.
 Vehicle access should be from Holway Road only.
 Snaefell Park is not adequate to cater for the additional traffic which will result
from the proposed development.
 Access from Snaefell Park onto Holway Road is difficult.
 Colours to the proposed render finishes.
 Relationships with certain adjoining properties in terms of overlooking and
overshadowing.
 Drainage.
 Construction traffic
 Absence of renewable energy being incorporated as part of the development.
Development Committee
33
28 May 2015


House designs different to Snaefell Park.
Protection of slow worms on the site
Letter of objection received from the Sheringham Society to the access proposals from
Snaefell Park.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water
Advises that there is available capacity at the Cromer
Wastewater Recycling Centre and the sewerage network to cater for the
development. Comments that the preferred method of surface water disposal would be
to a sustainable drainage system. The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment
submitted with the application relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable.
Environment Agency water drainage.
No objection subject to a condition relating to surface
Norfolk County Council (Planning Obligations) - Advises that there is sufficient
capacity at the local primary and high schools to cater for the proposed development.
Financial contributions are sought towards library provision (£60 per dwelling) and fire
hydrant provision.
Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions in
respect of road construction and construction traffic details.
Comments as follows with regard to the capability of Snaefell Park to serve access to
part of the proposed development:
"Snaefell Park has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Norfolk
Residential Design Guide, to a standard that is suitable to cater for up to 100 dwellings
off a single point of access. As it stands there are around 55 dwellings already served
by Snaefell Park, with a further 8 properties already approved under consent
20140123. The additional 19 dwellings this application would add to Snaefell Park
will result in a total of around 82 dwellings.
The carriageway of Snaefell Park measures 4.8m, a width that is suitable to allow a
domestic car and a large vehicle to pass. The alignment of the estate road and use of
vertical features are there by design, in order to provide natural speed restraints.
It is accepted that the junction of Snaefell Park with Holway Road is on a hill.
Notwithstanding this visibility at this junction exceed the nationally recognised
minimum guidance set out in Manual for Streets and its alignment meets current
guidance. Research into accidents statistics identifies there is no recorded personal
injury accidents within the vicinity of this junction.
The Highway Authority recognise there will inevitably be an increase in vehicle
movements along Snaefell Park; and that this is likely to be most notable to the
residents of the 4 properties directly adjacent the site. However, it is our view the
existing estate roads are technically adequate in terms of width, alignment and
construction to cater for the additional traffic and that the junction of Snaefell Park with
Holway Road meets minimum design requirements in respect to layout and visibility.
Whilst there may be alternative access arrangements to the site it is the role of the
Highway Authority to consider each application on its own merits. On the basis of the
above and the application under consideration the Highway Authority cannot
substantiate adverse comment."
Development Committee
34
28 May 2015
Strategic Housing Officer - Supports subject to the completion of a S.106
Agreement.
Advises that there is a need for affordable housing in Sheringham with 113 households
on the Housing Register and in addition there are a further 127 households on the
Transfer Register and 727 households on the Housing Options Register who have
stated that they require housing in Sheringham.
With reference to the accompanying Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme application
(to reduce the affordable housing provision from 45% to 20%), supports a timescale for
delivery on the basis of requiring site clearance works, construction of the main
access road carriageway up to base course together with sewers and utilities beneath
and completion of 6 dwellings within 18 months of the date of planning permission.
Supports the (revised) tenure mix of the 20% (6 in total) affordable dwellings which will
comprise 4 rented units (one and two bed properties) and 2 shared equity units (two
bed properties).
Comments as follows on the location of the proposed affordable dwellings within the
development:
"The affordable dwellings are grouped into one part of the site which is not an issue if
20% of the total number of dwellings are affordable, however, if 45% of the dwellings
are affordable, this will result in 14 affordable dwellings being provided in one group of
which 11 will be served by a separate access from the rest of the site and the market
dwellings. This results in a poor integration of the market and affordable dwellings
across the whole site. It is however, noted that the proposed scheme has a
contemporary design theme which is applied to both the affordable and market
dwellings so that the affordable dwellings are visually integrated into the overall
scheme."
Comments as follows in respect of the type of affordable housing proposed on this site
and another in Sheringham applied for by the same developer:
"The applicant currently has another planning application for the provision of 52
dwellings on the other side of Holway Road, this site has also been accompanied by a
Housing Delivery Incentive Scheme application to reduce the affordable housing
provision to 20%. The proposed mix for the affordable housing on this second site is
also on the basis that 50% will be for rent and 50% for sale on a shared equity basis.
The two sites together fail to provide the most appropriate affordable housing provision
to meet the identified housing need for Sheringham as they do not provide a 4
bedroom house for rent within the 20% affordable housing mix and provide insufficient
rented dwellings. The proposed mix for 45% affordable housing across both sites
also does not provide the most appropriate affordable housing provision to meet the
identified housing mix because of the lack of larger dwellings for rent and the high
proportion of shared equity dwellings. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is currently
no intermediate affordable housing in Sheringham, there is also a clear need for rented
affordable housing which these sites do not adequately address."
Recommends certain revisions to the draft S.106 Agreement in terms of the timing of
the affordable housing provision in relation to the market housing.
Conservation and Design Officer - Comments that the proposed layout "raises
no particular concerns from a design point of view and in fact offers a relatively intimate
and additive footprint upon which to build the three-dimensional scheme. This
refreshing lack of regimentation has the potential of creating a layered scheme in
which the buildings potentially take the lead over the carriageways."
Development Committee
35
28 May 2015
With regard to the proposed house types comments that "the applicants have on this
occasion opted for a more contemporary architect-designed approach. This is to be
welcomed in principle given the mixed form and character locally and the fact that the
site lies well beyond the historic core of the town. Elevationally, this approach generally
works well on the majority of the plots. Amended plans have addressed most of
previous concerns expressed regarding a number of detailed design issues. Plots
22-24 are still considered to be the weakest of the scheme.
Considers that the proposed materials (including the revised render colours) are
acceptable.
Overall, no objection to the application now being approved.
Landscape Officer - Comments that the site previously contained a number of mature
trees, many of which have been removed in consultation with the Council's tree
officer. Those remaining trees which are shown to be retained will provide a welcome
mature backdrop to the development. The accompanying landscaping proposals
which include additional trees and shrub planting throughout the site, boundary hedge
planting and the area of open space are considered acceptable. Recommends
conditions in respect of tree protection and securing the landscaping proposals.
Notes that slow worms (protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act) have
already been translocated off the site with the cooperation of Natural England. The
development could potentially offer small biodiversity enhancement opportunities
through the use of native planting within the landscaping scheme, provision of bat and
bird boxes and the sowing of a wildflower mix within the open space.
Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments that the development provides for
about 700sqm of public open space which is below that which would normally be
required. However the nearby Pretty Corner Woods provides extensive open public
access and the land at Morley Hill will supplement this when available. There is
therefore excellent provision of public open space in the immediate vicinity of the
development.
Points out that it is unlikely that the District Council would wish to adopt the proposed
area of open space.
Environmental Health - Requests surface water drainage condition.
Norfolk Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer) - No concerns raised.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Development Committee
36
28 May 2015
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals should
optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the character of the
area).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
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
1. Development layout.
2. Access arrangements / highway safety.
3. Dwelling mix and type.
4. Design / external materials
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the previous meeting to resolve issues with regard to
access and colour scheme.
Site location / characteristics
The site (1.18 ha.) comprises land formally belonging to a private school which has
been disused for in excess of 20 years. It is located off to the eastern side of Holway
Road (A1082) a main arterial route serving Sheringham, and set back bordering onto a
former layby which now provides access to the adjacent new community centre. The
site borders the community centre to the south and existing residential development on
its remaining boundaries. Irregular in shape the site has a change in gradient (approx
5-6 metres) between its western boundary (towards Holway Road) and its
north/eastern boundaries (adjoining the Snaefell Park estate). There are a number of
trees around the site's perimeter.
Principle of development
The site is located within the identified development boundary for Sheringham and is
designated 'residential' in the adopted Core Strategy proposals map. Furthermore the
site has the benefit of an extant outline planning permission for residential
development. The principle of developing the site for housing is therefore established.
Layout and access considerations
Overall the proposed layout is considered acceptable. The distribution, orientation and
variety of dwelling types across the site, together with the provision of open space,
Development Committee
37
28 May 2015
retention of several trees, pedestrian linkages and the utilisation of the change in land
levels all contribute towards making this a good quality residential development.
Following the receipt of amended plans it is considered that the relationships between
the proposed development and existing residential properties which border the site are
now acceptable.
The density of the development (27 dwellings per hectare) is appropriate for this
location and in keeping with nearby existing housing development.
The main issue which has raised objection to the application relates to the access
arrangements and in particular the proposed road link via the Snaefell Park estate. As
proposed, an existing small cul-de -sac (which currently serves three properties) would
be extended to serve an additional 18 dwellings. The Highway Authority's position on
this issue is clear in that they have raised no objection to the application. As a means of
explanation to local residents' concerns, and in addition to the comments referred to
above, the highway officer has commented as follows; "Whilst the proposals would no
doubt increase traffic on Snaefell Park it is the view of the Highway Authority that the
existing estate roads are technically adequate in terms of width, alignment and
construction to cater for the additional traffic. In light of this there would appear no
grounds on which the Highway Authority could substantiate a recommendation of
refusal."
Following the deferral of this application at the previous committee meeting the
applicants were asked to reconsider the access arrangements in the light of members
concerns. In response the applicants' agent has stated "it is not our intention to alter
the principles of the access arrangements, which were formulated and consulted upon
over a considerable period pre-application, and which we believe represent the best
approach to the access to and indeed wider design of the development."
Housing mix / affordable housing provision
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. The proposed
development more than meets this requirement with 47% of the proposed dwellings
comprising 2 or less bedrooms.
Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires that on developments of this size, 45% of the
dwellings should be 'affordable', subject to viability. However, as mentioned above, the
applicants have applied under the Council's Housing Incentive Scheme to reduce the
amount of affordable housing provided to 20%. This would be subject to a legal
undertaking (S.106 Obligation) to secure early implementation of the development
(construction of the main access road to base course, sewers and utilities beneath and
the completion of 6 dwellings within 18 months).The application also provides details
of 45% affordable housing provision (14 units) in the event of the Housing Incentive
Scheme requirements not being met.
As referred to above the Council's Strategic Housing Officer now supports the
application (following an increase in the proportion of rented affordable units now being
proposed), subject to the completion of a S.106 Agreement.
Design / external materials
The applicants have adopted a modern / contemporary approach to the house designs
which contrast with the more traditional designs on the adjoining Snaefell Park estate
(built by the same developer some 10 -15 years ago). Officers welcome this approach
and as referred to above, following the receipt of amended plans the Council's
Conservation and Design Officer raises no objection to the application.
Development Committee
38
28 May 2015
This contemporary approach is also reflected in the proposed choice of external
materials. All the dwellings incorporate brickwork and varying elements of timber
boarding and render. At the last meeting members expressed concern over the bold
colours of the proposed render (blue, yellow, olive, red and orange). The applicants
have now toned down these colours (green, yellow and cream) which reflect those of
properties on Snaefell Park and the nearby community centre.
Conclusions
This site has been disused and in an abandoned condition for a number of years and
its redevelopment is to be welcomed. The proposed development is considered
acceptable in planning terms.
As with the case of many potential development sites there often are different ways in
which they can be designed and developed. Objectors to this application consider that
it would be preferable for vehicular access to this site to be served wholly from Holway
Road. Holway Road is more than adequate singularly to serve the site and in fact this
is what was approved in the earlier outline planning permission.
However preference towards one option does not necessarily make an alternative
option unacceptable. When the applicants developed the adjacent Snaefell Park
estate they retained ownership of a strip of land which provides for their preferred
option of accessing part of the site from Snaefell Park. As referred to above, there is no
technical highway objection to a further 18 dwellings being served off Snaefell Park.
Neither is it considered that this would result in any substantive loss of amenity to
residents of the Snaefell Park estate.
The applicants have made it clear that they are not prepared to amend their current
proposals in relation to the access arrangements. Given the clearly stated position of
the highway authority there are no reasonable grounds to refuse this planning
application.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to the completion of a S.106 Planning
Obligation and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
9.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following applications.
The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
HEMPSTEAD – PF/14/1669 - Installation of a single wind turbine with a
maximum height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small
substation building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated
infrastructure; Selbrigg Farm for Selbrigg Generation
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning, in order to expedite proceedings.
Development Committee
39
28 May 2015
SWANTON NOVERS – PF/15/0320 – Erection of first floor side/front extension
with dormer window to roofslope (part retrospective)
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to allow the Committee to see the site in
context, due to the design of the proposal and the relationship with neighbouring
residential properties, in order to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
10.
SALTHOUSE - APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF S106 OBLIGATION, BARDS
HILL BARNS
Report to follow.
11.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/0018 - Erection of single and one and a half-storey
front extension; Home Farm Cottage, Middle Hill for Mr and Mrs Turner
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/15/0151 - Erection of two-storey extension (amended
proposal following previous permission PF/13/1171); The Barn, The Green,
Aldborough, Norwich, NR11 7AA for Ms C Davison
(Householder application)
ALDBOROUGH - LA/15/0278 - Conversion of attached cart shed to ancillary room
and plant room; Thurgarton House, Thurgarton Hall Road, Thurgarton for Mr
Sladden
(Listed Building Alterations)
ALDBOROUGH - LA/15/0309 - Internal alterations; Thurgarton House, Thurgarton
Hall Road, Thurgarton for Mr C Sladden
(Listed Building Alterations)
ASHMANHAUGH - NMA2/13/1240 - Non material amendment request to permit
the installation of render and paint finish to extensions; Chestnut Hollow,
Rectory Road for Mr and Mrs Limehouse
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
AYLMERTON - PF/15/0327 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
two-storey dwelling; One Acre, Sandy Lane, West Runton for Mr & Mrs Woodrow
(Full Planning Permission)
BACONSTHORPE - PF/15/0365 - Conversion of garage to additional living
accommodation; Strawberry Barn, The Street for Mr & Mrs Delany
(Householder application)
BACTON - PF/14/1292 - Erection of single-storey front extension and retention of
detached summerhouse.; Old Cottage, Walcott Road for Mr Harris
(Householder application)
Development Committee
40
28 May 2015
BEESTON REGIS - PF/15/0026 - Erection of single-storey side extension (part
retrospective); 27 Priory Close for Mr P Bates
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - NMA1/13/0514 - Non-material amendment request to change
garden room from fully glazed structure to partially glazed with slate roof and
rendered plinth; Breckland, Sheringwood for Mr & Mrs Lawrence
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0266 - Erection of detached garage; White Barn, Back Lane,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NP for Mr R Millard
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0196 - Part demolition of shed and erection of replacement
extension to provide new shed/studio; The Old Brew House, 119A High Street,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NU for Mr & Mrs Broom
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - AN/15/0293 - Installation of 2 replacement non-illuminated fascia
signs; 7-9 Westgate Street for Blakemore Design & Shopfitting Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
BLAKENEY - LA/15/0407 - Internal alterations; Hill House, New Road for Mr Beck
(Listed Building Alterations)
BRISTON - PF/15/0269 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
10/0372 to permit re-positioning of dwelling and insertion of two French doors
and Juliet balconies to first floor east elevation; Wayside, Craymere Road,
Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2LS for Mr S Darlington
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PM/15/0170 - Erection of 38 dwellings; Bowling Green, Grove Road,
Melton Constable, NR24 2DE for Trustees of Melton Constable CC
(Reserved Matters)
BRISTON - PF/15/0362 - Erection of detached garden room and extension to wall;
130B Hall Street, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2LQ for Mr & Mrs Shaw
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/15/0382 - Erection of attached garage and single-storey side
extension; Line Side, Macks Loke, Reepham Road, Briston, Melton Constable,
NR24 2JL for Mr K Burrows
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0304 - Demolition of front boundary wall and
removal of existing gates and erection of replacement flint wall of height to
match existing wall (maximum 1.7m) and double gates; Noeleen, Holt Road,
Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7TU for Ms S Jones
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0019 - Retention of decking and steps to garden;
Box House, Hilltop, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7SE for Mr J Jennings and Mrs
S Fletcher
(Householder application)
Development Committee
41
28 May 2015
CROMER - PF/15/0252 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 2 Henry Blogg
Road, Cromer, NR27 0JG for Mr C Woods
(Householder application)
CROMER - LA/15/0160 - Mounting brackets to support projecting signs; 53-55
Church Street, Cromer, NR27 9HH for Mackays Stores Ltd t/a M&Co.
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/15/0211 - Change of use-from guest house (C1)/dwelling (C3) to
mixed use of self catering holiday unit and dwelling (C3); Bon Vista, 12 Alfred
Road, Cromer, NR27 9AN for Mr Ramshaw
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - LA/15/0281 - Internal alterations and installation of cladding to first
floor rear elevation; 10a Jetty Street, Cromer, NR27 9HF for Mrs Smith
(Listed Building Alterations)
CROMER - PF/15/0178 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission ref:
92/0439 to permit first floor living accommodation of the annex extension to be
used as independent residential unit; Morden House, 20 Cliff Avenue, Cromer,
NR27 0AN for Mr Colquhoun
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/0187 - Erection of garden shed; 17 Colne House, Colne Road,
Cromer, NR27 9DP for Mr C Jacobs
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/15/0227 - Raise roof height to facilitate extension to front
elevation; Castleby, 3 Howards Hill, Cromer, NR27 9BL for Mr & Mrs Black
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - NMA1/15/0201 - Non material amendment request to permit
increase in proposed car-port height by 60cm; The Old White Horse, Hunworth
Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2AE for Mr Thomas
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EDGEFIELD - PF/15/0171 - Erection of detached 2 bay cart shed; Siskin, Rectory
Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2RJ for Mr J McCluskey
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - LA/15/0305 - Part retention and part proposed internal and
external alterations to facilitate creation of carers accommodation; Erpingham
House, The Street, Erpingham, Norwich, NR11 7QD for Mrs M Wilcox
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0173 - Erection of two-storey rear/side extension; 3 Railway
Close, Fakenham, NR21 8BD for Mr & Mrs Clarey
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0138 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/1422 to permit revised elevations/design; The Old Vegetable Garden, 4 Knoll
Gardens, Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
42
28 May 2015
FAKENHAM - LA/15/0249 - Retention of internal alterations; 3 Swan Street,
Fakenham, NR21 9BN for Mrs S Carrington Smith
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0345 - Change of use from training centre (D1) to mixed use
of storage (B8) and cleaning and maintenance of equipment (B1) ancillary to
marquee hiring business; Unit B, 1 George Edwards Road, Fakenham, NR21 8NL
for Grice and Foster Event Hire Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0361 - Demolition of existing carport and erection of
two-storey side extension; 93 North Park for Mr & Mrs Hayden
(Householder application)
FELBRIGG - PF/14/1634 - Conversion of outbuilding to ancillary self-contained
annexe, erection of single-storey link extension to outbuilding and pitched roof
to existing storage building; Wayside Farm, Cromer Road, Felbrigg, Norwich,
NR11 8PP for Mr Ayers
(Householder application)
FELBRIGG - PF/15/0112 - Change of use of agricultural buildings to 6 residential
dwellings; Grove Farm, Roughton Road, Felbrigg, Norwich, NR11 8PQ for E W
Filby & Son
(Full Planning Permission)
HANWORTH - PF/15/0292 - Demolition of rear single-storey extension and
erection of two-storey rear extension.; 8 The Common, Hanworth, Norwich, NR11
7HP for Hanworth Home Farms
(Householder application)
HANWORTH - PF/15/0436 - Erection of attached car-port to side elevation; 29 The
Common, Hanworth, Norwich, NR11 7HP for Mr & Mrs Corbishley
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/15/0089 - Erection of 1.53m high close boarded fencing; Mallards,
Staithe Road, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0YJ for Mrs G Norton
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/15/0344 - Erection of replacement garage; Rustic Bungalow,
Heath Road, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0YH for Mr Saunders
(Householder application)
HICKLING - NP/15/0434 - Erection of storage building for woodchip; Willow Farm,
Stubb Road, Hickling, Norwich, NR12 0BS for G.A Tallowin
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HIGH KELLING - PF/15/0285 - Erection of first floor extension, insertion of
dormer windows to front roof slope; Ravensdale, Warren Road, High Kelling,
Holt, NR25 6QU for Ms Venworth
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/0318 - Erection of 2.3m front boundary wall; Field Farm
House, Blakeney Road, Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0BU for Mr & Mrs Hunt
(Householder application)
Development Committee
43
28 May 2015
HOLT - PF/15/0231 - Erection of attached open-fronted car-port; Greenbanks,
Peacock Lane, Holt, NR25 6HD for Mr and Mrs K Brown
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0262 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Glaven Veterinary
Practice, Old Station Way, Holt, NR25 6DH for Glaven Veterinary Practice
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/15/0282 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 16 Mill Street, Holt,
NR25 6JB for Ms Bowers
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/15/0349 - Conversion to form two retail units on ground floor and two
apartments on upper floors and insertion of dormer window to south elevation;
3-5 Fish Hill, Holt, NR25 6BD for Benjamin Cloke Estates Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/15/0350 - Alterations to facilitate conversion to two retail units and
two apartments and insertion of dormer window to south elevation; 3-5 Fish Hill,
Holt, NR25 6BD for Benjamin Cloke Estates Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
HORNING - PF/15/0370 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
Bonneville, Neatishead Road, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8LB for Mr & Mrs
Mortimer
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/15/0379 - Erection of external stairs to existing flat-roofed
extension to facilitate new entrance to first floor flat and erection of 1.7m fence to
balcony; Campion, 43 Lower Street, Horning, Norwich, NR12 8AA for Mrs Tidy
(Householder application)
KETTLESTONE - PF/15/0258 - Change of use of agricultural land to garden land
and erection of greenhouse; Land Adjacent to Anvil House, The Street,
Kettlestone, Fakenham, NR21 0JB for Mr Hipkin
(Full Planning Permission)
LANGHAM - PF/15/0355 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/0002 to allow installation of additional photo voltaic solar arrays; Bernard
Matthews Ltd, Cockthorpe Road, Langham, NR25 7BP for Renenergy
(Full Planning Permission)
LESSINGHAM - PF/15/0245 - Erection of front conservatory; Melton, Cross Lane,
Bush Estate, Eccles-on-sea, Norwich, NR12 0TB for Mrs D Collingwood
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LA/15/0191 - Variation of condition 2 of
Listed Building consent ref: LA/10/0085 to permit revised conversion layout; The
Tun House, Holt Road, Letheringsett for D & M Hickling Properties Limited
(Listed Building Alterations)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/15/0011 - Creation of ponds and
scrapes and lowering of west river bank; Pump House, Hurdle Lane, Glandford
for Mr Combe
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
44
28 May 2015
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/15/0287 - Erection of single-storey
side/rear extension; Red House, Holt Road, Letheringsett for Mr B Stevens
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - LA/15/0420 - Proposed omission of
external steel bars to west and east elevation windows; The Maltings, Holt Road,
Letheringsett for D & M Hickling Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
LUDHAM - NMA1/13/1526 - Non material amendment request to permit change
garage doors from three to, one single door and one double door; West End
Lodge, Norwich Road, Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5PB for Mr M Whitaker
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MELTON CONSTABLE - NMA1/14/0685 - Non material amendment request to
permit change to external materials to horizontal larch cladding to cart shed
garages; Culpits Farm, Hindolveston Road for Oakmoor Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MUNDESLEY - PF/15/0232 - Change of use of hair salon (A1) to hot food
takeaway (A5) and insertion of extraction vent; Manor Hotel, 7 Beach Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8BG for Mr Burch
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0263 - Erection of part first floor/part two-storey side
and rear extension; 10 Hipperson Close for Mr and Mrs Rayner
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0297 - Creation of new vehicle access; Grumpys, 2
Happisburgh Road for Mr K Dyke
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0301 - Change of use from beauty salon to tattoo
studio.; Unit 2, 23 Stanley Road for Mr Le Brock
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0342 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension;
18 Norwich Road for Mr Croft
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0404 - Erection of front extension to garage and
porch; 28 Spencer Avenue for Mr Covell
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0057 - Erection of single-storey extension to existing
portable building(briefing/refreshment room); Northrepps Aerodrome, North
Walsham Road, Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 9LF for Mr K Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTHREPPS - PF/15/0215 - Conversion of garage/store room outbuilding to
study/garden room, and chimney/flue; 20 Church Street, Northrepps, Cromer,
NR27 0AA for Mr Cummings-Knight
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
45
28 May 2015
NORTHREPPS - LA/15/0216 - Conversion of garage/store room outbuilding to
study/garden room, and installation of chimney/flue; 20 Church Street,
Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 0AA for Mr Cummings-Knight
(Listed Building Alterations)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/0300 - Demolition of detached single-storey workshop
and erection of replacement single-storey ancillary annexe accommodation; 12a
Pauls Lane, Overstrand, Cromer, NR27 0PE for Mr Gee
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/15/0051 - Insertion of dormer window to facilitate loft
conversion and change flat roof to pitch.; 19 Mundesley Road, Overstrand,
Cromer, NR27 0PT for Mr and Mrs I White
(Householder application)
PASTON - PF/15/0184 - Installation of replacement concrete ramp for access to
beach and associated works; Shell (UK) Ltd, Paston Road, Bacton, Norwich,
NR12 0JE for Shell UK Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
PUDDING NORTON - LA/15/0251 - Internal and external alterations to facilitate
conversion of two agricultural buildings to two dwellings; Hall Farm, Dereham
Road, Pudding Norton, Fakenham, NR21 7NB for Mrs C P Giles
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - PF/15/0238 - Erection of storage building; The Hatchery, Wellingham
Road, South Raynham, NR21 7HN for Wensum Pools
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - LA/15/0260 - Continued siting of Broadband dish; 28 The Street,
West Raynham, Fakenham, NR21 7AD for Mr A Forsyth
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - NMA1/14/0019 - Non material amendment request to permit retention
of underground cable in revised positions; Land between West Raynham Airfield
and Hempton Substation for Good Energy West Raynham Airfield Solar Park
(030) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
ROUGHTON - PF/15/0405 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions;
Maybeck Cottage, 61 Chapel Road for Mr Costigan
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/15/0299 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission ref:
14/1402 to delete Code Level 3 requirement; Plot at rear of, House on the Green,
Lower Common, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9PG for Mr Wreford
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - NMA1/11/1008 - Non-material amendment request to change painted
boarding below bay window to painted render; Caritas, Boulevard Road, West
Runton, Cromer, NR27 9QL for Mr J Steel
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
46
28 May 2015
RUNTON - NMA1/14/0624 - Non material amendment request to permit insertion
of window to south elevation; Keepers Cottage, Banville Lane, East Runton,
Cromer, NR27 9RN for Mr & Mrs Steward
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0276 - Insertion of first floor windows in west elevation;
Mystery Cottage, Westwood Lane, Great Ryburgh for Ms Barnett
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - AI/14/1620 - Display of illuminated fascia, gable end signs and
retention of illuminated post sign; 19 Station Road, Great Ryburgh, Fakenham,
NR21 0DX for Country Living
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/0296 - Change of use of part of building/office/training room to
use for television and film production office, associated facilities and storage
B1); Building 349, Scottow Enterprise Park for October Films
(Full Planning Permission)
SCOTTOW - PF/15/0294 - Erection of first floor extension, and two-storey
extension, and installation of balcony to west elevation; North Walsham Rugby
Football Club, North Walsham Road, Scottow, Norwich, NR10 5BU for North
Walsham Rugby Football Club
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PU/15/0334 - Prior notification of intention to convert agricultural
buildings to one residential dwelling and one self-contained annexe; Tin Yard
Barns, Stalham Road, Sea Palling for Mr R Jennings
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0377 - Re-arrangement of door and window to rear
single-storey extension; 3 Augusta Street for Clapham & Collinge
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0029 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extensions; 17
Cromer Road, Sheringham, NR26 8AB for Mr E Catterall
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0259 - Erection of 1.2m wire fence and two timber gates to
rear garden; 23 Nelson Road, Sheringham, NR26 8BU for Mr J Groom
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/14/1347 - Non-material amendment in respect of
fenestration and layout including increase in garden room depth; 20 St Josephs
Road, Sheringham, NR26 8JA for Norfolk Cedar Properties
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0356 - Change of use from B8 (storage) to C3 (dwelling);
30 Station Road, Sheringham, NR26 8RF for Mr M Crowe
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0364 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension and
conversion to habitable accommodation; Haddon Lodge, 12 Alexandra Road,
Sheringham, NR26 8HU for Mr Sampson
(Householder application)
Development Committee
47
28 May 2015
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0424 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 20
Holway Road, Sheringham, NR26 8HN for Mr and Mrs P Hall
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0214 - Erection of two-storey front extension and porch;
42 St Austins Grove, Sheringham, NR26 8DF for Mr & Mrs Turner
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0406 - Erection of single-storey rear extensions, insertion
of dormer windows to front and rear roofslopes and erection of detached double
garage; 3 De Morley Garth, Sheringham, NR26 8JG for Mr Hinton
(Householder application)
SKEYTON - PF/15/0087 - Erection of two-storey front and two-storey rear
extensions and single-storey rear extension and car-port to rear; School House,
School Lane, Skeyton, Norwich, NR10 5BA for A J Bacon Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - PF/15/0360 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Aintree Cottage,
Low Street, Sloley, Norwich, NR12 8HD for Mr Day
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/1641 - Erection of two-storey rear extension, raise height
of existing two-storey rear extension and insertion of two balconies to north
west elevation; Briarfield, The Common, Lower Street, Southrepps, Norwich,
NR11 8UG for Mr & Mrs Chapman
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/15/0261 - Change of use of first floor offices to residential flat;
Harts To Me, 59 High Street, Stalham, NORWICH, NR12 9BB for Mr R Hart
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - AI/15/0331 - Installation of replacement illuminated signs; 93 High
Street, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9BB for East of England Co-operative Society
(Advertisement Illuminated)
STALHAM - PF/15/0381 - Removal of condition 6 of planning permission ref:
10/0354 to delete Code Level 2 compliance; Stalham Post Office, 41 High Street,
Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9AH for Mr K Nicholls
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/15/0493 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 23 Teresa
Road, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9EB for Mr & Mrs Bewsey
(Householder application)
STIBBARD - PF/15/0289 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 9 The Glebe,
Stibbard, Fakenham, NR21 0LU for Mr M Willimott
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/15/0268 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and side
extension with balcony above; Birkbeck House, 66 Wells Road, Stiffkey,
Wells-next-the-Sea, NR23 1AJ for Mr G Pepper
(Householder application)
Development Committee
48
28 May 2015
SUFFIELD - PF/15/0152 - Removal of condition 5 of planning permission ref:
08/0874 to permit residential occupancy; Barn 3, Cooks Farm, Rectory Road,
Suffield, NORWICH, NR11 7EW for Mrs M Hickling
(Full Planning Permission)
SUTTON - PF/14/1486 - Conversion of agricultural building to ancillary habitable
annexe to Bray Farm, Hickling Road, Sutton; Agricultural builiding at Bray Farm,
Hickling Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SH for Mr J Fraser
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - LA/15/0291 - Internal and external alterations and replacement
window, doors and conservatory; Swafield Hall, Knapton Road for Mr T Payne
(Listed Building Alterations)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/15/0265 - Erection of single-storey side extensions and
front porch; Field View, Aylsham Road for Mr M Cubbitt
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/15/0374 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Woodsend Cottage, Aylsham Road for Mr C Kett
(Householder application)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/0253 - Erection of first floor side extension; 8 The
Close, The Street for Mr M Basham
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - LA/15/0239 - Insertion of replacement windows and doors;
Poppyland Cottage, The Green for Poppyland Touring Park
(Listed Building Alterations)
THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0330 - Erection of detached double garage; 2 Sand Pit
Cottages, Sandpit Lane for Mr & Mrs Chamberlin
(Householder application)
THURSFORD - PF/15/0410 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 22 Station
Road, Thursford, Fakenham, NR21 0BG for Mr Matthews
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/15/0060 - Variation to condition 8 of planning permission ref:
06/1381 to permit residential occupation; 12 Laurel Farm Barns, Market Street,
Tunstead, Norwich, NR12 8QY for Mr Smith
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0397 - Removal of condition 5 of planning
permission ref: 11/1377 in respect of submitting details for demolition; Former
Depot, Blowlands Lane for Smith of Honingham
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/15/0145 - Variation of condition 6 and 8 of planning
permission ref: 12/0252 to permit keeping the downlighters and method of paint
removal to front elevation.; Crugmeer, Croft Yard for Mrs L Watson
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/15/0323 - Revised siting of temporary works area; Land at
Weybourne Hope for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
49
28 May 2015
WITTON - PF/15/0202 - Change of use from residential care home (C2) to dwelling
(C3); Bramley Lodge, The Street, Ridlington, North Walsham, NR28 9NS for
Progress Housing Group
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/15/0391 - Erection of detached 4 bay cart shed style garage, fencing
and change of use to residential curtilage; Ebridge Mill, Happisburgh Road,
White Horse Common for Barn Owl Conversions Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
WIVETON - PF/15/0165 - Insertion of flue to outbuilding; Sunny Corner, Chapel
Street, Wiveton, Holt, NR25 7TQ for Mr J Bevan
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PU/15/0298 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Lyng Hall Farm, Lyng Hall Lane, Wood
Norton, DEREHAM, NR20 5BJ for K J Bell and Son
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0390 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Willowdale,
Withergate Road, Worstead, North Walsham, NR28 9SF for Mr O'Brien
(Householder application)
8.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRISTON - PF/15/0337 - Use of land as agricultural contractor's storage yard,
erection of agricultural contractor's storage building and retention of alterations
to access.; Tithe Barn Lane, Briston, NR24 2JB for Mr C Nutkins
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/15/0208 - Demolition of garage and erection of single-storey side
extension, erection of detached garage, creation of new vehicle access,
installation of second floor tower extension to front, insertion of first floor rear
balcony and French doors and windows to first floor south elevation; 2 Cliff
Avenue, Cromer, NR27 0AN for Mr R Dale
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1680 - Demolition of existing courthouse and ancillary
buildings and erection of six two-storey dwellings; Magistrates Court, Norwich
Road, Fakenham, NR21 8BB for Pryde Developments
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PU/15/0274 - Prior notification of intention of change of use
from agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Row Hill Barn, Walsingham Road,
Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0BT for Norfolk County Council
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/0288 - Continued siting of mobile home; Old Bridge
Farm, Skeyton Road, North Walsham, NR28 0LU for Mrs S Burrows
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
50
28 May 2015
RUNTON - PF/15/0273 - Insertion of dormer window to front roof slope; 6 Victoria
Terrace, High Street, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9NY for Mr Gould
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/15/0240 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear and side
extension; Heath Cottage, The Street, Tattersett, King's Lynn, PE31 8RU for Ms J
Skinner
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
9.
NEW APPEALS
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1015 - Change of use of domestic shed to commercial
gymnasium with new access track and retention of two caravans for holiday
use.; The Whins, The Downs, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PN for Mrs L Massingham
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1541 - Insertion of two dormer windows to west
elevation roof slope and glazing to north elevation gable and installation of
access stairs and dormer window to existing detached double garage; Cley
House, The Fairstead, Cley-next-the-Sea, Holt, NR25 7RJ for Mr & Mrs Everett
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
SHERINGHAM - PO/14/1126 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling;
Threeways, 47 St Austins Grove, Sheringham, NR26 8DF for Ms J Rayner and Ms
S Thirtle
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
10.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0120 - Formation of caravan park to provide pitches for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area with office/warden
accommodation and amenity building; Land South of North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh for Happisburgh Estates
INFORMAL HEARING 12 May 2015
HOLT - PO/14/0846 - Erection of up to170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land south of Lodge Close, Holt for Gladman Developments Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY
11.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road, Aylmerton
for Mr D Oliver
BRISTON - PU/14/1390 - Prior notification of intention of change of use of
agricultural building to three dwelling houses (C3); Barn at Boundary Farm,
Reepham Road, Briston, Melton Constable, NR24 2JN for Mr & Mrs Berwick
SITE VISIT:- 18 May 2015
Development Committee
51
28 May 2015
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
ROUGHTON - PF/14/0677 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent
Woodlands, Cromer Road, Roughton for Mr D Sayer
SITE VISIT:- 18 May 2015
HAPPISBURGH - ENF/14/0009 - Siting of residential caravan; Beach Road,
Happisburgh
12.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0785 - Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of two
and a half storey replacement dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7PD for Mrs K Cargill
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
13.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No change from previous report.
Development Committee
52
28 May 2015
APPENDIX 1
The Graham Allen Awards
for CONSERVATION and DESIGN
Entry Form
1. Address or location of the Scheme:
2. Date of completion:
3. Description of Scheme (in no more than 80 words):
4. Entrant’s Name:
Address:
Tel. No:
e-mail address:
5. Owner’s Name:
Address:
Tel. No:
e-mail address:
6. Nature of entrants involvement:
7. Details of photographs supplied (This should include a good 10”x8” colour photograph of scheme):
8. Further details or comments in support of the scheme:
See overleaf for explanatory notes
57
This award was inaugurated in 1982 as a memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first
chairman of North Norfolk District Council. Since then the award, in the form of a bronze
plaque has been presented annually by the Council to the scheme considered to make
the most successful contribution to the conservation of the built environment within the
District. Schemes considered worthy of commendation are also acknowledged by the
presentation of certificates.
The following guidelines will be observed in respect of eligibility and in making the
award:
1. Entries will be accepted for sensitive conservation and extension projects and for well
designed new build projects which are innovative and/or locally distinctive.
2. Schemes will be eligible irrespective of scale.
3. Schemes will only be considered if they were completed after 1st January of the
previous year and submitted before 30th June of the current year.
4. Entries may be submitted by an owner or client, an architect or designer, a
contractor or manufacturer, or member of the general public. There is no limit to the
number of entries allowed from one source, provided the permission of the owner
and/or occupier is obtained before an entry is submitted.
5. All entries should be accompanied by a completed Entry Form and a description
of the scheme in no more than 80 words, (see number 3 on the entry form). A good
colour photograph of the scheme should also accompany the entry (electronic
preferred) together with any other photographs of the scheme preferably giving
“before” and “after” evidence, (see number 7 on the entry form).
6. The scheme will be considered and the award made by a panel of judges elected
annually from the Development Committee, the relevant Portfolio
Member and Mr Edward Allen as a permanent member. Their decision will be Final.
7. All winning entries will be formally invited to an award ceremony later in the year at
which time the presentations will be made.
8. All entries must be located within the North Norfolk planning administrative area.
9. By submitting an entry you agree to the use of the property name, scheme
description and photograph of the principal elevation for publicity purposes.
The material submitted together with the photographs will be used at the
preliminary judging stage, prior to a site visit, and also may be used in the
presentation of winning entries at the awards’ ceremony.
Please return completed form to: Conservation, Design and Landscape, North
Norfolk District Council, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer, Norfolk. NR27 9EN or
email: conservationanddesign@north-norfolk.gov.uk
www.northnorfolk.org
58
APPENDIX 2
OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 18 DECEMBER 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
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
(1)
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 57-74; Rainbows End Chalet Park, Mill Lane for Tingdene
Holiday Parks Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 09 January 2015
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Public Rights of Way Footpath
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Coastal Erosion Constraint Area
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Coastal Erosion Risk Area - 100 years
Coastal Erosion Risk Area - 50 years
Settlement Boundary
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SM 5180 - Erection of 110 units of holiday accommodation
Approved 02/06/1965
PLA/19740580 PF - Erection of recreational facilities and shop
Refused 16/09/1974
PLA/20001260 PF - Variation of seasonal occupancy restriction (condition 2 of
permission reference: SM 5180)
Approved 21/12/2000
PLA/20001693 PF - Continued use of two holiday chalets as temporary managers
accommodation
Temporary Approval 22/02/2001
PLA/20020026 PF - Continued use of two chalets as managers' accommodation
Temporary Approval 08/11/2002
PLA/20021382 PF - Conversion of four chalets to managers' dwelling
Approved 08/11/2002
PLA/20030245
PF - Erection of Detached One and a Half Storey Manager's
Dwelling
Withdrawn by Applicant 11/03/2013
PLA/20041773 PF - Continued use of two chalets for manager's accommodation
59
Temporary Approval 02/12/2004
PLA/20041841 PF - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission reference
20001260 to allow all year round occupation of holiday chalets
Refused 16/12/2004
PLA/20060131 PF - Construction of pitched roofs and cladding of external walls to
chalets
Approved 17/03/2006
PLA/20060525 PF - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission reference
20001260 to permit all-year holiday occupancy
Approved 13/06/2006
PLA/20080439 PF - Erection of one and a half storey building to provide ground
floor reception/office/spa with manager's accommodation above
Refused 13/05/2008
PF/10/0557 HOU - Erection of extensions to chalets and pitched roofs with sun
terraces
Approved 24/09/2010
PF/11/0653 PF - Erection of 15 beach huts and refuse bin enclosure
Refused 31/08/2011
DE20/14/0090 ENQ - Erection of additional holiday chalets
22/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
Is to vary condition 1 of planning permission (SM 5180 approved) to permit a revised
layout of the site, design and position of 18 chalets.
The replacement chalets are in semi-detached pairs, replacing on the layout two
blocks of four and 10 single chalets. Twelve of the revised layout are repositioned on
the eastern (seaward) side of the chalet park, six are relocated to western side of the
park either side of the entrance.
The original plans show the layout plan approved in 1965. A later plan was approved
as an amendment but it is not clear that this was ever implemented.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Required by the Head of Planning having regard to the planning history of the site,
concerns of residents and the comments raised by Bacton Parish Council.
PARISH COUNCIL
Bacton Parish Council - comment as follows:



The provision of a S106 agreement to mitigate towards the additional traffic along
Mill Lane until the furthest boundary at Rainbows End.
The additional traffic flow is of grave concern especially as owners utilise these
buildings as their main residence and live there most of the year.
To work with the Parish Council and Norfolk County Council in a proactive matter
to provide a regulated footpath south from Rainbows End to the beach.
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters commenting on the proposals have been received the comments are.
1.
2.
Parking is not shown on the plans
The original plans shown are the 1965 plans and should be an 1972 amended
plan.
60
19 letters have been received objecting to the proposal
1. The unmade Mill Lane leading to the site is in a poor state of repair and will
worsen with the increased traffic.
2. New layout is not in keeping with the rest of the site and will look out of place.
3. The proposed chalets are of a poorer design quality and build. They are basically
mobile homes on a base.
4. The office is not shown on the plans, where will that go?
5. Parking not shown.
6. Already inadequate parking for owners and visitors.
7. Utilities are already a problem, water pressure is low and drains regularly get
blocked.
8. Cannot rent properties for holiday lets with construction work on site.
9. Chalet Park will double in size.
10. Inadequate waste bin storage
11. Poor lighting on chalet park
12. Crime could rise as more places to hide.
13. Confusion over chalet numbering.
14. Green land within the chalet park will be destroyed.
15. Poor visibility at the point Mill Lane joins the road.
16. The plans eradicate the features that make the chalet park attractive its noncommercial nature, the clear views to the green field and the sea.
17. Large office building on the site, which does not have planning permission, is not
shown.
18. Several properties have been sublet for residential use, this does not comply with
planning permission.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Authority - no objection subject to a condition on parking.
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):
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
CT 6 - Parking provision
EN 4 - Design
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design
3. Layout/relationship with existing development
4. Access
61
5. Parking
APPRAISAL
Rainbows End Chalet Park is located within the Countryside Policy area close to the
settlement boundary of Bacton. Access to the chalet park is from the unsurfaced,
unadopted Mill Lane which joins onto the Walcott Road. Mill Lane serves over 65
other properties besides the chalet park. Rainbows End has an extant planning
permission for 110 chalets of which 56 have been built with 54 not previously
constructed. The application is partly retrospective as a pair of those remaining 54
chalets have already been erected on the site. The revised layout is a repositioning
of 12 chalets on the eastern, outside edge of the chalet park roadway and relocating
six of those chalets to the west side around the Rainbow End entrance.
Currently all the 56 existing chalets are arranged around the outside of the chalet
park leaving the central area, (apart from a few car parking spaces), as a grassed
open space giving the chalet park a natural open feel. However, the open space is
divided into two by the existing roadway layout. The outstanding 54 chalets with
planning permission are arranged around or inside the roadway. Most of the lower
open space would remain open under the existing and proposed layout.
It is acknowledged that the effect of building the remaining chalets will have an
impact on the occupants of the some of the existing chalets. While there may be
winners and losers in terms of views, as members will be aware loss of a view is not
a material planning consideration. In landscape terms the revised layout for the
repositioning of the twelve chalets on the eastern side of the park raises no concerns.
The six chalets by the entrance will be more prominent from Mill Lane but again
raises no landscape concerns.
Two of the proposed chalets, close to the entrance and the southern boundary are
regarded as too close to the boundary with a neighbour to the south and unlikely to
meet the Basic Residential Amenity Criteria guidelines between neighbours. The
agent has been advised of this. An amended plan has been requested and it is
anticipated this may be satisfactorily resolved.
As regards the appearance of the chalets, although disputed by some of the
objectors they are very similar to the original chalets. However, they are not of the
same conventional construction, but are a building that is prefabricated elsewhere
and erected on site. There are some cosmetic differences with door and window
placements and materials. Although the buildings will not be identical to the existing
chalets, the appearance is broadly the same and the appearance of the new chalets
would not be out of place in this location.
The existing and proposed parking has not been shown on the revised plan, the
agent has indicated that the parking layout will be submitted prior to the Committee
meeting. The existing parking spaces are tarmac or shingle which is rather a harsh
surface treatment for this Chalet Park. A grid system that allowed the grass to grow
through would be a softer, more appropriate surface treatment going some way to
preserving the natural open appearance of the park. This has been suggested to the
agent.
The site office is currently located close to chalets numbered 59 and 60, it is currently
unauthorised. The agent has indicated that a planning application to relocate the site
office will be submitted shortly.
Although close to the area of likely Coastal Erosion, none of the chalets in the
62
revised chalet layout are within the area at risk. In fact the revised layout would
remove four of the approved chalets to outside the area at risk of coastal erosion
within the next 100 years.
In respect of the objectors’ concerns regarding the condition of the road, it is unclear
who owns any part of Mill Lane. The condition of the road as suitable to serve the
development would have been an issue dealt with under the original planning
permission. While it would be desirable for the road to be maintained, it appears to
be outside the applicants' control. Furthermore, there is an extant permission on the
site for the additional units.
In conclusion, there is an extant planning permission on the site to build the number
of chalets proposed. The appearance of the chalets is not significantly different from
those already on the site and is considered better than those that could be built under
the extant permission. There is also a minor benefit in that a few of the chalets would
be removed from the area at risk from Coastal Erosion. While the position of the
chalets is a little different this is not so significant as to alter the character of the
approved chalet park, to have an overall adverse landscape impact or be significantly
detrimental to the amenities of existing chalet occupiers. Taking into account the
extant permission, the proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the
Development Plan.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval
subject to a satisfactory revised siting for units 59 and 60, and parking layout being
submitted and agreed.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated to the Head of Planning to approve;
Subject to an acceptable revised siting for units 59 and 60, a satisfactory
parking layout and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
63