OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 29 JANUARY 2015
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
FIELD DALLING - PF/14/1384 - Erection of 2 storey side extension with glass link;
School Lane Cottage, 10-11 School Road, Saxlingham for Mirka McNeill Design
Target Date: 17 December 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Development in the Countryside
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19831329 PF Garage - Approved 04/11/1983
PLA/19872193 PF Conservatory - Approved 11/01/1988
PLA/20050017 PF extension of garden store to form sunroom and alterations to
conservatory - Approved 02/03/2005
PF/13/0389 HOU Erection of two-storey front extension, construction of dormer
window and alterations to existing dormer windows, re-instatement of first floor side
window and demolition of conservatory - Approved 10/06/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to erect a two-storey side extension with a glazed link to the host
dwelling‟s northwest elevation. The extension would measure 15m D x 4.5m W x 6.3m
H giving a footprint of approximately 67sqm.
Materials: Front elevation, reclaimed oak structure with glazed panels. Rear elevation,
reclaimed oak structure with rendered panels. The northwest side elevation would be
rendered. Southeast, side elevation would be reclaimed oak structure with a
combination of glazed panels and panels infilled with red brick laid in a herringbone
design. The chimney would be red brick and the roof tiled with reclaimed terracotta red
peg tiles.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. L. Brettle with regard to the development‟s scale and
appropriateness of design.
PARISH COUNCIL
Did not wish to comment
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters of objection. The objectors raise the following issues:
Development Committee
1
29 January 2015







The extension is contrary to Core Strategy Policies HO8, EN2, EN4 and EN8
Adverse impact on neighbouring property‟s trees
Design, scale and mass of the extension
Extension‟s design would change the character of the village – not of
local/vernacular design
A Welsh cruck barn is entirely incompatible with the character and appearance of a
conservation area
Proposed building incongruous in this setting (proximity to village church), the
objector wonders whether English Heritage would have a view where such a
sensitive heritage asset is concerned
The applicant is in breach of Conditions 2 and 3 of PF/13/0389 with regard to
roofing materials
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - makes
the following comments:
The site lies within the designated Saxlingham Conservation Area. School Lane
Cottage whilst not being ‘listed’ does by virtue of its age, form, detailing and materials
make a significant contribution to the prevailing character of the area.
The principal cottage was subject to a recent application (PF/13/0389) to extend and
alter the buildings detailing and materials, as a consequence of which the architectural
style of the property has taken a distinct move away from its original vernacular
character to a more contrived architectural style. This latest proposal further
emphasises this change in character and perception.
The revised scheme does represent a significant step forward from the original Dev21
application. The plans have addressed C&D’s previous reservations regarding overall
footprint, scale, lack of subservience and relationship to the host building. That said,
the concern remains over the honesty of the design principles and the erosion of local
distinctiveness. In essence the extension is a piece of architectural fantasy more akin
to a monastic barn or Tudor farmhouse rather than a North Norfolk cottage.
Notwithstanding the above, the general form and scale of the extension does sit
comfortably with the host building, the introduction of the glass link helps in creating
visual separation and a clear break to the cottage. The extension being sited on the
north-west elevation of the cottage means it will not hold a prominent position on
approach to the site or from the public domain and will to a large extent be screened by
the vegetation boundary and host building.
Overall, whilst the proposal fails to reflect the local distinctive characteristics of the
original dwelling and locality – on balance the impact of the wider setting of the
Conservation Area will be relatively minor.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): raises no objection to
the proposed development subject to the development being carried out in strict
compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) submitted with the
application (Arbor Research Associates 22/10/2014). The landscape officer notes that
CD&L cannot comment on the High Hedge calculations submitted in the Arboricultural
Method Statement without a formal High Hedge compliant submission.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Development Committee
2
29 January 2015
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).Policy EN 8:
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Appropriateness of design and scale
Impact on a Conservation Area
Impact on neighbouring property
APPRAISAL
School Lane Cottage lies in a location defined by the North Norfolk Local Development
Framework Core Strategy as Countryside Policy Area and a Conservation Area, where
subject to compliance to Policies SS2, HO8, EN2, EN8 and EN4 the extension to
existing dwellings is in principle permitted.
Policies SS2 and HO8 – states development should be designed to a high standard,
reflect local distinctiveness and should not result in a disproportionately large increase
to the height and/or scale of the original dwelling. Furthermore development should not
result in the material impact of the host dwelling on the appearance of the surrounding
countryside.
Policies EN2 and EN8 – requires that proposals should demonstrate that there
location, scale, design and use of materials will protect, conserve and where possible
enhance an areas special qualities, local distinctiveness, settlement character and
preserve heritage assets.
Policy EN4 – states development be designed to a high quality, be suitably designed
for the context within which it is set and that the scale and massing of building relate
sympathetically to the surrounding area. In addition, proposals should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
A number of local concerns have been raised regarding the design, scale and palate of
materials to be use on the proposed extension. However, it is considered that as a
result of alterations the host dwelling has taken a distinct move away from its original
Development Committee
3
29 January 2015
vernacular character to a more contrived architectural style. Thus the proposed
extension would be in keeping with the host dwelling and would sit comfortably
alongside it.
The current proposal represents a step forward from an original informal proposal in
that its overall footprint and scale have been significantly reduced. These changes
permit the extension to take on a subservient role and the glazed link helps in creating
a visual separation and clear break with the cottage. Furthermore, the extension would
not hold a prominent position and to a large extent would be screened from view via
boundary vegetation and the existing property.
Whilst the proposal fails to reflect local distinctiveness its secluded location suggests,
on balance, it would have a relatively minor impact on the conservation area and the
wider community.
In terms of impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, the absence of windows
to the northwest (side) and north northeast (rear) elevation and its distance from
neighbouring properties suggests the development would not impact upon their
residential amenity. However, concern has been raised as to what impact the
development would have on the adjacent property‟s trees. An Arboricultural Method
Statement (AMS) submitted with the application suggests if the development is carried
out in strict accordance with the AMS the development would not harm the trees.
With regard to the breach of conditions imposed to planning application PF/13/0389:
The breach relates to the roofing of the approved front extension and dormer windows.
This is to be dealt with as a separate enforcement matter.
Notwithstanding the lack of local distinctiveness, the Conservation and Design team
do not object, and the design of the proposal, its appearance in the conservation Area
and relationship with neighbouring properties are considered acceptable.
The proposal does not significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan policies
and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
To approve subject to the following conditions
(i)
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
(ii)
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications
received by the Local planning Authority 22 October 2014 and 16 December
2014.
(iii)
Prior to their use on site, details of the brick and tile shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA. The work shall then be carried out only in strict
accordance with the approved details.
(iv)
Details of the external colour finish to the render shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement
of development. The development shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details.
Development Committee
4
29 January 2015
2.
(v)
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA, all rainwater goods shall be
finished in black.
(vi)
The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Arboricultural
Method Statement (AMS) submitted with the application (Arbor Research
associates 22/10/2014.
(vii)
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or
re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows or rooflights shall
be inserted in the flank wall or roof of the hereby approved two-storey side
extension‟s northwest elevation unless planning permission has been first
granted by the Local Planning Authority.
FULMODESTON - PF/14/0956 - Erection of three duck rearing units to house
36,000 birds; Clipstone Farm House, Clipstone for Ralph Harrison & Partners
Major Development
- Target Date: 28 October 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
Countryside
Archaeological Site
Public Rights of Way Footpath
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/09/1270 PF
Installation of buried electrical cable system in connection with off-shore wind farm
Refused 09/02/2012 A 22/06/2012
PF/14/0176 PF
Installation of buried electrical cable system (revision to part of the previously
approved route)
Approved 23/04/2014
THE APPLICATION
This application is seeking planning permission for the erection of three duck rearing
units to house 36,000 birds at Clipstone House Farm.
Each building would measure approximately 92m x 25m, with an internal floor area of
2230m², giving a total of 6690m² for all three units. The height to the eaves would
measure approximately 3m, and 6m to the ridge. Each unit would have a control room
used to house heating, ventilation, food and water controls. The control room would be
attached to each unit to the west of the northern elevations, and measure
approximately 3.4m x 6.6m. The three units would also have two feed silos each, to the
southern elevations, standing at a height of 8m.
The units would be steel framed structures clad in Olive Green profiled steel roof
sheeting and wall cladding above a concrete plinth. The feed silos would be galvanised
steel structures.
Development Committee
5
29 January 2015
There would be 7no. flocks per year, each on a 7 week cycle. Six of these weeks would
be for the rearing of the ducks with one week to allow for cleaning and maintenance.
The application site would be served by the existing vehicular access track off the
Croxton Road to the north of the site. During a typical 7 week cycle it is estimated that
27no. HGV movements will take place, including the delivery of ducklings, gas and
feed and the collection of birds. The average number of new movements will therefore
be less than 1no. per day. Straw and muck will be transported using the applicant‟s
own farm vehicles in the course of their day-to-day agricultural activities.
A number of amendments have been made to the submitted plans as follows:

8no. roof mounted chimney ventilation fans added (approximately 700mm in
height),

Louvred outlets to extract ventilation fans relocated from western elevation of
units to the eastern elevations

Solar panels proposed on southern roof slopes of units 1 and 2. A total area of
396m².

Colour of silos to be Olive Green

Reduced area of concrete paving to western end of unit 3

Sections through site provided to show relationships to surrounding land and
buildings

Significant landscaping and ecology enhancements including an additional
670m of new native hedgerow planting interspersed at 15 – 20m intervals with
trees, two groups of tree planting 35m x 10m, a tree belt 55m x 10m, a
managed meadow of approximately 0.71 hectares, and a wetland area.
An Energy Consumption Statement has also been received, along with an Ammonia
Dispersion Modelling Assessment Technical Note. An amended Ammonia Dispersion
Modelling Assessment, Noise Impact Assessment, Odour Assessment, Odour
Management Plan, Ecological Appraisal, and Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment have also been received updating changes made to landscaping,
ventilation, introduction of solar panels and noise.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee in order for a site
visit to be carried out. This was at the request of the Head of Planning.
PARISH COUNCIL
Fulmodeston Parish Council – Original comments: Object on the grounds of transport
and the extra HGV movements through the village on unsuitable roads, as well as
noise, lighting and smell.
Comments on amended plans: Object on same grounds as above.
REPRESENTATIONS
Forty three letters of objection and four comments have been received from local
residents raising the following points:
1.
2.
Industrialisation of countryside
Traffic/Highway safety
Development Committee
6
29 January 2015
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Risk of pollution on SAC and SSSI
Impact of development on the area
Noise
Effect on wildlife and habitats
Odour
Scale and appearance detrimental
Light pollution
Visual impact on Grade II Clipstone House
Ammonia
Water pollution
Biodiversity impact underestimated
No amenity gain
Traffic through village, inappropriate signage
Archaeological walk over insufficient due to crops
Increase in traffic along Holbrigg Lane
Unsuitable roads for increase in traffic
Alternative sites should be considered for upgrading as well as utilising tarmac
areas that already exist in North Norfolk
Impact from traffic noise, particularly at night
Inadequate measures to protect Kettlestone from increase in HGV and other
vehicular activity
Railway bridge inadequate for HGVs
Impact upon 5 County Wildlife Sites
Animal welfare
Contamination and pollution concerns
Impact on Public Rights of Way and enjoyment of
Concerns over how manure will be dealt with
Loss of tranquil rural amenity
Health impacts from pollutants from the site
Landscape impact
No clear waste management plan
Impact upon archaeology in area.
A letter has been received from Keith Simpson MP who would like it to be known that
he does not support this application.
A letter has been received from the CPRE who are objecting to the application on
grounds of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which they consider to be
seriously flawed and that the Small Valley Landscape Character has not been
assessed. Impacts on the public footpath. Concerns over the Design and Access
Statement and traffic impacts from HGVs on narrow lanes including the erosion of
highway verges and run - off from arable fields impacting on the Rivers Stiffkey and
Wensum. The little ecological value and wider connectivity in terms of the mitigation in
the Ecological Appraisal. A full copy of these comments in contained in Appendix 1.
A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application along with
the following supporting information:






Ammonia Dispersion Modelling Assessment
Ammonia Dispersion Modelling Assessment Technical Note
Noise Impact Assessment
Odour Assessment
Odour Management Plan
Ecological Appraisal
Development Committee
7
29 January 2015





Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
Energy Consumption Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Heritage Statement
Archaeology Desk Based Assessment
CONSULTATIONS
Kettlestone Parish Council – Original comments: Object on grounds of operational
issues, traffic, light and noise pollution, environment and wildlife, impact on the public
right of way, archaeology, impact on listed buildings and welfare and ethical
considerations. A copy of these comments is contained in full in Appendix 1.
Comments on amended plans - Continue to object: This application represents a
proposal for major industrial style development in an important rural Norfolk landscape
that is significantly described as 'Strong' in the Core Strategy Landscape Character
Assessment documentation. The Council objects on the grounds that it cuts across
policy statements EN2, EN9, EN13 and CT5 and that it should and does not properly
address SV 8.1 Kettlestone and SV 8.9 Fulmodeston alongside TF 5. These
statements are there for good reason and should not be contravened. Where
applicable the Council continues to hold by its original submissions but also wishes to
draw attention to the following:
1. Surprised that, to date, Environmental Health has not presented its own statement.
2. Consider, for whatever reason, that the Highways report was biased and
inadequate. It fails to consider the needs of other road users, walkers, joggers, cyclists
and smaller vehicles, as against HGVs, using the affected thoroughfares. It also fails to
report on the environmental damage already done, and likely to be exacerbated, to
roadside verges on the narrow C331 Fulmodeston road in the pertinent vicinity. The
Street, Kettlestone, Holbrigg Lane, Clipstone Restricted Byway and the Fulmodeston
road is a popular circular and the only accessible and important exercise route for
walkers, joggers and cyclists from the village and that enjoyment of this amenity will be
severely compromised by the large vehicles traffic envisaged. Even on the day of the
site inspection a walker had to step on to a bank and wet verge along the Byway to
allow the minibus to pass. It is not unreasonable to claim that pedestrians and cyclists
are being denied right of use on personal safety grounds.
3. There is still no detailed description of how foul water is going to be dealt with: no
pipe run plans, no tanking specifications, no strategy for dealing with accidental
spillage or overflow in adverse weather conditions, no detail of how underground
seepage is going to be prevented and no health and safety specifications for wildlife or
people, for example. This application has major environmental ramifications, surely
such issues should be dealt with in precise detail.
4. There is no detailed description of the night time lighting. Dark skies are of
paramount importance (x-reference the CPRE's latest statement on this matter) and
again on a development of this size and nature it should be there.
5. The buildings have no wildlife value at all and the compensatory provision of two bird
boxes for sparrows and song thrushes is ludicrous. Song thrushes do not nest in boxes
so what is to be made of what should be the underlying environmental and
professional competence here?
Development Committee
8
29 January 2015
6. The scientific and formulaic representation of pollution in the form of noise, odour
and nitrogen enrichment does not, of course, represent what conditions would be like
in working reality. At the moment the site devoid of these problems and in spite of the
mathematics their presence would be a degradation of a fine landscape. Houses along
the route of the HGVs would be subjected to their rumble and shake as well as
reversing beeper noise; walkers on the northerly Restricted Byway and on to the
footpath to Croxton would pass through an envelope of smell (see diagrams in Odour
Assessment document) and some air and water borne pollution, no matter how small,
into the Wensum Valley SAC and SSSI is all but inevitable and is something that
concerted efforts are being made to reduce.
If in spite of this detailed and committed response from the local community the
Development Committee are still of a mind to pass this application then Kettlestone
Parish Council wish to state in the strongest possible terms that as well as the above
issues that need resolution the following should be put in place:
1. Vehicle movements, particularly HGVs, associated with this development should be
kept out of the village in all but absolute necessity. This is a strongly expressed
concern from the whole community.
2. Traffic movements should be at a time that will not disturb the legitimate need for
people to rest and sleep. 07.00 hrs. to 20.00 hrs.
3. Night-time lighting is of the latest and most compliant form to meet the needs of
maintaining a dark sky environment.
4. Disposal and storage of manure is environmentally sensitive and of least possible
disturbance (smell) to nearby households.
5. The proposed environmental enhancement (planting of trees, hedges and flower
meadow) should be carried out to its full extent and that it is properly maintained
hereon after. As the development will cover two hectares of hard surface the Council
considers that at least the same area of wildlife enhancement should be put in place
and, indeed, even more to create corridors to existing green spaces e.g. grassland,
ponds and trees. This would be an opportunity for the District Council to really show its
environmental credentials.
Stibbard Parish Council – Comments following amended plans:
Council objects to the application on the following grounds:
Stibbard Parish
Whilst not in the parish of Stibbard this is a huge development immediately adjacent to
it and one which will have a significant impact on regions of our parish. The scale of
this building and the nature of the business is not one that can be associated with
normal agricultural development; it is industrial both in concept and purpose and
should not be allowed to intrude upon a completely rural landscape. In particular:
1. Smell – although the report seeks to play down the smell, big units like this
always smell. Additionally, the fact that the unit is due to be cleaned out every 7
weeks with the resulting manure being tipped into [unspecified] heaps
somewhere in the farm locality to await spreading is not properly addressed.
DEFRA rules now prevent poultry manure being spread on the land for most of
the winter, furthermore during the summer most land will be taken up by
growing crops; hence spreading is only really practical for quite limited periods
in the Spring and Autumn. Consequently, for most of the year, there will be a
large amount of exposed heaped poultry manure, stored whilst awaiting
spreading, with the obvious dangers of smell flies and the diseases they carry.
2.Visual Impact – the landscape and visual assessment ref:14/0956 draws
attention to the rural setting. However, by some strange chance, none of the
Development Committee
9
29 January 2015
“key location receptors” used for the visual assessment model are to the south
– anywhere but. This despite the fact that the land falls away to the south of the
proposed site, towards Stibbard Parish, on the opposing northern slope. We
therefore suggest this report is null and void. Clearly, however this report spins
it, such a large new facility would be hugely alien to its surroundings.
Furthermore the proposed planting to the south and east of the planned unit
remains totally inadequate.
3. Traffic- We have grave concerns that this development will almost certainly
result in HGVs servicing the site to use Stibbard village to gain access from the
south. This would permanently increase the risk of accidents in our village,
particularly to vulnerable groups including children who walk to school using
the same narrow road.
County Council Highways – Original comments: No objection. With consideration of
the scale of the landholding and the existing uses of that land, which has synergy with
the proposed development, I am able to comment that in relation to highways issues
only, as this proposal does not significantly affect the current traffic patterns or the free
flow of traffic.
Additional comments provided in relation to how traffic movements were calculated
and how a decision of no objection was reached. As well as a response following a
discrepancy in traffic numbers raised by Fulmodeston and Kettlestone Parish
Council's. This information is contained in full in Appendix 1.
Comments on amendments: The likely increases in traffic are deemed minimal (in the
region of 3 lorries a week), this is was previously explained in my response of 07
October 2014. and subsequent information submitted does not change this level of
traffic by any significant level.
It is clear that the planned average daily traffic movements to and from the site is very
low, particularly when compared with more conventional commercial uses.
The Council is obliged to take a reasonable stance to assist the delivery of growth and
prosperity. Highways considerations are guided by the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) which states: “Development should only be prevented or refused
on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are
severe”.
Following the Development Committee site visit, the deterioration in the site access
construction was noted, which would benefit from reconstruction to NCC specification
and NCC will seek to ensure this through condition.
In relation to the numerous suggestions of providing passing bays along Croxton Road
to the north of the site access, the Highway Authority realises the benefit of improved
carriageway widths along the narrower sections of Croxton Road, unfortunately with
due consideration to the assessment of the likely traffic movements, the minimal
increases engendered by the development are not considered to be sufficient
justification to make those improvements a requirement of the planning application.
Should the Applicant consider that these improvements would be beneficial to the
function of the site and be willing to fund the works independently, the LHA would
willingly work with the applicant to ensure these works are suitably located providing
the most benefit to all road users.
Development Committee
10
29 January 2015
The Development Committee may wish to consider this point in their assessment of
the application.
Environment Agency – Original comments: Object. The FRA does not comply with the
requirements of the NPPF Practice Guidance. A copy of the full response is contained
in Appendix 1.
Comments on amended details: No objection subject to a condition that requires the
submission of a surface water drainage scheme prior to commencement.
Norfolk County Council (Mineral Consultation Area) – No response received.
Public Rights of Way (Norfolk County Council) – Original comments: No objection. As
stated in the Access and Transport Statement Fulmodeston public footpath 2, which is
situated north of the proposed site is not affected by the development. It should be
noted that the access track to the site from Croxton Road is coincident with
Fulmodeston Restricted Byway 1. This route can be used by the public on foot, cycle,
horseback and with a horse and cart. The increase in traffic using this route to access
the site is stated to be minimal (less than 1 additional movement per day) so it should
not adversely affect public users.
Comments on amended plans: No objection. From the schematic planting plan it
appears that the public footpath will be accommodated within the new planting
scheme. The width of the gap in planting should be a minimum of 2 metres to allow for
plant growth whilst maintaining a suitable gap for the footpath.
Open Spaces Society – Original comments: The main concern for the Society would
be the impact of the proposed development of the public's use and enjoyment of the
public rights of way in the vicinity, and the surrounding countryside.
The means of vehicular access to/from the proposed units would be along part of
Fulmodeston Restricted Byway 1 and Fulmodeston Footpath 2. Care must be taken
to ensure than any vehicular traffic associated with the development proposed would
not adversely affect the public's use and enjoyment of these public rights of way,
including potentially vulnerable users on foot and on horseback.
Close, long-established views of the development site are afforded to the public by
Fulmodeston Footpath 2, just to the north. The location of the proposed development
is visually sensitive, being in close proximity to the near-by listed farm
buildings. Great care needs to be taken to ensure that the setting of the listed
buildings would not be adversely affected by the proposed development, bearing these
close, long-established public views.
Comments on amended plans: No response received.
Ramblers Association – No response received.
Building Control – Comments on original proposal: As long as the units have a fire exit
which is not more than 30 metres from any point in the building the units will be exempt
from Building Regulations. If not exempt any matters arising will be controlled under a
Building Regulations application.
Comments on amended plans – No further comments received.
Development Committee
11
29 January 2015
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Landscape) – No objection subject to
conditions. A copy of the full response is contained in Appendix 1, along with a Habitat
Regulations Assessment.
Environmental Health – Comments on amendments (summarised): Clarification is
requested regarding the full extent of amendments made to the Noise Impact
Assessment, Odour Assessment and Odour Management Plan. However, in relation
to noise from the duck shed operation Environmental Health currently have major
concerns as the Noise Impact Assessment does not to show or reflect the changes to
the number and type of fans shown within the amended site and building cross
sections dated 5 November.
The Noise Assessment uses measured data from 5 no fans at another site, whereas
the amended site and building cross section plans show 8 no roof for each 3 buildings,
a total of 24 fans, and in additional ventilation louvres in the east end elevations of
each building. As such, Environmental Health are unable to comment on the Noise
from the Duck Sheds until the type and no of fans and their noise impact is clarified and
an update to date assessment of the amended ventilation system made available for
comment.
There is also an outstanding query about the correction relating “no direct line of
sight” used in Section 4.1 in relation to topological data used within the reports.
With regard to noise from HGV movements. It is note that the farm site has existing
HGV movements which may occur in unrestricted numbers and at any hour. As such it
is considered this restricts the options for conditions to enforce the number and timing
of any additional vehicle movements to and from the site. The Noise Assessment has
considered the impact of night-time noise associated with vehicles to the duck farm in
relation to the recommended World Health Organisation maximum level. The noise
predicted level is below this criteria.
Following concerns from objectors clarification is required on the type of reversing
alarm proposed and noise data relating to this.
In terms of the Odour Assessment confirmation on the revisions to the document are
requested, but it is noted that the revision to the number and type and location of fans
has been made to include the revised 8 fans per building. However, as the reports
states on page 7 the assessment made does not include the gable end fans as they
are said to be for “infrequent use” As such, further information is required to include the
impact of odour from these gable end fans. The assessment uses the appropriate
assessment criteria of 3.0 ouE as a 98th percentile of 1 hour mean concentrations. The
assessment outcome of 24 roof fans gives an acceptable outcome but please note my
above request for further information on the odour impact from the east end gable fans.
Subject to final confirmation of the detail changes to 22 December version, and
confirmation of control measures for liquid wastes the content of the Odour
Management Plan is welcomed, which includes appropriate control measures,
remedial actions, reporting forms and complaint procedures.
A lighting condition is recommended to ensure that any impact of lighting on residential
amenity is addressed.
No objection in relation to drainage following Environment Agency response.
Development Committee
12
29 January 2015
Norfolk Wildlife Trust - Original comments: Object on grounds of insufficient
information in relation to flood risk and airborne pollution relating to the nearby County
Wildlife Sites.
Comments on amended details: No objection following receipt of additional informal
regarding flood risk and airborne pollution relating to the nearby County Wildlife Sites,
and no objection from Environment Agency.
Natural England – Original comments: No objection. With regard to Internationally
designated sites (River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC and SSSI)
Natural England's has no objection and advises that the proposal is unlikely to have a
significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any
requirement for further assessment. With regard to Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(River Wensum and Swanton Novers Wood) Natural England has no objection and no
conditions are requested, and are satisfied that the proposed development being
carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not
damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. They
advise that these SSSIs do not represent a constraint in determining this application. A
copy of these comments is contained in full in Appendix 1.
Comments on amended plans: No objection. Advice provided in original comments still
applies equally to this amendment.
Historic Environment Service – No objection
Conservation, Design and Landscape (Conservation and Design) – No objection. Both
Clipstone Farmhouse (built c1800) and associated barns directly to the north of the
principal house are Grade II Listed. The farmhouse and outbuildings have a close
interrelationship both of which make a significant contribution to the character and
appearance of the area and wider landscape setting.
In regards to the proposal, the three duck sheds will be located to the east of the Grade
II Listed Buildings with approx. 85m separation distance to the Farmhouse and 75m
separation to the barns. There is an existing modern outbuilding which also lies to the
east of the farmhouse in-between the proposed development site and the listed
buildings, this structure will help in increasing the sense of visual separation and
screening the historic outbuildings from the duck sheds.
In terms of structure, the duck sheds are in essence large agricultural units constructed
from principally profiled steel with low-level concrete walls. The ridge height of the
sheds measures some 6m and the silos have an overall height of 8m – whilst the
footprint of the buildings are extensive and have a combined floor area of some
6,690m2 – the overall ridge height is relatively low which by nature will help in reducing
impact the setting of the neighbouring buildings and wider area. Importantly the
scheme will not interrupt any of the key views of the existing buildings or the approach
to the Farm.
Whilst there will be an impact on the setting of Farmhouse, C&D consider there is
sufficient separation between the proposed development site and the house in-order
that this impact will not be a harmful one and will not detract from the buildings
architectural or historic significance. The positioning of the modern outbuilding means
that there will be no inter-visibility between the historic barns and the sheds. The
overall effect of which means there will be no immediate interrelationship between the
listed buildings on the site and the sheds – with the two elements not being read in
conjunction.
Development Committee
13
29 January 2015
The key to mitigating the impact of the development on the wider setting will be the
quality of the landscaping/planting scheme.
In the event of the application being approved, the following condition should be
attached:Prior to commencement of development, a sample of the „Olive Green‟ colour for both
the elevations and roof of the duck sheds shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by
the LPA, the works shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the approved
details. The outlet ventilation fans and all openings shall also be treated to the same
matching colour.
By virtue that the proposal will not harm the significance of the designated heritage
assets, C&D raise no objection to the application.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement
hierarchy and distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Development Committee
14
29 January 2015
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Landscape and visual impact
3. Impact upon neighbouring residential properties
4. Ecological impacts
5. Pollution (Noise, odour, light, waste, water)
6. Traffic/highway safety
7. Heritage/Archaeology impact
8. Surface Water flooding
9. Energy efficiency
APPRAISAL
This application was recommended for a site visit at the meeting on 30 October 2014.
Members visited the site on 20 November 2014.
1. Principle of Development
The application site is located within the Countryside Policy Area where development
is limited to that which requires a rural location as specified under Policy SS2.
The proposal is considered to constitute an agricultural use and would be located on
an existing farm. Development in relation to agriculture is one of the uses supported by
Policy SS2.
Policies SS1 and SS5 also support the rural economy through different types of
development. In addition to this paragraph 28 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), promotes development of agricultural and other land based rural
business.
It is therefore considered that the principle of this development is acceptable in this
location and is in accordance with Policies SS1, SS2 and SS5 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy, and paragraph 28 of the NPPF.
Whilst the principle of such a use may be acceptable the proposed development also
needs to comply with other relevant policies within the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy, as considered in the remainder of this report.
2. Landscape and Visual Impact
In terms of landscape and visual impact the site is located at Clipstone House Farm,
adjacent to an existing modern agricultural building. Whilst the site is in a rural area the
proposed buildings would not be seen in isolation in terms of their visual impact within
the landscape, given their close proximity and grouping alongside existing agricultural
buildings. These existing agricultural buildings consist of a modern type structure with
a red coloured cladding and more traditional red brick and pantile barns of various
sizes, which are Grade II listed in association with Clipstone Farm House.
There can be no dispute that the proposed buildings cover a significant area, with a
combined total floor area of 6690m². However, whilst the footprint of these buildings
would be very large, the overall ridge height of the proposed buildings would be 6m
which is not considered to be significant in terms of scale. Although the existing
agricultural buildings adjacent to the site are not of the same scale that is being
proposed, in terms of floor area, they do have a greater ridge height than those
proposed under this application by approximately 1 – 4m.
Development Committee
15
29 January 2015
Plans have been submitted showing three sections through the site, looking north,
south and east. These sections show the relationship of the proposed buildings in
terms of their height to the existing adjacent agricultural buildings, the proposed
ground levels and the points at which the maximum amount of excavation would be
required in order to accommodate the proposed buildings. The western end of the site
has the lowest ground levels which are in line with the existing agricultural buildings.
The levels vary with a fairly significant change from west to east and north to south.
Excavation of the site is therefore required so that the proposed buildings are sitting at
the lowest ground level point.
The north eastern corner of the site is where the existing ground levels are at their
highest, and the maximum amount of excavation is required. At this point the ground
levels would be lowered by approximately 3m, decreasing down to the ground level
adjacent to the existing agricultural buildings.
The proposed buildings would therefore be „dug in‟ to the site, with the access track to
the northern boundary, and fields to the east and south east banked around them. This
positioning in the landscape along with the low ridge height, and appropriate colour of
external cladding, fenestration and silos would significantly reduce the visual impact
that the proposed buildings would have on the surrounding area.
The application site is located just over 1000m in a straight line (approximately 0.6 of a
mile) from the Croxton Road. It is accessed via a track approximately 1255m in length
(0.77 of a mile). However, due to the topography of the land surrounding the site, which
undulates and has a natural ridge running east to west to the north of the site, it is
located in what could be described as a „dip‟ in the landscape. As a result of these
landscape features the site is not visible from the Croxton Road. The site only
becomes visible once you have travelled south approximately half way along the
access track, reaching the top of the ridge. The significant change in ground levels
across the site and surrounding land becomes apparent at this point.
Significant landscape enhancements have been made to this application since the
submission of the original plans. Whilst the sites location within a 'dip', proposed
excavation, low ridge height, topography of the site and surrounding landscape, as
well as close proximity to existing farm buildings all assist in assimilating the buildings
into the landscape it was considered by Officers that the landscaping as shown on the
original plans was not sufficient.
The original plans showed new hedgerow and tree planting to the north, east and
south boundaries directly adjacent to the buildings (some 286m in total length).
However, given the overall footprint that the buildings would have it was considered
that further improvements could be made to actually provide landscape
enhancements. Following Officers discussions with the applicant and agent, and
meeting on site, the amended landscaping plan was submitted.
This would provide an additional 670m of new native hedgerow interspersed with
hedgerow trees every 15 – 20m. This would be approximately 470m in length along the
northern boundary of the access track directly to the north of the buildings, on land also
in the ownership of the applicant, and include two tree groups approximately 35m x
10m each. A further 125m in length is proposed to reinstate a field boundary to the
south of the proposed buildings. Approximately 75m in length running from the south
west corner of proposed buildings linking up with the reinstated hedgerow to the south.
The creation of a managed meadow area to the south of the buildings. A wetland area
with a tree margin approximately 70m x 10m. A tree belt to the west between the
Development Committee
16
29 January 2015
Grade II listed Clipstone Farm House and the application site measuring
approximately 55m x 10m.
This would constitute a total of some 956m of new native hedgerow, 1170m² of new
tree planting, 6km² of managed wildflower meadow and 1.7km² of managed wetland.
The wetland area is not intended to act as a method of filtration. It has been
incorporated within the scheme to provide an additional landscape and ecology
habitat, making use of and enhancing an area which is already wetter than surrounding
farmland.
The intention of the amended landscaping is not merely to just screen the proposed
buildings. As advised by the Landscape Officer these improvements have been based
on the recommendations laid out in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment for the relevant Landscape Types and seeks to reinforce the prevailing
landscape character by reinstating field boundaries and enhancing existing landscape
features.
In terms of the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment the site lies within the
Tributary Farmland Landscape Type (TF2 Snoring, Stibbard and Hindolveston) as
defined in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (June 2009
Supplementary Planning Document). The CPRE have made a representation on this
application and have objected on numerous grounds. One of which is the landscape
character type in which this application has been assessed. The CPRE states that the
application has only been assessed against the Tributary Farmland Landscape Type
and that there is no assessment of the Small Valley Type (SV9 Raynham, Tatterford
and Kettlestone). On this particular point the Landscape Officer has advised that whilst
the development would "substantially alter the character of the site itself from arable
field to built form, it is considered that the generic character of this part of TF2 would
not be significantly impacted. The development constitutes an extension of an existing
farm complex and the associated landscape planting will assist in bedding the
buildings into the surrounding landscape". Furthermore, "another Landscape Type,
Small Valley (SV9 Raynham, Tatterford and Kettlestone) is situated approximately
400m to the south and west of the site. This wooded tributary of the River Wensum is a
sensitive landscape area comprising important aquatic habitat which is designated.
Due to its enclosed wooded nature, the visual and landscape impact of the proposed
development on this landscape area is not deemed to be significant". It is not therefore
considered that this proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon either
Tributary Farmland Landscape Type or Small Valley Type.
There is a public footpath (Fulmodeston public footpath 2) which runs from the north of
the site, and extends over the natural ridge down towards the north west corner of the
application site. The footpath is not affected by the proposed development, and a gap
in the new hedgerow on the northern track boundary is to be retained to maintain
access. Given the close proximity the footpath has in relation to the site, the proposed
buildings would be visible from it. The Landscape Officer has advised that when
approaching the application site from the north east "views of the roofline of the
proposed buildings would be incurred, but only from the brow of the field, given the
rolling topography," the buildings would be seen "as an extension to the existing farm
unit".
Therefore given the careful siting within the landscape, low ridge height and proposed
landscaping it is not considered that the wider views from the footpath would be
significantly affected by the proposal. In any case this is a rural area where farms and
various agricultural uses and associated structures are prevalent within the landscape.
Development Committee
17
29 January 2015
The Committee will note that the Landscape Officer has no objections to this
application in terms of landscape and visual impact. The Landscape Officer agrees
with the conclusions of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that any
adverse visual and landscape impacts will be limited by virtue of the local undulating
topography, the siting adjacent to an existing farm complex and the extensive
landscape planting that is proposed as mitigation.
The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies
SS4 and EN2 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. Impact upon neighbouring properties
Clipstone Farm House is located directly to the west of the application site by
approximately 87m. It forms part of Clipstone House Farm itself. The next nearest
neighbouring properties are Merryweather House and The Gate House approximately
500m to the west beyond the existing farm buildings of Clipstone House Farm, over
another natural ridge in the landscape along a track which runs from Clipstone House
Farm to these neighbouring properties and turns into Holbrigg Lane which is accessed
off The Street in Kettlestone. Both of these properties are located in the adjacent Ward
of Kettlestone. Approximately 900m to the north west along the access track to the site
from the Croxton Road is The Cottage. To the west of the vehicular access on the
Croxton Road is 1 and 2 Bridge Cottages, and to the east is Mill House. These
properties are located over 1000m from the application site.
The small settlement of Croxton is located to the north east of the site with the nearest
properties being over 1000m from the site. Further east along the Croxton Road is
Fulmodeston which is approximately 1500m from the site. To the west is Kettlestone
and south is Stibbard which are approximately 1400m from the site.
As explained in earlier sections of this report the topography, siting, low ridge height
and proximity and positioning of the proposed buildings in relation to existing
agricultural buildings on the site would mean that the neighbouring properties would
have no views of the application site. Clipstone Farm House is the nearest dwelling to
the application site, bearing in mind it is the farm house in connection with this farm.
The primary outlook from Clipstone Farm House is to the north, west and south. There
are some windows facing east towards the application site, which would also be seen
from the garden. However, in time these views would be screened by the proposed
tree belt to the east. This property currently faces the traditional barns to the north, and
also has existing views of the existing red clad modern agricultural building and yard. It
is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental visual impact
upon the neighbouring properties.
Pollution in the form of noise, odour, light, waste and water are also objections raised
that could have a direct impact upon local residents. However, subject to the
applicants satisfying Environmental Health in relation to noise from the proposed fans
and providing clarification on the amendments made regarding the noise, odour and
waste reports, Environmental Health would have no objection in relation to this
proposal. Concerns raised locally regarding external lighting can be addressed by way
of condition, which would require details to be submitted to and agreed by the Local
Planning Authority prior to installation. Subject to Environmental Health being satisfied
it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon
the residential amenities of local residents by way of noise, odour, light, waste and
water pollution.
Development Committee
18
29 January 2015
Traffic and highway safety are also raised as objections. However no objection has
been received from the Highway Authority, and conditions are requested in relation to
an upgrade of the vehicular access and a routing agreement providing appropriate
signage to direct traffic away from The Street in Kettlestone and Holbrigg Lane.
Noise in relation to HGV traffic and disturbance to local residents has been considered
by Environmental Health. However, in view of the existing HGV movements which may
occur in unrestricted numbers and at any hour Environmental Health considers that
this restricts the options for conditions to enforce the numbers and timings of any
additional vehicle movements to and from the site. Environmental Health has advised
that the Noise Assessment has considered the impact of night-time noise associated
with vehicles to the duck farm in relation to the recommended World Health
Organisation maximum level, and the noise predicted level is below this criteria.
At the time of writing this report further comments were awaited from Environmental
Health in relation to noise from the fans and clarification of amended information.
Subject to confirmation from Environmental Health that they have no objection the
additional information, the proposal would comply with Policy EN4. The Committee will
be updated orally at the meeting on this matter.
4. Ecological Impacts
The applicants have submitted an Ecological Appraisal as part of the supporting
documentation with this application. The Landscape Officer has been consulted as
well as Natural England and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust. Members will note from the
report that none of these consultees have raised an objection to the application.
The Norfolk Wildlife Trust initially raised an objection on flood risk grounds in terms of
run-off and airborne pollution both relating to County Wildlife Sites. It was not
considered that this was sufficiently addressed. This was also in line with an initial
objection from the Environment Agency on flood risk and run-off. However, following
the receipt of additional information in terms of flood risk as requested by the
Environment Agency and the submission of an Ammonia Dispersion Modelling
Assessment Technical Note addressing the County Wildlife Sites in terms of airborne
pollution the Norfolk Wildlife Trust have removed their objection.
Natural England have raised no objection in terms of Internationally designated sites
(River Wensum Special Area of Conservation). As advised by the Landscape Officer
North Norfolk District Council has undertaken a Habitats Regulations Screening
Assessment, in accordance with its duty under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 as amended, to assess whether the
development proposal would have any likely significant effects on this designated
site. Natural England were consulted as part of this process and concluded that the
predicted effects that would result from the development would not be significant and
the integrity of this important site would not be adversely affected. An Appropriate
Assessment under the above Regulations is therefore not considered to be required.
Natural England have also raised no objection in relation to SSSIs (River Wensum and
Swanton Novers Wood). Natural England are satisfied that the proposed development
being carried out in strict accordance with the submitted details will not damage or
destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. Natural England go
on to advise that these SSS's do not represent a constraint in determining this
application.
Development Committee
19
29 January 2015
The Landscape Officer has advised that they agree with the conclusion provided in the
amended Ecological Appraisal, which states that the proposal would result in an
"overall beneficial effect on the nature conservation interest of the site through habitat
creation and enhanced ecological connectivity". The Landscape Officer advises that
the landscape mitigation measures now include a varied mix of habitat creation
extending well beyond the site curtilage which supports this conclusion.
The impact of the proposal on the five County Wildlife Sites with 1km of the site has
been considered and no significant effects have been identified.
The Landscape Officer has requested that all pre, during and post construction
mitigation measures as laid out in Section 5 of the amended Ecological Appraisal
should be conditioned should the application be approved.
It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policies SS4 and EN9
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. Pollution (Noise, Odour, Water, Waste, Ammonia, Light)
The applicants have submitted a number of reports with this application including an
amended Noise Impact Assessment, Odour Assessment, Odour Management Plan
and Ammonia Dispersion Modelling Assessment. As well as an Ammonia Dispersion
Modelling Assessment Technical Note.
Environmental Health have been consulted on the above documents, as well as
objections received from local residents regarding noise and disturbance concerns
from HGV traffic entering, exiting and manoeuvring on site, and HGV traffic driving
past their properties particularly so at night time hours in relation to this application.
Environmental Health sought clarification from the applicant regarding the number of
HGV movements and their timings in terms of whether they are considered to be
daytime movements between 07.00 to 23.00 hours or night time 23.00 - 07.00 hours.
The agent confirmed that there would be 27no. movements during each 7 week cycle.
Of this amount the only HGV's which would visit the site outside of day time hours are
for the collection of ducks at the end of the cycle. The agent has advised that when
each of the 3no. buildings is emptied the collections are typically timed at 4am, 7am
and 10am. Assuming the second HGV will arrive before 7am this gives 2no HGV's per
building, so a maximum of 6no. night time movements would occur during each 7 week
cycle.
In response to this and taking into consideration the objections of local residents
Environmental Health have advised that the farm site has existing HGV movements
which may occur in unrestricted numbers and at any hour. In view of this
Environmental Health considers that this restricts the options for conditions to enforce
the numbers and timings of any additional vehicle movements to and from the site.
Environmental Health has advised that the Noise Assessment has considered the
impact of night-time noise associated with vehicles to the duck farm in relation to the
recommended World Health Organisation maximum level, and the noise predicted
level is below this criteria.
However, in view of objections received in relation to reversing alarms Environmental
Health have requested clarification of the type of reversing alarms that would be used
on the HGVs visiting the site and noise data relating to this. At the time of writing this
report this information was still awaited. The Committee will be updated at the meeting
on this matter.
Development Committee
20
29 January 2015
In terms of the Noise Impact Assessment, in relation to fans, Environmental Health has
major concerns as the amended report does not show or reflect the changes to the
number and type of fans shown on the most recent amended plans. There were no
roof mounted fans proposed on the plans as originally submitted. However, this has
now been amended and 8no. roof mounted fans are proposed for each unit. The Noise
Assessment uses measured data from 5 no. fans at another site, whereas the
amended site and building cross section plans show 8 no. roof for each 3 buildings, a
total of 24 fans, as well as ventilation louvres in the east end elevations of each
building. Until such time as the type and number of fans and their noise impact is
clarified and an up to date assessment of the amended ventilation system submitted
Environmental Health is unable to comment further. Environmental Health also have
an outstanding query regarding the correction relating to "no direct line of sight" used in
Section 4.1 of the report for topological data used within the reports. This information
has been requested and at the time of writing this report was still awaited. The
Committee will therefore be updated at the meeting on this matter.
In terms of odour an Odour Assessment and Odour Management Plan have been
submitted with the application. The Odour Management Plan provides some
background on the processes that take place including the basic process cycle,
feeding, ventilation, the clean out phase, manure storage and effluent waste. The
applicants agent has also provided some additional information in relation to these
points following initial objections from Kettlestone Parish Council.
The ducks are bedded on straw and housed within the units for the full duration of the
cycle. Each unit is equipped with a mechanical system, located at ground floor level,
which provides feed and water. At the end of the cycle the ducks are removed from the
units, which are then cleaned ready for the next cycle.
The clean out phase consists of the straw being removed using a specific machine,
each unit being washed out using a purpose built water bowser and the units are
sprayed throughout with disinfectant. The proposed development will not generate
slurry. The liquid discharge from the units would be in the form of dirty water and waste
wash down which is piped to a sealed underground tank. When the tank is receiving
discharge from the ducks during the course of each cycle there will be no disinfectant.
At the time of the wash down at the end of each cycle a non-phenolic, biodegradable
disinfectant is used. The waste/dirty water within the tank is taken away by tanker and
spread on the applicants land in accordance with normal farming practice as required
by the Environment Agency and complying with Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Regulations.
On occasions when it is not possible to immediately spread the waste/dirty water onto
agricultural land it will be held at the applicant‟s existing, purpose built effluent lagoon
located adjacent to the A148.
The used straw will be cleared out from the units at the end of each cycle and spread
on the applicants land to aid fertility and minimise the use of artificial fertilisers. The
applicant has estimated that at the end of each cycle some 170 tonnes of manure will
have been produced. This equates to a total of approximately 1200 tonnes per annum.
The applicants existing pad off the A148 has been holding 800 tonnes and is only
around half full, so the pad is capable of holding an entire year‟s worth of manure from
the development, but in practice it would be spread on fields throughout the course of
the year from July to April. The applicant is aware of his requirements in the use of field
heaps and will continue to act accordingly. Dead birds will be contained within
appropriate locked wheelie bins stored in a dedicated area within the existing
buildings. They will be collected by a registered carrier. The applicant will work with full
adherence to the strict requirements of their customer, who ultimately supply major
Development Committee
21
29 January 2015
supermarket retailers imposing high standards on their farmers and producers. Audits
are carried out with visits on average every 2 - 3 months by supermarkets plus weekly
audits by Green Label Farms.
The Odour Management Plan identifies the sensitive receptor locations (residential
properties) and an Odour Risk Assessment carried out considering the type of
receptor, source of odour, harm, control measures, impacts and how this was
assessed. Odour monitoring is also proposed by 'sniff testing', which is the most
common form, and suitable remediation measures put in place if required. An Odour
Complaints Procedure would also be in place.
Environmental Health have advised that whilst confirmation of the revisions to the
amended Odour Assessment are required it is noted that the revision to the number,
type and location of fans has been made to include the revised 8no. roof mounted fans
per building. The assessment uses the appropriate assessment criteria of 3.0 ouE as a
98th percentile of 1 hour mean concentrations, and the 24no. roof mounted fans give
an acceptable outcome. However, the Odour Assessment states that the assessment
made does not include the gable end fans as they are said to be for “infrequent use”. In
view of this further information is required to include the impact of odour from these
gable end fans, before any further comments can be made. This information has been
requested and at the time of writing this report a response awaited. The Committee will
be updated at the meeting on this matter.
In terms of the Odour Management Plan Environmental Health have advised that they
understand the final amended version of this report was to include their request for
confirmation control measures for liquid wastes. Subject to final confirmation of the
detailed changes to the amended report the content of the Odour Management Plan is
welcomed and includes appropriate control measures, remedial actions, reporting
forms and complaint procedures.
No details have yet been submitted in relation to external lighting. The agent has
advised that the external lighting system has not yet been designed. However, as a
general principle the applicant suggests that he will have 3no. security lights placed at
the western end of the new buildings, so there is one light for each unit. The agent
advises that these would operate from dusk to dawn and would be of a type specified
and adjusted to ensure there is no light spill above the horizontal plane.
Careful consideration will need to be given to the external lighting scheme, and any
such scheme would need to ensure that that light pollution is kept to a minimum. It is
normal practice for the details of external lighting to be submitted and approved as part
of a condition prior to installation so that Environmental Health and in this case the
Landscape Officer can be satisfied that any proposed external lighting will not have
any significant impacts in terms of light pollution in the surrounding landscape. The
Committee will note that both Environmental Health and the Landscape Officer would
require a condition regarding details of external lighting to be submitted and approved
prior to installation.
In addition to this Environmental Health have no objection on matters of drainage
following the receipt of no objection from the Environment Agency.
With regard to the Ammonia Dispersion Modelling Assessment an updated report was
submitted to include the impacts upon the County Wildlife Sites that are within 1km of
the site as well as considering the impacts upon the River Wensum Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and Swanton
Development Committee
22
29 January 2015
Novers Wood National Nature Reserve (NNR) and SSSI located approximately 860m
south and 3.2km north of the site. The dispersion modelling results indicated
compliance with the relevant Environment Agency criteria for NH3 concentrations,
nitrogen deposition and acid gas deposition for both ecological designations. As such,
impacts are not considered to be significant and are in accordance with the relevant
guidance. Natural England has raised no objection in relation to these matters.
In conclusion, whilst Environmental Health are unable to raise an objection in relation
to night time noise from HGVs due to existing agricultural use, clarification is being
sought regarding the type and noise data of reversing alarms used on the HGVs.
Clarification is also sought on the changes made to the Noise Impact Assessment and
details from the fans on the eastern elevation has been requested for consideration.
The amendments made to the Odour Assessment and Odour Management Plan
require clarification, and further details sought on the impact of the fans in the eastern
elevation upon odour. Impacts from ammonia are considered to be in accordance with
the relevant guidance and would not therefore have a significant impact upon the area.
However, until such time as the further information requested has been received and
Environmental Health have responded the proposal does not currently comply with
Policy EN13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6. Traffic/Highway Safety impact
The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application provides details on
access and transport in relation to this proposal. The Design and Access Statement
confirms that the site will be served by the existing vehicular access track off the
Croxton Road, to the north of the site. It is also states that given the existing usage of
the track for large farm machinery it is suitable for HGV traffic in its current condition. It
explains that as Clipstone House Farm can be accessed from Holbrigg Lane, to the
west of the site, this will not be used by HGV traffic and signage will erected to this
effect.
The applicant has estimated that during a typical 7 week cycle 27No. HGV movements
will take place, including the delivery of ducklings, gas and feed and the collection of
the birds. The applicant also advises that the average number of new movements will
be less than 1no. per day, and that straw and muck will be transported using the
applicants own farm vehicles in the course of their day to day agricultural activities.
Traffic generation in relation to this development, the impact on the local road network,
access to the site and routing are all objections raised by local residents and the Parish
Councils. A meeting took place at the site access on the Croxton Road in October last
year between Highway Authority and North Norfolk District Council Officers, the
County Councillor for that area (Councillor David Ramsbotham) and members of
Fulmodeston and Kettlestone Parish Councils to discuss the concerns that local
residents with the proposal including the above mentioned points. Unfortunately,
agreement was not reached between parties and the Parish Councils do not agree
with the opinion of the Highway Authority in relation to this application.
In addition concerns have also been raised by the Parish Councils in terms of a
discrepancy in traffic movements. This follows the applicant providing the Parish
Councils with information regarding traffic movements at the application site. This
information has not been submitted by the applicant as part of the application.
However, clarification has been sought from the applicants agent regarding this matter
Development Committee
23
29 January 2015
to ensure that the correct information had been submitted in order for us to consider
the application further.
The agent has confirmed that we do have the correct information in terms of the
estimated 27no. HGV trips in connection with the proposal. For every 7 week cycle (49
days) this equates to 0.55 HGVs per day (approximately 1no. HGV every two days). It
is noted that when each cycle ends there would be 9 trips for the collection of ducks,
concentrated in one day. This would then reduce the other movements to
approximately 1 trip every 3 days (3 a week) which is 5.1 a fortnight or 11.3 a month.
The full breakdown of figures can be found in Appendix 1 in the Highway Authority's
original and subsequent consultation responses.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority have raised no objection to this
application. The Highway Authority consider the likely increases in traffic to be
minimal. The Highway Authority have advised that given the use of the land, the
classification of the road network and the number of existing movements associated
with this and other farming operations in the vicinity (Croxton Farm, Lower Grange
Farm, Hall Farm, Manor Farm) the likely increase in traffic is not considered to be
significant.
Following clarification from the agent regarding the Parish Council's concerns over a
discrepancy in the traffic numbers provided to them by the applicant, the Highway
Authority remain of the opinion that there will be an increase of less than 3 trips per
week from the site. The Highway Authority have also calculated an estimate of traffic
and trailer trips for the removal of manure from the site, and confirm that the "absolute
assumed total still remains less than 1 trip per day or 5 trips per week" (See Appendix
1 for calculations) additional to the existing farming activities.
The Highway Authority also comment that based on the traffic figures the applicant
provided to the Parish Councils during the years 1995 - 2007 that the level of vehicular
activity was significantly higher than currently proposed.
The Highway Authority have advised that the subsequent information submitted does
not change this level of traffic by any significant level. The Highway Authority state that
it is clear that the planned average daily traffic movements to and from the site is very
low, particularly when compared with more conventional commercial uses.
In terms of vehicular access to the site this is confirmed as being from the Croxton
Road and is included in the application as such. The Highway Authority have no
objection to the use of this access for the proposed development. However, the
deterioration of the site access construction was noted, and the Highway Authority
would wish to see a condition imposed on any approval for it to be upgraded.
There is an existing field access to the western side of the railway bridge on the
Croxton Road, which the applicant currently uses for tractors and trailers in association
with the existing farm uses. Some objections have been raised over its use and that it
may be used in connection with this proposal. However, the vehicular access to the
application site is shown in the submitted details as the access off the Croxton Road to
the north of the site and does not refer to the field access by the railway bridge. HGV‟S
will be using the main Croxton Road access, but given that the field access is existing
and is currently used for agricultural purposes the applicant can continue to use it as
such. The Highway Authority are not in a position to object to this.
Objections received to the impact of the proposal on the local road network and that
passing bays should be provided along the Croxton Road have been considered by
Development Committee
24
29 January 2015
the Highway Authority. The Highway Authority realises the benefit of improved
carriageway widths along the narrower sections of Croxton Road. However,
unfortunately with due consideration to the assessment of the likely traffic movements,
the minimal increases engendered by the development are not considered to be
sufficient justification to make those improvements a requirement of the planning
application. Should the Applicant consider that these improvements would be
beneficial to the function of the site and be willing to fund the works independently, the
Highway Authority would willingly work with the applicant to ensure these works are
suitably located providing the most benefit to all road users.
A matter of great concern which has been raised by the majority of objectors from
Kettlestone, to the west of the site, is the potential use of Holbrigg Lane by HGV traffic
in relation to this proposal. There is an existing track which runs from the west of the
application site towards Kettlestone and turns into Holbrigg Lane. This provides
direct access to the site without coming in the main entrance from Croxton Road. It is
an extremely narrow lane with a number of very sharp bends, almost at right angles.
Holbrigg Lane is accessed off The Street in Kettlestone. The Street runs north to south
and any traffic using this lane would need to travel through Kettlestone to get to it. The
applicants have already confirmed that they will be erecting signage to state that
Holbrigg Lane is not for use by HGVs. The applicants are only able to do this on land in
their ownership. Whilst this may be acceptable within the site it is considered that
direction for HGV drivers is required outside of the site. The Highway Authority are
therefore requesting a condition be imposed on any approval that signage is erected
on highway land that there is no direct vehicular access from or onto C332 The Street
and U14146 Holbrigg Lane. Appropriate advisory signage shall therefore be erected at
either end of the C332 The Street at Kettlestone.
The County Council Public Rights of Way Officer has also been consulted in relation to
Fulmodeston Footpath 2 and has no objection to the application.
Careful consideration and a significant amount of time has been spent by Officers on
objections from local residents and the Parish Council's in relation to matters of traffic
and highway safety. However, in this case the local residents and Parish Councils
unfortunately do not agree with the professional opinion given by the Highway
Authority.
Notwithstanding this the Highway Authority have no objection to the application and do
not consider that the proposal would significantly affect the current traffic patterns or
the free flow of traffic. It is not considered that there are sufficient grounds to object to
the application on traffic and highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered to
be acceptable and in accordance with Policy CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy.
7. Heritage/Archaeology impacts
A Heritage Statement was submitted with the application in view of the fact that
Clipstone Farm House and the associated traditional barns directly to the north are
Grade II listed. The Committee will note that the Conservation and Design Officer has
no objection.
The Conservation and Design Officer is of the opinion that the house and adjacent
barns make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area and
wider landscape setting. However, whilst there would be an impact upon the setting of
the farmhouse, Conservation and Design consider there is sufficient separation
between the proposed development site and the house in order that this impact will not
be a harmful one and will not detract from the buildings architectural or historic
Development Committee
25
29 January 2015
significance. The positioning of the new buildings means that there will be no
immediate interrelationship between the listed buildings and the proposed
development, with the two elements not being read in conjunction. The Conservation
and Design Officer considers that the key to mitigating the impact of the development
on the wider setting will the quality of the landscaping scheme. Should the application
be approved the Conservation and Design Officer has requested a sample of the
colour proposed for the external cladding and that all the other external features such
as silos, doors, fans etc should be in the same colour.
In conclusion, it is not considered that the proposal would harm the significance of the
designated heritage assets.
In terms of archaeology, an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment was submitted in
support of the application. The Historic Environment Service have been consulted. The
Committee will note that they are not raising an objection to this application. The
Historic Environment Service advised that based on the current available information
the proposal does not have any implications for the historic environment and they do
not have any recommendations for archaeological work.
However, following an enquiry from Fulmodeston Parish Council regarding whether
there was any intention to call for further archaeological reports and objections being
received in relation to the impacts upon archaeology further discussion took place with
the Historic Environment Service. The Historic Environment Service provided some
additional information regarding their advice on this application. The reason that no
further archaeological work is required is because part of the development site has
already been subject to a geophysical survey which was carried out as part of the
archaeological work for the adjacent Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm cable route. The
geophysical survey did not identify any anomalies of possible archaeological
significance within the area of the proposed duck sheds. Based on this information the
Historic Environment Service have advised that they were able to recommend that no
further archaeological work was required at this site for the planning application.
Fulmodeston Parish Council have continued to question the stance taken by the
Historic Environment Service. The Historic Environment Service have provided a
comprehensive response to Fulmodeston Parish Council which re-iterates the above
reasons as to why they do not require any further archaeological work to be carried
out. The Historic Environment Service are satisfied with the information submitted with
the application and that this fulfils the requirements of paragraph 128 of the NPPF.
This paragraph of the NPPF requires applicants to describe the significance of any
heritage assets affected by their proposed development, and states that the level of
detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient
to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.
It is therefore considered that based on the information submitted the proposal
complies with Policy EN8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Paragraph
128 of the NPPF.
8. Surface Water Flooding
Whilst the application site is outside of the Environment Agency‟s high risk flood zones
2 and 3, it is a proposed development which is over a hectare in size within Flood Zone
1. This means that the applicants were required to prepare a Flood Risk Assessment
to demonstrate that the proposed development would not increase flood risk
elsewhere through the design of an appropriate surface water drainage scheme.
Development Committee
26
29 January 2015
A FRA has been submitted and the Environment Agency consulted. The Environment
Agency originally raised an objection to the application as they were not satisfied that
the FRA complied with the requirements set out in the NPPF Practice Guidance. It was
considered that the FRA failed to adequately demonstrate that the proposed infiltration
drainage scheme was feasible, in the absence of site-specific infiltration testing or an
alternative drainage scheme.
Following these comments the agent provided a Micro-Drainage Simulation following
infiltration tests. This information was passed onto the Environment Agency who have
now removed their objection to the application subject to the imposition of a condition
that prior to the commencement of development that a surface water drainage scheme
is submitted and approved, and the development carried in accordance with the
approved details.
No objections have been received from Environmental Health in relation to drainage.
It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable and in accordance with
Policies EN10 and EN13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
9. Energy Efficiency
Policy EN6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy refers to Sustainable
Construction and Energy Efficiency. This policy requires all new development to
demonstrate how it minimises resource consumption and energy consumption. All
developments are encouraged to incorporate on site renewable and/or decentralised
renewable or low carbon energy sources.
Development proposals over 1000 square metres or 10 dwellings (new build or
conversion) are required to include on site renewable technology to provide for a
minimum of 20% predicted total energy usage.
An Energy Consumption Statement was requested and has now been submitted as
additional supporting information. It confirms that the lighting and ventilation systems
have been designed by specialist suppliers and contractors utilising systems and
components that will give high standards of bird welfare and energy efficiency. LED
lighting will be incorporated and the ventilation fans operated by high efficiency motors
running on a sequential fully automated system. On the basis of this information the
agent has advised that the electrical contractor has calculated a power consumption of
approximately 130,000 kWh over a 12 month period.
It is proposed to use photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to provide 30% of the predicated
electrical consumption of the proposed development. A total of 396m² of PV panels will
be installed on the south facing roof slopes of Units 1 and 2. It has been calculated that
this amount will achieve the requirement to provide a minimum of 39,000 kWh over a
12 month period which equates to 30% of the calculated power consumption of
130,000 kWh.
It is therefore considered that this proposal complies with Policy EN6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10. Conclusion
Careful consideration has been given to this application in reaching a
recommendation. The proposed buildings are significant in scale in terms of their
footprint. However, the siting and landscaping are considered to be acceptable in
Development Committee
27
29 January 2015
terms of the visual impact and provide significant enhancements in terms of habitat.
Whilst the final comments of Environmental Health are awaited, and notwithstanding
objections from local residents and the Parish Councils, based on the remaining
consultation responses received the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in
accordance with Development Plan policies subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
In view of the outstanding comments from Environmental Health the recommendation
is therefore one of delegated approval subject to no objections from Environmental
Health and the imposition of appropriate conditions in relation to the development
being carried out in accordance with amended plans and reports, samples of colour
finish to external cladding, fans, louvres, doors and silos, detailed landscaping plan,
future management and maintenance plan for the different landscape elements,
ecology mitigation, external lighting, surface water drainage, signage, and upgrading
of vehicular access.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to approve subject to no objections
from Environmental Health and no new material grounds of objection being
raised, and the imposition of appropriate conditions including in relation to the
development being carried out in accordance with amended plans and reports,
samples of colour finish to external cladding, fans, louvres, doors and silos,
detailed landscaping plan, future management and maintenance plan for the
different landscape elements, ecology mitigation, external lighting, surface
water drainage, signage, upgrading of vehicular access, and other highway
matters.
3.
HORNING - PO/14/1297 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 2 Clover Hill,
Letheringtons Lane for Mr R Kalynuk
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 December 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Horning Knackers Wood Catchment Boundary
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20031290 PF - Erection of bungalow and double garage
Refused 23/09/2003
PLA/20021539 PF - Erection of bungalow and garage
Refused 29/11/2002
PLA/20041343 PF - Erection of bungalow and double garage
Refused 01/10/2004
PO/13/0741 PO - Erection of single-storey dwelling
Refused 22/10/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks outline planning permission to erect a single storey dwelling, with all matters
reserved.
The site is part of the garden serving the applicant's dwelling, 2 Cloverhill.
Development Committee
28
29 January 2015
Amended foul drainage details received.
Supporting information includes the Design, Access and Supporting Statement (which
includes a previous letter from Norman Lamb MP) and other details from the previous
application (PO/13/0724), both included as Appendix 2 on this agenda.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at the previous Development Committee (18 December 2014) for a site visit
to occur and for more information to be included in the report.
At the request of Councillor Barbara McGoun having regard to the NPPF's
presumption for sustainable development and the personal circumstances of the
applicants; in particular to both Mr and Mrs Kalynuk's health and their current financial
situation with their bank.
PARISH COUNCIL
Does not wish to make a comment
REPRESENTATIONS
1 letter of objection received, raising the following points;
 Contrary to policy as it is outside of the settlement boundary
 Would encroach upon the undeveloped Countryside, typified by Letheringtons
Lane which does not have pavements or other facilities
 Approval would encourage ribbon development along the lane in exactly the form
which the Town and Country Planning Acts were originally introduced to prevent
 Both of the existing 2 bungalows have been fully developed within their curtilages
 Applicant cites a necessity for special adaption for health reasons but there seems
no reason why the existing bungalow could not be adapted
 The financial misfortune cited as the need for the development is not a reason for
planning exception
 Letters of 'support' are merely evidence of disablement and not letters of support or
encouragement for the council to breach planning policy
A letter in support of the application has been received from the local member
(Councillor Barbara McGoun), this is included at Appendix 2.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - there is currently no capacity at the Horning Water Recycling Centre
(WRC). Anglian Water have undertaken investigations to identify why the WRC is
receiving excessive flows; this has indicated that infiltration from groundwater into the
sewer network is the main reason. A suitable scheme has now been developed to
address the infiltration, which should solve the problem and provide modest capacity
for further flows. The scheme should be completed no later than 31 March 2015. A
subsequent period of 12 months of monitoring will be required by the Environment
Agency before any further connections can be considered.
County Council Highway Authority - no objection. Although any proposal which would
significantly increase the vehicular use of the single-track Letherington's Lane would
be likely to attract an objection, in this instance it is not reasonable to extend this
objection to a further single dwelling proposed at this particular location. Accordingly,
subject to an appropriate condition and informative note being appended to any
consent notice issued, I would not wish to object to the granting of permission. The
condition would request full details of the visibility splays, access and parking/turning
provision.
Development Committee
29
29 January 2015
Environmental Health - object. There are currently capacity issues at Horning WRC.
Anglian Water are due to conduct works on the WRC, however until such a time that
these works have taken place and confirmation has been received that they are
adequate the erection of a dwelling and subsequent increase upon the foul drainage
system would be an unacceptable form of development and contrary to the aims of the
Water Framework directive.
Landscape Officer - object. Given that we have a problem with any new dwelling in the
Horning catchment area with the Sewage Treatment Works being at and over
capacity, the application would have to be subject to a Habitats Regulations
Assessment under Section 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 (as amended). As a Competent Authority under these Regulations
we have a statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of the Regulations when
determining planning applications. At the moment we do not have sufficient
information to determine that the proposal would not result in significant likely effects to
the conservation interests of the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) therefore
I would object to the application. If members were minded to be approve the
application at committee we would need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment prior
to determination to ensure that the development would not result in significant likely
effects on the Broads SAC.
In addition any subsequent reserved matters application should be supported by an
Arboricultural Implications Assessment, Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan to
ensure that the trees on and adjacent to the site are adequately protected.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy 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 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
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).
Development Committee
30
29 January 2015
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of Development
2. Capacity of Horning's Water Recycling Centre
APPRAISAL
Determination of this application was deferred at the last meeting for the following
reasons:
 to allow an inspection of the site by the Committee and that the local member and
Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to attend,
 To enable the Committee to consider a more comprehensive report to include
copies of the full representations made by the local member, medical experts and
Norman Lamb MP.
Members will have visited the site and the report now includes the requested
information.
Introduction
The site lies within an area of Countryside where new residential dwellings are not
normally permitted under Policy SS 2. There are no extant planning permissions on
this site.
The site is currently used as a garden by the applicants and is largely laid to lawn, with
several trees around the edge of the site. Sited north of the A1062, it falls outside of
Horning's residential area and lies close to the border with the Broads Authority. In
addition to the applicant's own bungalow, there is another bungalow sited to the south
of 2 Cloverhill, which sits on the corner of the A1062 and Letherington's Lane.
With all matters reserved this application focuses upon the principle of a new single
storey dwelling at the site, and follows the previous refusal issued under PO/13/0741.
Policy EN 4
With both the applicant's and neighbour's dwelling single storey, another single storey
dwelling could prove to be acceptable in terms of design. This is partially dependent on
the number of trees to be retained. The new dwelling would not be readily visible from
anywhere except Letherington's Lane, and could be sited to relate well to the existing
bungalows. At approximately 35m by 17m it is anticipated that the plot is large enough
to accommodate a design which would not result in any significantly detrimental impact
upon the immediate neighbour. Policy EN 4 could therefore be complied with.
Any reserved matters application would require the submission of an arboricultural
report to detail which trees would remain and which, if any, would be removed. It would
also need to demonstrate how the dwelling would be constructed around the trees to
remain.
Policies CT 5 and CT 6
The additional traffic generated by a new dwelling is considered acceptable, and with
appropriate visibility splays a new access onto Letherington's Lane could also be
acceptable under Policy CT 6. The site appears large enough to be able to provide
sufficient parking, complying with Policy CT 5.
Policy EN 6
With a suitable condition added, compliance with Policy EN 6 can also be achieved.
Development Committee
31
29 January 2015
Policy SS 2 and NPPF
As mentioned above new dwellings are not normally permitted under Policy SS 2,
however the applicants consider that there are good grounds to justify a departure
from policy.
They consider the location to be sustainable, therefore complying with the NPPF.
Whilst it is noted that the site is close to Horning's development boundary, and that
Horning is classified as a Service Village within the Core Strategy, NNDC have an up
to date Core Strategy. The guidance within the NPPF in para 12 states that "Proposed
development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and
proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise".
Both of the applicants are now disabled, suffering from a variety of health issues. One
applicant's mobility is deteriorating. The supporting information states that they "need
a disabled friendly dwelling", with a doctors letter stating that one of the applicants
"would benefit from living in a house that has been specifically adapted for her
disabilities" and in their view both of the applicants would benefit from remaining within
her/his practice area due to the complexity of their medical problems.
Their situation has been made more difficult as they feel they have been victims of
malpractice at a bank, which appears to have been investigated by the Financial
Ombudsman.
Although these issues are material considerations, they do not, in Officer's opinion,
amount to sufficient justification to deviate from either Policy SS 2 or the NPPF.
Policies EN 9 and EN 13
The Anglian Water Waste Water Recycling Centre (WRC) Knackers Wood serves this
area. It is currently considered to be at capacity and no development should be
approved which would result in an increase in nutrient loading from the WRC to the
river. Further nutrient loading would have a negative impact upon the Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI) further downstream. Whilst works are proposed which should increase
the capacity, these may not be completed until March 2015 and it is uncertain what
capacity will be freed up. Development that could increase the flows to the Water
Recycling Works therefore needs to be avoided.
The applicants have subsequently indicated their intentions for the foul drainage to be
dealt with by the way of a private treatment plant. At the time of writing this report
Environmental Health, Anglian Water and the Environment Agency have been
re-consulted.
Conclusion
The proposal is currently considered to be contrary to Policy SS 2 of the adopted Core
Strategy and the NPPF, and is therefore recommended for refusal.
Following re-consultation there may continue to be objections on drainage and ecology
implications grounds.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated authority to refuse for the following reason,
and any further reason in respect of impacts on ecology and the capacity of the
WRC following re-consultation on the latest foul drainage proposal;
Development Committee
32
29 January 2015
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008, and subsequently adopted Policy HO 9 on 23 February 2011, for all
planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside
The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF)(published 27 March 2012)
is also material to the determination of the application.
The site lies within an area designated as Countryside, where there is a general
presumption against residential development. In the opinion of the Local
Planning Authority the case put forward by the applicant does not provide
sufficient justification to permit the erection of an additional dwelling in the
Countryside contrary to Policy SS 2 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4.
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/1471 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
SM10495 and condition 1 of planning permission ref: 12/0511 to permit full
residential occupancy; Sandshell, Church Lane, Bush Estate, Eccles-on-sea for
Mr Crisp
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 January 2015
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
EAFLZ3+ Flood Zone 3 + Climate Change
EADI Dry Island Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/12/0511 PF
Variation of Condition of planning permission reference: SM10495 to permit all year
holiday occupation
Approved 20/07/2012
THE APPLICATION
Is to remove the holiday restriction from a small seaside bungalow to permit permanent
residential occupation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Price having regard to the following planning issue(s):
For Members to consider the complex flood risk issues
PARISH COUNCIL
Lessingham Parish Council - supports
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency - We have considered the above application, the site itself is in
flood zone 1 and is located on a „dry island‟ surrounded by flood zones 2 and 3. Part of
the access road falls within flood zone 2 and as such there is potential for the road to
Development Committee
33
29 January 2015
flood in an extreme event preventing egress from the site. This is a matter for the Local
Planning Authority to consider when determining whether the risk is acceptable.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
APPRAISAL
The application site lies on the edge of Bush Estate which is an outlier settlement of
Lessingham Parish, and as such falls within the Countryside Policy area. It is also
within an area designated as at high risk of flooding.
Bush Estate is a collection of mostly single storey properties that evolved for holiday
use in the latter half of the twentieth century served by unmade, unadopted roads.
The properties are now, for various reasons, a mixture of holiday and permanent
dwellings. Under the previous Local Plan the estate had a development boundary but
under the current adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy the settlement, which has no
facilities or services, did not meet the criteria as a sustainable location in which to
develop further housing.
Dwellings, whether for permanent housing, holiday purposes or holiday homes fall
within the same C3 Use Class for planning purposes. The difference in their use is
determined by planning conditions, which may be used to restrict the occupancy of the
dwelling to a form of holiday use. In the supporting statement, attached as Appendix
3 the agent arguments essentially comes down to the fact that because it is a second
home the property has been occupied in breach of the planning conditions on earlier
permissions so this equates to a permanent dwelling which cannot be enforced
against. Consequently, the property is already in use as a dwelling. This is
incorrect, those earlier permissions do not contain any restriction on the length of
occupancy by a single occupant or require a register of lettings so the use of the
property as a second home remains a form of holiday use. Therefore, occupying the
property has not breached the planning conditions as claimed by the agent.
The agent also makes reference to appeals decisions, involving another planning
authority and different planning policy, where the Inspector considered viability as
partial justification for removing the holiday restrictions. However, there are
significant other differences between the appeal sites and the application under
consideration that the fact of the appeal decision cannot be automatically accepted as
Development Committee
34
29 January 2015
justification to remove the holiday restriction for this property. In addition, no
independent evidence in respect of viability has been submitted in support of this
application. In the case of second homes while viability could be a consideration
there is also a strong element of personal choice.
The agent states that the property is located outside the area at high risk of flooding,
this is inaccurate. The site is actually located on a 'dry island'; that is land which is
identified as zone 1 but is surrounded by flood zones 2 and 3. Policy EN 10 in those
circumstances makes it clear that the development will be treated as if it is in the higher
flood risk zone. Moreover, when climate change is taken into account the whole of
Bush Estate and most of the surrounding lands and roads are at risk of flooding.
The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the planning application is an Emergency
Evacuation Plan rather than the any assessment of the flood risk. It contains none of
the information a site flood risk assessment is expected to contain, existing land levels,
whether the site would flood in the event of overtopping or a breach close to the site,
likely speed or velocity from any coastal breach or an analysis of the safety egress in
the event of an extreme event. In the case of Bush Estate the access via Church
Lane through to the evacuation centre in places passes through zones 2 and 3. It is
therefore considered the application has not demonstrated the occupants would be
safe in the event of a flood.
Consequently, the proposal is considered contrary to the Council's adopted Core
Strategy because it lies within the Countryside Policy area where an increase in
permanent dwellings is considered unsustainable and the permanent occupancy
would increase the risk to life from flooding as it has not been established that the
egress from the site in the event of a flood would be safe.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted Development Plan Policies.
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE for the reasons specified below:
The site is located within the Countryside policy area, as designated in the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy, where there is a presumption against creating permanent
residential development unless for a proven exceptional need for a rural workers
dwelling or affordable housing. Consequently, the removal of the holiday restriction to
allow permanent residential occupation is contrary to that policy.
Moreover, the property is a 'dry island' within an area designated by the Environment
Agency as at the highest risk of flooding. No site specific Flood Risk Assessment has
been submitted to demonstrate that the property and its occupants would be safe in
the event of a flood or that there would be safe egress in the event of a flood.
Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies SS2 and EN10 of the Development
Plan.
Development Committee
35
29 January 2015
5.
MUNDESLEY - PO/14/1392 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage; Land
at rear of 61 Cromer Road for Mr Bazley
Minor Development
- Target Date: 25 December 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Outline Planning Permission
Minor Development
- Target Date: 25 December 2014
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Unclassified Road
Settlement Boundary
Residential Area
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19920164 PM Residential development
Approved 28/10/1998
PLA/19980523 PF Erection of 14 dwellings and garages
Approved 28/10/1998
PLA/19970313 PF Erection of eight single-storey sheltered units for the elderly
together with ancillary works
Refused 09/05/1997
PLA/19881329 PO Residential development
Refused 04/08/1988 A 07/09/1989
PLA/19890269 PO Residential development
Refused 27/04/1989
PLA/19971006 PF Erection of 7 single storey sheltered units for the elderly
together with ancillary works
Refused 24/10/1997
PLA/19940571 PO Erection of single storey residential nursing home and access
Approved 12/10/1994
PLA/19810336 PF Demolition of existing garage and erection of new garage
Withdrawn 11/03/1981
THE APPLICATION
The application seeks outline consent for the erection of a single storey dwelling. The
proposed site would be provided by sub-division of the rear garden of No.61 Cromer
Road.
The application seeks determination of the proposed access with all other matters
reserved. An indicative site layout has been provided which indicates a two bedroom
dwelling and a single garage.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. B. Smith having regard to highway safety and overdevelopment.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
 Sewage concerns
 Access
Development Committee
36
29 January 2015


Traffic
Loss of trees – effect on wildlife
REPRESENTATIONS
10 letters of objection and one petition with 15 signatures (9 of which have submitted
individual objections) have been received on the following grounds:
 Road is very narrow with a blind bend and a 20mph restriction and traffic
calming measures
 Will create a dangerous access
 Many residents are housebound and require nursing care several times a day;
there Is barely room for them to access the existing houses
 Refuse lorries, large delivery vehicles and ambulances already have difficulty
accessing the Close
 Parking already a problem
 Additional access would further impede already overcrowded and difficult area
 Drains and sewers are not sufficient for number of residents already using
them
 Drains already regularly require unblocking
 Loss of wildlife habitat
 Loss of mature trees
 Loss of privacy to No.1 Orchard Close
 Creation of more hard-standing will impede drainage and possibly cause
flooding
 Construction vehicles would hinder access to Orchard Close
 Construction will cause noise, disturbance and mess
 Access through 61 Cromer Road would be acceptable
 Driveway from No.14 has a blind spot and this is one of the nearest properties
to the proposed addition
 Would spoil Orchard Close
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways): No objection. Taking into account the location, on a small
residential cul-de-sac subject to a 20 Mph speed restriction; I feel it would be very
difficult to pass any adverse comment on this proposal. Conditions requested.
Anglian Water: awaiting response
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):
CT 5 - The transport impact of new development
CT 6 - Parking provision
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Development Committee
37
29 January 2015
EN 4 - Design
HO 7 - Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 3 - Housing
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Highway safety
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
The site is situated within the designated residential area of Mundesley, a Service
Village, as defined by the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core, where
subject to compliance with Policies SS3, HO7, EN2, EN4, CT5 and CT6 the principle of
residential development is considered to be acceptable.
The proposal seeks the sub-division of the garden of 61 Cromer Road to allow for the
erection of a single storey dwelling to be accessed from Orchard Close, a small
cul-de-sac. No. 61 is a single storey 1960‟s dwelling with detached garage with flat roof
link to the side. That dwelling is of red brick with hipped clay plain tiled roof with rear
conservatory. At the front there is approximately 11m of garden area partially enclosed
with brick wall to the east/north east boundary. A private rear garden area of
approximately 5 to 8 metres in depth would be retained with the remaining 21 metres
providing the proposed site. The existing dwellings of Orchard Close are modest single
storey dwellings.
Several objections have been raised in respect of matters of highway safety. The
proposed access would join Orchard Close immediately north of an area of traffic
calming surface treatment and the Close is subject to a 20Mph restriction. Parking and
turning area would be provided within the site for two cars. Concern has been raised
that the proposal would increase the need for on-street parking. However the
objections raised acknowledge that some of the existing dwellings only have space to
park one car. The Highway Authority has not objected and it is considered that the
access, parking and turning provision meets the standards set out in the North Norfolk
Core Strategy and therefore the proposal would be unlikely to result in the need for
future occupants to park outside of the site. Subject to the provision of adequate
visibility splays, which would be imposed by imposition of a condition, it is considered
that safe access in accordance with Policy CT5 can be provided at the site. Concerns
relating to obstruction in the Close by construction traffic are not material planning
considerations although it is considered that the site would be of sufficient size to
accommodate construction vehicles within the site. Notwithstanding the concerns
raised, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policies CT5 and CT6 and
would not introduce detriment to highway safety.
In terms of the design of the proposed dwelling, given that the application is only
seeking outline permission with the access and layout under consideration at this
stage, no details of the proposed elevations have been submitted. However an
indicative layout has been provided for a two bedroom single storey dwelling. Precise
details need to be the subject of a further application. This said, based on the indicative
layout proposed it is considered that it would be possible to design a dwelling the scale
and proportions of which would sit comfortably within the site without introducing
significant detriment to the amenities of neighbouring properties.
Concern has been raised that the proposal would be overdevelopment of the
site/Orchard Close. However, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy
Development Committee
38
29 January 2015
HO7 regarding recommended densities within Service Villages and that the proposed
site is of a scale not dissimilar to the other properties within the close.
In respect of concerns regarding the capacity of the existing sewerage/drainage
system and the introduction of additional load, Anglian Water has been consulted and
Members will be advised at the meeting of their response.
Subject to no overriding objection from Anglian Water the proposal is considered to
comply with the policies of the Development Plan and is therefore recommended for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to
(i) No overriding objection being received from outstanding consultees
(ii) To include the specific conditions listed below:
1. Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Approval of
these reserved matters (referred to in condition 2) shall be obtained from the
Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. The
development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of
two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of
approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be
approved.
2. These reserved matters shall relate to the appearance, landscaping, layout
and scale of the proposed development and this condition shall apply
notwithstanding any indication as to these matters which have been given in
the current application.
3. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular
access shall be provided and thereafter retained at the position shown on the
approved plan in accordance with the highway specification (Drawing Number
TRAD 4). Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be
intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or
onto the highway carriageway.
4. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a visibility
splay measuring 2 m X application site extremity shall be provided to each
side of the access where it meets the highway and such splays shall thereafter
be maintained at all times free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the
level of the adjacent highway carriageway.
5. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
on-site car parking area shall be laid out and demarcated in accordance with
the approved plan and retained thereafter available for that specific use.
(iii) And all other conditions considered to appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
39
29 January 2015
6.
SCULTHORPE - PF/14/1186 - Change of use from
shed/garage/store to retail unit; 51 Sandy Lane for Mr C Smith
existing
cart
- Target Date: 06 November 2014
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/12/0648 HOU
Erection of two-storey side, single-storey front extensions, detached cart shed/store,
insertion of side roof lights.
Approved 10/08/2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to change the use of an existing cart shed/garage to a retail unit
(class A1).
The cart shed is sited to the front (east) of the applicants house and consists of two
open bays and a store. The application would block up the bays with glazing and
permit the building to be used for a wood burner showroom. Two working wood
burners would be installed as part of the showroom.
Amended plans have been submitted following discussions with the Highway Authority
which show the 4 parking spaces to the front of the dwelling, previously no details were
received. In addition the proposed flue was resisted to the southern elevation instead
of the north, and another identical flue added.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Tom Fitzpatrick, Councillor Roy Reynolds and Councillor
Annie Claussen-Reynolds, having regard to potential parking issues along Sandy
Lane as a result of the change of use and potential impacts upon neighbour's
residential amenity.
PARISH COUNCIL
Sculthorpe Parish Council - No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from one immediate neighbour. Issues raised:
 No objection to the principle
 If the original application for the cart shed (PF/12/0648) had been for A1 he does
not think it would have been approved
 Opening hours are longer than expected
 Two wood burners have potential to create pollution and a nuisance - they have a
first floor bedroom window near the cart shed
CONSULTATIONS
Norfolk County Council (Highway Authority) - No objection following the submission of
the amended plan on 27 November 2014.
Environmental Health - No objection, but asked for the hours of opening to be
conditioned.
Development Committee
40
29 January 2015
Fakenham Town Council - Comments awaited (Expiry of consultation period 2
February 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 SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Level of parking
3. Impact upon neighbour's residential amenity
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Residential Area and Settlement Boundary of Fakenham. Whilst
located within Sculthorpe Parish, the boundary with Fakenham North Ward runs along
Sandy Lane. Dwellings on the opposite side of the road (east) fall within Fakenham
North Ward.
The applicant's dwelling is located on Sandy Lane, which primarily consists of
detached dwellings set back from the road. A cart shed is located to the front of the
house adjacent to their driveway. It is sited alongside the northern boundary, with the
front facing south into the driveway. The driveway is currently served by two access
points onto Sandy Lane.
Principle of development
The application would permit the cart shed to be used as a shop for the applicant's own
business selling and installing wood burners (Class A1). Policy EC 5 is used to
consider the Location of Retail and Commercial Leisure Development. In principle new
proposals within Principal (including Fakenham) and Secondary Settlements will be
permitted. However there is an expectation for new proposals to be located at the best
sequentially available site; that is priority should be given to Town Centre locations
Development Committee
41
29 January 2015
first, followed by edge of Town Centre and then out-of-centre locations. In this case
details of any analysis of available sites have not been submitted. However at 45 sqm
the building is relatively small. Policy SS 5 meanwhile supports continued economic
growth in Fakenham, to include retail. In addition Policy SS 3 permits appropriate small
scale businesses within Residential Areas.
Whilst the applicant has not submitted sufficient information to enable a review to be
made as to whether the site is the best sequentially available site, the principle is
nonetheless considered acceptable. This is on the basis that at 45sqm the retail floor
space is relatively small, the business would be directly linked to number 51 Sandy
Lane and will be restricted to the proposed use preventing any other A1 retail use to
occur without prior approval.
Level of parking/transport impact
The application states that there are currently 2 parking spaces and that a further 2
could be provided. Following discussions an amended plan was received which shows
4 satisfactory parking spaces - no details of the spaces were given on the original
plans. With 2 spaces required for the dwelling and 2 for the retail unit under Appendix
C of the Core Strategy, this level of parking is considered acceptable. Therefore Policy
CT 6 is considered to be acceptable.
Although the Highway Authority raises some concerns regarding the sustainability of
the location, refusal under Policy CT 5 is not considered to be reasonable.
Impact upon neighbour's residential amenity
The site is located between two residential dwellings and borders a field to the rear and
Sandy Lane to the front. Residential dwellings are located along the length of the road.
Two flues for two working wood burners are proposed within the southern elevation.
The proposed opening hours would be; Mondays to Fridays 09:00 to 16:30, Saturdays
10:00 to 15:30 and "selected" Sundays and Bank Holidays 10:00 to 15:30.
Sited along the northern boundary, the neighbour to experience the most impact from
the proposal would be the immediate dwelling to the north. With the flues moved to the
southern side and a condition restricting the opening hours to those proposed, the
impact upon neighbour's residential amenity is considered to be, on balance,
acceptable, and to comply with this section of Policy EN 4. With no anticipated
unacceptable pollution impacts upon the local environment Policy EN 13 is considered
to be complied with.
Design
The physical alterations are relatively minimal. In addition to the 2 flues glazing and a
pedestrian door are proposed to be added behind the existing timber posts. The
construction would all be from timber. These alterations are considered to be
acceptable and to further comply with Policy EN 4.
Tree Protection Order
With no ground works required there are no concerns that the development would
negatively impact the protected tree to the north of the site, complying with Policy EN
9.
The proposed does not significantly conflict with adopted Development Plan policies
and is recommended for approval.
Development Committee
42
29 January 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to no new material issues being made during the consultation
period with Fakenham Town Council which expires on 2 February 2015, and
subject to the following conditions:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not
later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which
this permission is granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the
requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004.
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans
(drawing number 155-10 revision B) received by the Local Planning
Authority on 27 November 2014.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The premises subject to this permission shall only be open to the public
between the hours of; Mondays to Fridays 09:00 to 16:30, Saturdays
10:00 to 15:30 and Sundays and Bank Holidays 10:00 to 15:30.
Reason:
To control the noise emitted from the site in the interests of residential
amenity in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.66-3.3.72 of the explanatory
text.
4
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use
Classes) Order, 2005, (or any provision equivalent to that Class in any
other statutory instrument revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order
with or without modification), the building shall only be used as a stove
showroom and for no other purpose.
Reason:
To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the
proposed development in the interests of residential amenity in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7.
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1254 - Erection of front single-storey extension; Beeston
Hills Lodge, 64 Cliff Road for Mr H Slomka
- Target Date: 15 December 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Development Committee
43
29 January 2015
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20050152 PF - Erection of conservatory
Approved 23/03/2005
PF/14/0374 HOU - Removal of conservatory and erection of garden room
Approved 19/05/2014
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought to erect a single-storey extension to the front of the property.
The proposed extension would measure 7.7m W x 2.7m D x 3.8m H. Although the
overall structure would project 2.7m, the extension would be no greater in depth than
an existing bay window and porch (1.5m). The remaining projection (1.2m) would form
a glazed walkway across the front of the property.
The front elevation walls would be glazed and set on a brick plinth. The plinth would be
rendered to match the existing dwelling. The south elevation wall would be of brick
construction. The roof would be glazed.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. R. Smith on design grounds.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object to the proposal on the grounds that the alterations are not in keeping with the
rest of the building and the proposed alterations are overpowering.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
CONSULTATIONS
Sheringham Town Council
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 EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact of the design of the extension on the host building
APPRAISAL
The application site is within the settlement boundary and residential area of
Sheringham. Sheringham is defined as a secondary settlement where subject to
compliance with relevant Core Strategy Policies development is acceptable in
principle.
Development Committee
44
29 January 2015
Beeston Hills Lodge is a large detached property and although set back from the road
it occupies a prominent position at the point where Cliff Road gives way to the Coastal
Path. The property has been subdivided and this application relates to the property at
the front of the building.
The property has an existing side/front conservatory. PF/14/0374 granted permission
for a garden room to replace the existing conservatory. The current application would
link into the approved garden room (the garden room has not yet been constructed).
In terms of Design: the proposed development is not disproportionate in terms of size
or scale to the host property and the proposed fenestration material features
throughout the existing property. Given, the presence of the existing conservatory and
the large three bay garage block to the front of the property it is considered the
proposed development would have a neutral impact on the host property.
In term of Basic Amenity Criteria: there are no dwellings directly to the front of the
development site. The property to the west is currently a hotel/guest house and it
appears the windows to its' east elevation serve tertiary rooms (several are obscure
glazed). The proposed extension's solid southwest wall would prevent overlooking of
the hotel/guest house. A number of properties lie at an oblique angle to the
development site, however, the nearest of these properties is approximately 26m with
a blank wall facing the development site. The distance to the remaining properties is in
excess of 80 m.
It is considered that the relationship of the proposed development to the neighbouring
properties would be as existing.
The proposal is considered acceptable in design terms. The proposal accords with
adopted Development Plan policies and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
To approve subject to the following conditions:
(i) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
(ii) The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications.
(iii) The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be in
full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless otherwise
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8.
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
October to December 2014, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 4) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the third quarter of 2014/15.
Development Committee
45
29 January 2015
14 major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 149 minor
applications and 170 other applications, a total of 333 applications, an increase of 20
compared with the previous quarter.
The most recent quarter saw 11 of the 14 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, i.e. 78.57%. Significantly up from the 55.56% for the
previous quarter, the cumulative figure for 2013/14 at 71.43% remains comfortably
above the 40% figure set for special measures by the Government.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance decreased by 2.75% to 52.72% over the
previous quarter, as against the Council‟s target of 70%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance decreased by 13.47% to
67.28%, below the Council‟s target of 70%.
Members will appreciate that performance has dropped over the last quarter in respect
of “minors” & “others”, which has been a time of re-structuring and holidays.
Pre-application enquiries were slightly up on the previous quarter. So were
Discharge of Condition applications. „Do I Need Planning Permission‟ enquiries were
down. Duty Officer enquiries were down.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure went down to 90.82%.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 4
decisions were made, all dismissed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 571 were submitted and handled during the
quarter, an increase of 7 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the third quarter of the year has again seen a dip in performance in
respect of “minors” & “others”, as the Service continues to experience a period of staff
turnover, coupled with re-structuring and the Christmas holiday period of the year. As
the recent recruitment process has only been partially successful (and the newly
appointed officers have yet to start) the Service will continue to go through the
re-structuring process for the next quarter. Whilst this will undoubtedly impact on
performance in the short term, steps are still being taken to try and minimise that
impact.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager ext 6149)
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - PF/14/1465 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Annexe
At, Butterfly Cottage, The Green, Aldborough, Norwich, NR11 7AA for Mr & Mrs
Davison
(Householder application)
BARTON TURF - LA/14/1265 - Replace metal frame window with honeycomb
brick ventilation panel and re-roofing of single-storey outbuilding; Ikens Farm,
Smallburgh Road, Barton Turf, Norwich, NR12 8AP for Mr P Lamb
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
46
29 January 2015
BINHAM - PF/14/1416 - Alterations to existing covered walkway; The Chequers,
Front Street, Binham, Fakenham, NR21 0AL for Binham Parochial Charities
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - LA/14/1417 - Alterations to existing covered walkway; The Chequers,
Front Street, Binham, Fakenham, NR21 0AL for Binham Parochial Charities
(Listed Building Alterations)
BINHAM - PF/14/1406 - Erection of replacement agricultural building to rear
livestock; Abbey Farm, Warham Road, Binham, Fakenham, NR21 0DQ for W B
Case
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1452 - Demolition of side extension and outbuildings and
erection of one and a half storey extension with cladding to north elevation and
erection of replacement studio; The Old Brew House, 119A High Street,
Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7NU for Mr & Mrs Broom
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1492 - Erection of detached 4 bay garage block; Lark Cottage,
146 Morston Road, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7BG for Mr Goff
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1511 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/0506 to permit the re-position and enlargement of porch and insertion of
additional roof light to front roof slope; Plot 4, adjacent 1 Pyes Close, Morston
Road, Blakeney for Mr D Glaister
(Full Planning Permission)
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1608 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
14/0652 to permit revised porch dimensions; 3 Point View, Morston Road,
Blakeney, HOLT, NR25 7AT for Mr R Bent
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/1276 - Erection of two-storey side
extension and single-storey rear extension and decking; Mallard Cottage, The
Street, Corpusty, Norwich, NR11 6QP for Mr Murphy
(Householder application)
CROMER - NMA1/10/1078 - Non-material amendment request to reduce cill
heights to shop windows by 150mm; 53 Church Street, Cromer, NR27 9HH for
Mackays Stores Ltd t/a M&Co
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - PF/14/1542 - Installation of replacement ATM; 29A Church Street,
Cromer, NR27 9ES for HSBC Bank Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/1103 - Insertion of additional roof lights, replace door and
existing window with doors to rear elevation and alteration to rear extension
roof.; The Mount, Hunworth Road, Edgefield, Melton Constable, NR24 2AE for
Buck Estate Ltd
(Householder application)
Development Committee
47
29 January 2015
EDGEFIELD - LA/14/1104 - Internal alterations and insertion of roof lights,
replacement door and replace existing window with doors to rear elevation and
alterations to rear extension roof; The Mount, Hunworth Road, Edgefield, Melton
Constable, NR24 2AE for Buck Estate Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/1532 - Erection of single-storey side, rear link to garage and
garage extensions; Mount Pleasant, Chapel Hill, Edgefield, Melton Constable,
NR24 2AY for Mr Lester
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1432 - Insertion of windows and doors to front ground and
first floor elevation; M D Williamson Carpets Ltd, Enterprise Way, Fakenham,
NR21 8SN for M D Williamson Carpets Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1455 - Erection of bakery preparation unit and office facilities
above; Land at Clipbush Park, Clipbush Lane, Fakenham, NR21 8SW for Henry
Empire Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1422 - Erection of dwelling (revised design following
Planning Permission PF/13/0349); Knoll Gardens, Sculthorpe Road, Fakenham
for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/14/1252 - Creation of vehicular access (retrospective); 123
The Street, Barney, Fakenham, NR21 0AD for Mr S Woods
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - LA/14/1395 - Internal alterations and insertion of roof lights to
rear roofslope; Wood Farm House, The Street, Barney, Fakenham, NR21 0NN for
Mr Astley
(Listed Building Alterations)
HEMPTON - PF/14/1366 - Variation of conditions to 2, 7, 13 and 17 to planning
permission ref: 12/1079 to permit inclusion of "alligator bag tanks", revision to
layout, landscaping, to export gas instead of electricity and associated
development.; Land rear Hempton Poultry Farm, Helhoughton Road, Hempton,
FAKENHAM, NR21 7DY for Raynham Farm Co (AD) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HIGH KELLING - PF/14/1412 - Erection of single-storey side and rear extensions;
27 Pineheath Road, High Kelling, Holt, NR25 6QF for Mr & Mrs M Kenny
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/14/1039 - Demolition of two-storey dwelling and erection of
replacement single-storey dwelling; 3 Melton Road, Hindolveston, Dereham,
NR20 5DB for Orchard Developments (EA) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - LA/14/1485 - Insertion of roof lights to rear roof slope, removal of rough
cut rendering and installation of replacement smooth rendering; 5 Norwich
Road, Holt, NR25 6SA for Mr T Rackham
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Committee
48
29 January 2015
HOVETON - PF/14/1443 - Erection of first floor side extension and insertion of
dormer window to facilitate conversion of roof space to habitable rooms; 62
Stalham Road, Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8DU for Mr L Beckham
(Householder application)
HOVETON - HN/14/1533 - Notification of intention to erect a rear extension which
would project from the original rear wall by 5.2m, would have a maximum height
of 3.5m and would have an eaves height of 3m; The Haven, 24 Church Road,
Hoveton, Norwich, NR12 8UG for Mrs Garfoot
(Householder Prior Notification)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/14/1477 - Erection of extension to existing shed and raising
of roof to facilitate installation of photovoltaic panels; Itteringham Mill, The
Common, Itteringham, Norwich, NR11 7AR for Mr Downs
(Householder application)
KELLING - PF/14/1481 - Erection of two storey side extension; Beck Cottage, The
Street, Kelling, Holt, NR25 7EL for Mr & Mrs Parker
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/14/1451 - Ground floor extension garden room; 1 St Andrews
Drift, Langham, Holt, NR25 7AG for Mr Woodburn
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/14/1488 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 4 Holt Road,
Langham, Holt, NR25 7BX for Miss Bowen
(Householder application)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/1193 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential
garden and erection of three bay open fronted garage; Moat Farm, East Ruston
Road, Lessingham for Mr Hart
(Full Planning Permission)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - NMA1/14/0948 - Non-material amendment
request to make recessed entrance doorway flush to face of wall and to increase
the width of sliding door on northern elevation.; 31 Blakeney Road,
Letheringsett, Holt, NR25 7JL for Mr G Gowing
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/14/1435 - Variation of condition of planning permission
ref: 04/0595 to permit permanent residential occupation; Jex Farm Stable,
Thursford Road, Little Snoring, FAKENHAM, NR21 0JJ for Mr S Harvey
(Full Planning Permission)
LUDHAM - NMA1/13/0323 - Non material amendment request to permit the
omission of greenhouse, insertion of window to east and west elevations and
insertion of ground floor window to north rear elevation; 4 Latchmoor Park,
Ludham, Great Yarmouth, NR29 5RA for Mr B Rogers
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/1567 - Erection of shed for use a wood workshop; 17
Hawthorn Rise, Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8JY for Mr Carpenter
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
49
29 January 2015
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0962 - Formation of additional car park; Land
opposite Thomas Moore House, Cromer Road, North Walsham for Citygate
Developments Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1493 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extensions; 17 Station Road, North Walsham, NR28 0DZ for Mr & Mrs Turner
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1484 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Mill
House, Bradfield Road, North Walsham, NR28 0ND for Mr Rossi
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1490 - Creation of new vehicular access and erection
of gates and new boundary wall to block off existing access.; 15 Aylsham Road,
North Walsham for Mr Catt
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/14/1491 - Demolition of part of boundary wall to facilitate
creation of new vehicular access and erection of gates and new boundary wall to
block off existing access.; 15 Aylsham Road, North Walsham for Mr Catt
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1544 - Installation of replacement of ATM; 22 Market
Place, North Walsham, NR28 9BH for HSBC Bank Plc
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - LA/14/1545 - Installation of replacement ATM; 22 Market
Place, North Walsham, NR28 9BH for HSBC Bank Plc
(Listed Building Alterations)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1604 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 98
Norwich Road, North Walsham, NR28 0DX for Mr S Oakley
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - PF/14/0857 - Conversion of barns to five residential dwellings and
erection of cart shed garages; Home Farm, Hollow Lane, West Raynham,
Fakenham, NR21 7HA for Raynham Farm Company
(Full Planning Permission)
RAYNHAM - LA/14/1461 - Internal alterations to facilitate the relocation of the
chimneypiece in the Kent Wing to the King's Bedroom, the relocation of the
chimneypiece in the King's Bedroom to the Billiard Room and the relocation of
the chimneypiece in the Billiard Room to the basement kitchen/smoking room.;
Raynham Hall, Swaffham Road, East Raynham, Fakenham, NR21 7EP for Lady
Townshend
(Listed Building Alterations)
RAYNHAM - NP/14/1557 - Prior notification for formation of roads and
stacking/turning areas; Estate Office, Toftrees Road, Shereford, FAKENHAM,
NR21 7DF for Raynuam Farm Co Ltd
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
Development Committee
50
29 January 2015
ROUGHTON - PF/14/1474 - Demolition of ladies toilet block and mens and
womens shower block, and erection of single-storey toilet/shower block with
storage/kitchen area and sluice room; Southerly Caravan Site 1, Chapel Road,
Roughton, NR11 8AF for Mr Clark
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - LA/14/1475 - Erection and extension of replacement rear balcony;
Primrose Barn, 2 Flaxmans Farm, Felbrigg Road, Roughton, NORWICH, NR11
8PA for Mr Fernandez-Pino
(Listed Building Alterations)
RUNTON - NMA1/14/0455 - Non-material amendment request to reduce number
of all-weather pitches from 24 to 23; Seacroft Camping Park, Cromer Road, East
Runton, Cromer, NR27 9NH for The Caravan Club
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SCOTTOW - PF/14/1513 - Conversion of detached garage/store to one unit of
holiday accommodation; Ivy House, The Fairstead, Scottow, Norwich, NR10 5AQ
for Mr and Mrs D Sinclair
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1414 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
10/1145 to permit rotation of central roof by 90 degrees; 6-7 Lifeboat Plain,
Sheringham, NR26 8BG for Mr A Platt
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1466 - Erection of single-storey rear extension (part
retrospective); 12 Scotter Rise, Sheringham, NR26 8YD for Mr Thompson
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1220 - Siting of Replacement Winch and Winch Housing
Structure; Fishermen's Gangway, West Cliff, Sheringham for North Norfolk
District Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1347 - Erection of two-storey detached dwelling and
erection of single-storey rear extension, and porch and side car-port/store; 20 St
Josephs Road, Sheringham, NR26 8JA for Norfolk Cedar Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PU/14/1445 - Prior approval of intention to change of use from
offices to C3 (dwellinghouse); 37 Church Street, Sheringham, NR26 8QS for
Saliscrown Limited
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
STALHAM - PF/14/1480 - Erection of side/rear extension; Homelands, Camping
Field Lane, Stalham, Norwich, NR12 9ED for Mr & Mrs Green
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/14/1387 - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission ref:
02/1482 to permit residential occupancy; Badgers Barn, Pond Road, Bradfield,
North Walsham, NR28 0AB for Mr & Mrs Kirby
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
51
29 January 2015
THORPE MARKET - PF/14/1462 - Conversion of detached cart shed to habitable
accommodation; Greenacre, Green Farm, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market,
Norwich, NR11 8TH for Mr & Mrs Perry
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/14/1538 - Erection of chimney to existing single-storey
kitchen extension; The Gunton Arms, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich,
NR11 8TZ for Gunton Arms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - LA/14/1539 - Erection of chimney; The Gunton Arms, Cromer
Road, Thorpe Market, Norwich, NR11 8TZ for Gunton Arms Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
THURSFORD - PF/14/1413 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission
reference PF/14/0647 to permit change of opening hours from 09.00-22.30 to
09.00 to midnight; Thursford Collection, Laurel Farm, The Street, Thursford,
Fakenham, NR21 0AS for Thursford Enterprises
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/14/1377 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions; 17
Church Close, Trunch, North Walsham, NR28 0PT for Mrs Singleton
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/14/1476 - Variation of condition 2 of Planning Inspectorate
Decision ref: T/APP/Y2620/A/99/1029853/P8 (PF/99/0749) to permit residential
occupancy; The Barn, Old Farm Cottages, Vicarage Lane, Tunstead, Norwich,
NR12 8HS for Mrs Paterson
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - LA/14/1536 - External alterations to rear ground floor
doors and windows; Lodge Cottage, Lodge Hill, Upper Sheringham, Sheringham,
NR26 8TJ for Mr Bullen
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALCOTT - PF/14/1478 - Erection of side extension; 13 Ostend Place, Walcott,
Norwich, NR12 0NJ for Mr G Cooper
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - LA/14/1433 - Internal alterations and insertion of first floor
window to rear; The Old Bakehouse, Guest House & Tearooms, 33 High Street,
Walsingham, NR22 6BZ for Mr & Mrs Ford
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/14/1385 - Variation of conditions 3, 4 and 5 of planning permission
ref: 10/0594 to permit residential occupation of two units; Bromholm Barns,
Rookery Farm Road, Ridlington, NR28 9TY for Mrs T D'Amery
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/14/1560 - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission 75/0999 to
permit occupation without complying with employment restriction; Courtenay
Lodge, Heath Road, Ridlington, North Walsham, NR28 9NZ for Mr B Watts
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
52
29 January 2015
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
FAKENHAM - PO/14/1187 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 20 Highfield Road,
Fakenham, NR21 9DJ for Trustees to the Estate
(Outline Planning Permission)
GIMINGHAM - PF/14/1099 - Variation of Condition 10 of planning permission
reference: 05/1634 to permit permanent residential occupancy; Milestone Barn,
Hall Road, Gimingham for Mr R Priestley
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PU/14/1404 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to dwellinghouse; Row Hill Farm Barns, Walsingham Road,
Hindringham, Fakenham, NR21 0BT for Norfolk County Council
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/13/1326 - Non-material amendment request to
re-orientate garage and increase its size and height; 45 Happisburgh Road, North
Walsham, NR28 9HB for Mrs Y Bullimore
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
WOOD NORTON - PU/14/1403 - Prior notification of intention to convert
agricultural building to dwelling house (C3); Lyng Hall Farm Barn, Lyng Hall
Lane, Wood Norton, Dereham, NR20 5BJ for K J Bell and Son
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
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
INFORMAL HEARING
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.
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
BODHAM – PF/11/0983 – Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hardstanding; land at Pond Farm for Genatec
Ltd (remitted appeal)
INQUIRY 9 June 2015
Development Committee
53
29 January 2015
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one
two-storey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills, Cromer,
NR27 9LW for PP3
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
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road, Hempstead, Holt, NR25 6LD for
Mrs V Purkiss
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8JU for Mr & Mrs J Bonham
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0626 - Use of land for siting six mobile units (4 caravans, 2
pods) for residential accommodation for family and friends and use of the
existing dwelling for shared facilities (amended description); 67 Cromer Road,
Mundesley, Norwich, NR11 8DF for Mr & Mrs G Malone
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0728 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling and
detached garage; Rear of 3 Benets Avenue, North Walsham, Norfolk for Mr G
Sexton
SITE VISIT:- 05 January 2015
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9SA for Mr R Banester
SITE VISIT:- 26 January 2015
WEYBOURNE - PF/14/0450 - Continued use of land as camp site and retention of
amenity block; The Barn, Bolding Way, Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7SW for Mr C
Harrison
WALCOTT - ENF/14/0020 - 2 metre high fence adjacent to highway.; Desamy,
Lynton Road, Walcott, Norwich, NR12 0NA
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
BARSHAM - PF/13/1494 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 01/0855 to permit full residential occupation; Barsham Barns, Green
Way, North Barsham, Walsingham, NR22 6AP for Mr A Hudson
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
CATFIELD - PF/14/0664 – Erection of One Two-Storey detached dwelling; Site Adj
to 14 Catfield Road, Ludham for Mr Alan Tedder
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Application PF/14/0664 sought planning permission for a two-storey detached dwelling
between 14 and 16 Catfield Road, Ludham. The appeal Inspector identified the main
issue as the effect of the proposed parking arrangements on highway safety.
Development Committee
54
29 January 2015
The Inspector assessed the cases made by the appellant and by the Highway Authority
and concluded that there would be an unacceptable risk to highway safety in Catfield
Road, in conflict with relevant policies in the Council‟s Core Strategy. He therefore
dismissed the appeal.
The appellant had also asserted that the proposed dwelling would provide a dwelling for
affordable rent to a local family. In assessing this issue, the Inspector concluded that
“from the evidence before me I have little surety that the appeal proposal would be
affordable in terms of being available at 80% of market rent and how that would be
secured through the planning system.” The Inspector found that the benefits of the
proposal, including its limited contribution towards providing housing would not be
sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to local highway safety.
(Source: Roger Howe (Planning Legal Manager) Ext. 6016)
15.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
None
Development Committee
55
29 January 2015