OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29 JULY 2010
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control 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.
BACTON - PF/10/0557 - Erection of extensions to chalets and pitched roofs with
sun terraces; 41-52, Rainbows End Chalet Park, Mill Lane for Tingdene Holiday
Parks Ltd
Target Date: 09 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson\Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19780104 HR - Brick cladding and re-arrangement
Approved 10/02/1978
PLA/20001260 PF - Variation of Seasonal Occupancy Restriction (condition 2 of
permission reference: SM5180
Approved 21/12/2000
PLA/20060525 PF - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission reference
20001260 to permit all-year holiday occupancy
Approved 13/06/2006
PLA/20060131 PF - Construction of pitched roofs and cladding of external walls to
chalets
Approved 17/03/2006
THE APPLICATION
To carry out alterations to three blocks of four single storey flat-roofed holiday
chalets, to provide a pitched roof to each block with the end units in each block
having a balcony area within the roof, accessed by an external spiral staircase at
each end of the block.
Amended plans received deleting the roof balcony and the external spiral staircase
from the end of the block adjacent to chalet No. 40.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Smith for the following planning reason:
Potential impact on neighbouring chalets through overlooking.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection.
Development Control Committee
1
29 July 2010
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters received from the owners of 9 of the chalets, concerned about the impact of
the alterations, especially the increased roof height, on the character of the site and
the views from other properties, and specifically about the impact of the spiral
staircase on the immediately adjoining chalet.
Supporting design and access statement submitted.
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 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
Policy EN 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 alterations on character of the area
impact on residential amenities
APPRAISAL
The chalets on the site were built under a planning permission granted in June 1965
and comprise a number of blocks, each of four chalets under a continuous flat roof.
Several of the blocks have already been upgraded by being re-roofed with shallow
pitched roofs. The current proposal covers three remaining unmodernised blocks
adjacent to the southern boundary of the site, and involves an extension 1.2m deep
across the front of each unit by taking in the existing verandah, and an increase in the
height of the roof to 5.8m (measured to the ridge). The units at the outer end of each
block of four would be given a north-facing roof terrace (to provide sea views)
accessed by an external spiral stair sited adjacent to each gable end. The amended
plans show that the unit closest to the existing chalets to the east would not have
either a balcony or an external spiral stair.
Policy HO 8 allows extensions to dwellings in the Countryside policy area, provided
that they would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale
of the building, and would not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the
appearance of the surrounding landscape. In this case the proposal would increase
the height of the buildings. However their scale would not be significantly increased
and the increase in height would not be disproportionate in this context where the
existing buildings are of a dated and boxy design and where the proposed alterations
would produce a more traditional form and proportions, in keeping with Policy EN 4
Development Control Committee
2
29 July 2010
and the advice in the Design Guide. The increase in height would not materially
increase the impact of the buildings in the countryside. Consequently the proposed
alterations would not have a damaging impact on the character or appearance of the
surrounding area.
The increase in the height of the chalets would not adversely affect views from or
amenities of any existing dwelling or chalet. The main adverse impact arising from the
proposals would have been due to the position of the external spiral stair proposed
for unit 41 on the outlook from and privacy of the immediately adjacent chalet at unit
40. The agents have acknowledged this issue and amended plans have been
submitted deleting the external staircase and balcony completely from this unit.
As amended the proposals do not have any significant adverse impact on any other
chalet or dwelling and the alterations would not harm the character and appearance
of the area. Approval would accord with the relevant policies of the Development
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no further points of objection being
raised to the amended plans as a result of the re-advertisement of the proposal
and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
2.
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0447 - Erection of Storage Barn; Highfield House, 5 Wiveton
Road for Mr and Mrs Langley
Target Date: 24 June 2010
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19931072 PF - Conversion and extension of outbuildings to garages, garden
workshop and store
Approved 30/12/1993
PLA/20070509 PF - Erection of walls and gates
Approved 13/08/2007
PLA/19920368 PF - Conversion and extension of existing outbuilding to holiday
accommodation
Refused 07/08/1992
PLA/20021082 PF - Erection of extension to house swimming pool and garages
with studio above
Approved 29/08/2002
PLA/19841891 HR - Change of use from private dwelling to guest house
Approved 25/01/1985
PLA/20080350 PF - Erection of greenhouse
Approved 17/04/2008
PLA/20021860 PF - Extension and alterations to garage to provide residential
annexe
Approved 22/01/2003
PLA/20090757 PF - Erection of two-storey extension
Approved 18/09/2009
Development Control Committee
3
29 July 2010
THE APPLICATION
Is for the erection of a storage barn on paddock/agricultural land adjacent to the
residential curtilage of the dwelling. It is proposed to be used for storage in
association with the applicant's property and paddock, including use as an animal
shelter, feed store, stabling, secure store of agricultural plant to maintain the
grassland, jumps for horse riding and winter boat store.
The building would measure approximately 12.5m x 15.5m, 3.7m to the eaves and
4.9m to the ridge. There are two access doors proposed on the eastern elevation,
facing into the paddock. There would be a gravel finished hardstanding outside the
access doors.
The building as submitted would be constructed with a blockwork plinth, timber
cladding walls and light green metal sheet roof.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Brettle having regard to the following planning issues:
1. Appropriateness of development in the Countryside and Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
2. Scale of building.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the following grounds:
1. This proposed development is outside the village boundary
2. It is a very large industrial unit, totally out of keeping in this 'open countryside'
3. An area of 'Outstanding Natural Beauty'
4. This is a second home rather than a permanent home
5. One objection from a parishioner also received.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising the following
points (summarised):
1. Do not see that the purpose of the building are good enough reasons to extend
development on the periphery of the village.
2. The applicants have plenty of secure areas where these items can be contained
within the built boundaries of their property.
3. Beginning of the spread of development into the rural landscape.
4. Not aware of the field being previously used for equestrian activities.
5. Concern that the building could be used to house a helicopter. The field is
occasionally used to land a helicopter.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways)
The proposal is for the erection of a substantial residential storage building for use by
the family for animal feed and equipment and storage of boat(s). This would be likely
to engender an increase in vehicular movements of vehicles towing boats. Although
these movements are likely to be minimal, I would consider that the unmade access
requires improvement to be acceptable and that the available visibility be conditioned
to be maintained to ensure highway safety.
I can confirm that there is no highway objection to this proposal. Should your
Authority be minded to grant consent conditions regarding upgrading the access and
maintaining a parallel visibility splay will be required.
Development Control Committee
4
29 July 2010
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)
The proposed storage barn is located in the north-eastern corner of the paddock field
to the south of Highfield House. This is located on the edge of Blakeney to the south
of the main village and church. The house, adjacent land and the main village are
relatively well screened through extensive woodland cover. From the paddock the
land slopes gradually down to the east and south-east to the River Glaven, patchy
views are afforded of the field from Wiveton village and the Blakeney Road.
The paddock field itself is bounded by hedgerows and hedgerow trees, and a small
copse of pine to the south-west corner. These will help screen the proposed building,
particularly from the main Wiveton/Blakeney Road, where only partial glimpses will be
gained through the existing access gate.
The landscape in the surrounding area is punctuated by small copses and rural
buildings, therefore it is unlikely that the addition of the proposed barn will have a
significant detrimental effect on the countryside. However, I believe the building will
be visible from some parts of the surrounding area. If a dark stain was applied to the
timber cladding and a dark brown (e.g. Van Dyke Brown) tin roof was used, this
would help reduce the visual impact of the building allowing it to blend into the
woodland to the north. I would therefore recommend that a condition is attached to
any planning permission given requiring the prior approval of timber stain colour and
roof colour by the LPA.
In order to retain the screening effect of the hedge for the proposed building, I would
suggest that a condition is attached to the permission requiring the retention of the
hedgerow to the western boundary to a minimum height of 3.5m from ground level.
The development site is within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area; therefore the
existing trees on the site are protected from removal. I would suggest that an
informal note is attached to the decision letter indicating that prior notification is
required before any tree removal is carried out on the site.
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Development Control Committee
5
29 July 2010
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Acceptability of development in Countryside policy area.
2. Impact on Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
3. Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4. Impact on neighbouring properties.
5. Highway safety.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where the erection of such a
storage building in association with the agricultural use of the land would be
acceptable, and in compliance with Policy SS2. In this instance it is proposed to use
the building for storage of vehicles and equipment in association with the use of the
land as a paddock as well as a store for a boat/boats during the winter. The latter
use would not strictly conform with policy, but on balance, taken together this
composite use is considered acceptable in principle in this coastal village.
The site is also located within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area and Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Committee will note from the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager that the site is well screened by
existing trees and planting and that the surrounding area is punctuated with rural
buildings. Subject to the external materials being dark brown in colour and the hedge
on the western boundary being maintained at a minimum height of 3.5m from ground
level it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect
on the rural character of the area and would comply with policy EN1 relating to the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition subject to an appropriate colour
finish and landscaping the proposal would preserve the appearance and character of
the Conservation Area (Policy EN8).
The nearest neighbour is to the west of the site, approximately 21m from the
boundary. The Wiveton Road is in between the properties and there is planting to
both boundaries. The site is therefore well screened by existing trees and planting. In
view of this it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental
impact on the privacy or amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.
The Committee will note that no objections have been raised by the Highway
Authority, subject to conditions.
It is therefore considered, subject to the external colour finish to the proposed building
being dark brown, the hedge on the western boundary being retained at a minimum
of 3.5m in height and the imposition of the Highway Authority's requested conditions,
that the proposal would be acceptable and accord with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the imposition appropriate conditions, to include
agreement on material details, landscaping, highways, restriction on the uses
of the building to those proposed, and the use of the land to remain as
agricultural/paddock and not part of the domestic curtilage.
Development Control Committee
6
29 July 2010
3.
HOLT - PF/10/0630 - Variation of Condition 3 of 08/0697 to permit increase in
opening hours to 8.00 - 23.00; 28 High Street for Mr J Barnes
Target Date: 28 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20080697 PF - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1 (retail) and A3
(cafe)
Approved 23/06/2008
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a variation of Condition 3 of planning permission 20080697 to allow an
increase in trading hours from 8:00 to 20:00 to 8:00 to 23:00 on any day.
A letter has been received from the applicant confirming his willingness to install a
rubberised floor covering to the stairs leading from the restaurant to the kitchen and
within the kitchen itself in order to mitigate against noise transfer.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor High for the following planning reasons:
Concerns in respect of noise and amenity to the neighbouring property.
TOWN COUNCIL – No objection.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection from the owner of the neighbouring property to the rear which
raises the following concerns (summarised):
1. Noise and nuisance from external courtyard including wastes storage, especially
food waste/paper cardboard in enclosed area adjacent to escape route.
2. Noise, vibration and nuisance internally resulting from juxtaposition of restaurant
kitchen and bathroom/bedroom.
3. Extension of hours will exacerbate current problems of noise transfer from kitchen
and access stairs.
4. Risk of kitchen fire and its affect on the ability to evacuate house safely.
Environmental Health
(Original comments) - No objection subject to the applicant applying for an alteration
to the premises licence.
Comments are awaited in respect of the proposed noise mitigation measures.
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.
Development Control Committee
7
29 July 2010
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on neighbouring amenities.
APPRAISAL
The site is located in an area identified as Town Centre, where Policy SS5 of the
Core Strategy supports a broad range of uses, including shopping, commercial and
cultural. In 2008 planning permission was granted for the change of use of the
premises from A1 (retail) to a mixed use of A1 (retail) and A3 (cafe) when a condition
was imposed restricting the hours of trading on any one day from 8:00 to 20:00 hours.
Given the location of the premises within the town centre and its established use, in
principle an extension of the hours of trading to 23:00 hours is considered to be
acceptable.
No. 28 High Street is a Grade II listed building which fronts High Street, but to the
rear of the premises is a modern two storey extension dating from the 1970’s of brick
under a clay pantile roof, the ground floor of which contains part of the restaurant,
servery and staff toilets with a staircase leading to a small kitchen and preparation
area at first floor level. This extension joins and is contiguous with Studio House to
the north which is a two storey dwelling which steps up to a third floor. At ground floor
this property has a garage joining the party wall, whilst at first floor abutting the
kitchen is an en-suite bathroom and bedroom. In addition there is an enclosed
courtyard to the eastern side of the premises which is used as a bin storage area for
the restaurant. This allows a rear emergency access to Studio House, through the
adjoining premises to the east.
As a result of the construction of the restaurant extension and the relationship with
Studio House, the owners of that dwelling have experienced the transfer of noise and
vibration from the restaurant kitchen which appears to be transferred primarily though
the floor joist, as the inner wall to the kitchen has already been soundproofed,
following discussion between the restaurant owner and the neighbours. As a result
the owners of Studio House are concerned that any extension in the hours of use
would exacerbate the current situation affecting their amenity is terms of noise and
disturbance late into the evening.
Following receipt of the letter from the owners of Studio House and a meeting with
the restaurant owner he has agreed as part of the application to install a suitable
rubberised floor covering to the stairs leading from the restaurant to the kitchen and
also the kitchen itself in order to mitigate against the transfer of noise.
In view of the neighbours' concerns and the proposed remedial works the Council’s
Environment Protection Team has been re-consulted in order to seek a view as to the
acceptability of the proposed mitigation measures.
Development Control Committee
8
29 July 2010
It is therefore considered that subject to no objection form the Environmental
Protection Team the scheme as proposed would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to no objection from Environmental Health, and the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
4.
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/0419 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling; Land
rear of former garage, Norwich Road, Cromer for SJD Enterprises
Minor Development
Target Date: 14 June 2010
Case Officer: Mr I Thompson\Mr P Took
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20091040 PF - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling
Approved 10/12/2009
THE APPLICATION
To construct a new "one and a half storey" dwelling with an eaves height of 2.75m
and a ridge height of 6.4m (amended plans show reduction from original 7.0m) with
two dormer windows and a rooflight in the south facing roofslope. The proposal also
includes a double garage to the south of the dwelling. The access would be through
the former Aldiss Motors site, which is currently being re-developed with six houses.
The amended plans also propose resiting the dwelling approximately 3m further from
the boundary with the neighbours to the south and approximately 1m from the
neighbours to the east, and would move the projecting wing to the east rather than the
west side of the proposed building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Mrs Fitch -Tillett for the following planning reasons:
Public concern about loss of light and possible overloading of sewerage system.
PARISH COUNCIL
Concerned about proximity to adjoining properties and additional vehicle movements.
Also the extra storey raises concerns about loss of light and privacy for neighbours.
REPRESENTATIONS
The amended plans have attracted objections from four local residents concerned that
even as amended the proposal would result in overlooking of and reduced privacy for
their bungalows and gardens.
One neighbour supports the proposed development
CONSULTATIONS
Sustainability Co-ordinator - recommends condition requiring Code Level 2 to be
achieved.
Development Control Committee
9
29 July 2010
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
1. Design
2. Impact on immediate neighbours
APPRAISAL
The site lies behind existing dwellings which front onto Norwich Road to the east, onto
Stevens Road to the south and onto The Ridgeway to the north. The site is within the
residential area of Cromer and the principle of a dwelling on the site has been
accepted by the earlier permission granted in December 2009 for a single-storey
dwelling.
The current application seeks permission for a different design of dwelling on the site.
The approved development is for a single storey, hipped roof three bedroom
bungalow, approx. 5.1m high The current application seeks to reduce the footprint
and site coverage of the dwelling by incorporating two bedrooms at first floor level in a
slightly higher-gabled roof - ridge height proposed is approx 1.3m higher than the
approved bungalow.
The reduction in site coverage of the proposed building means that it would be
possible to site it further away from the southern and western boundaries than the
approved bungalow, thus further reducing any impact on neighbours. The first floor
dormer windows in the proposed dwelling would face the rear windows of an existing
bungalow on Stevens Road at a distance of approx 20m. This separation distance
complies with the recommended distances in the adopted Design Guide. The only
other first floor window proposed is an obscure-glazed bathroom window in the east
gable.
In other respects the impact of the proposed dwelling on neighbouring properties
would be similar to that of the approved scheme, apart from French windows to the
living room on the east elevation. Any privacy issues which these cause could be
readily mitigated with a screen fence on the eastern boundary.
The current proposals would not significantly increase the impact of the proposed
dwelling on nearby bungalows, the design is considered acceptable and approval
would accord with the relevant policies of the Development Plan.
Development Control Committee
10
29 July 2010
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to conditions covering the amended plans; obscure glazing in
bathroom window; fencing on east boundary; Code for Sustainable Homes
level 2; materials; parking and turning area and provision of frontage footway.
5.
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0639 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A5 (hot food takeaway); 10 Station Approach for Mr Miah
Target Date: 29 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Town Centre
Conservation Area
Residential Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a change of use from A1 retail use to use as a hot food take-away.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Strongly objects on the grounds of loss of an important retail outlet adjacent to the
core retail area of the town. The provision of food waste removal is unacceptable. In
addition the trading hours should be restricted to 23:00 as other outlets in the town.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection which raise the following concerns (summarised):
1. Too many takeaways in this small town already - particularly in this road.
2. Traffic hold-ups in the area, this would increase traffic.
3. Existing problem of cooking smells in the area.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) – Although having some concerns regarding the
possibility of on-street parking/waiting occurring along Station Approach, as the road
is well controlled by the existing ‘At any time’ Waiting restrictions and there is
availability of appropriate parking in the vicinity of the site on the adjacent public car
park, there is no highways objection to the proposal.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of
details in respect of the mechanical ventilation system.
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.
Development Control Committee
11
29 July 2010
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 12: Sheringham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of proposed use in this location.
2. Highway impact.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the Committee meeting on 8 July 2010 in order to
allow Officers time to seek further clarification from the applicant on the bin storage,
waste and litter disposal and a potential reduction in the opening hours early on
Sunday mornings from 1:00am to 12 midnight prior to consulting the Council's
Community Safety Manager and re-consulting Environmental Health. At the time of
writing this report, a response from the agent was awaited and Members will be
updated orally.
The site is located in an area identified as Town Centre, but is outside the areas
designated as Primary Shopping Area and Primary Retail Frontage. On the basis that
Policy SS5 of the Core Strategy supports a broad range of uses, including shopping,
commercial and cultural, a change of the use of the premises from A1 (retail) to A5
(hot food take away) is acceptable in terms of adopted Core Strategy policy.
As far as the originally proposed opening hours are concerned the applicant has
indicated that the intended hours of trading would be 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight on
Mondays to Fridays, 12:00 noon to 1:00 am on Sunday mornings and 12:00 noon to
12:00 midnight on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Although the Town Council have
objected to these hours, given that Environmental Health have raised no objection
and the number of residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the site is few it is
not considered that refusal of the application could be justified on these grounds.
In terms of the impact of the development on highway safety, the Highway Authority
has indicated that although it has some concerns regarding the possibility of on-street
parking/waiting occurring along Station Approach, given the fact that the road is well
controlled by the existing ‘At any time’ Waiting restrictions and the site is adjacent to
the large public car park serving the area, it is unable to sustain an objection to the
scheme.
It is therefore considered that subject to the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding
issues the scheme as proposed would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval subject to satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues
and no objection from consultees, and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
12
29 July 2010
6.
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0577 - Use of land for the stationing of 13 woodland
lodges; Weybourne Hall Holiday Park, Sheringham Road for Merton Park Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 20 July 2010
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Undeveloped Coast
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Tree Preservation Order
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19751669 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Change of use from a caravan site to
holiday chalets
Approved, 21 Jun 1976
19770175 - (Full Planning Permission) - Development of five holiday chalets
Refused, 24 May 1977
19770176 - Proposed development of 55 holiday chalets
Refused, 24 May 1977
19770937 - (Full Planning Permission) - Development of 55 chalets
Approved, 01 Aug 1977
19971308
19820969 - (Full Planning Permission) - Renewal of temporary permission for
caravan site
Approved, 30 Aug 1982
19920937 - (Full Planning Permission) - Renewal of caravan site licence for
permanent permission
Approved, 24 Sep 1992
19951327 - (Full Planning Permission) - Variation of occupancy conditions to
standardise occupancy of site
Approved, 08 Feb 1996
20060149 - (Full Planning Permission) - Variation of condition 2 of 951327 to allow all
year holiday occupancy
Approved, 31 Mar 2006
20091272 – (Full Planning Permission) – Use of land for the stationing of fifteen
woodland lodges, Withdrawn.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to construct bases for the stationing of 13 woodland lodges in the
north-eastern corner of the site, with 5 lodges being located adjacent to the northern
boundary, 3 adjacent to the eastern boundary, 3 immediately to the east of existing
chalets and 2 to the northern edge of the tree canopy. In addition there would be a
new access road servicing the lodges.
Amended plans have been received reducing the proposed number of lodges from 14
to 13.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at an earlier meeting of the Committee.
Development Control Committee
13
29 July 2010
PARISH COUNCIL
Objects to the application on the following grounds:1. The development, which would be located in a northern section of, and to the side
of, a protected iconic Beech Copse of landscape significance in North Norfolk,
would be highly detrimental to the area and to wildlife. The terrain is distinctly
different from the Park area already developed and a village asset.
2. Land on the proposed site is higher than in the established Park area (echoing
the hill going east out of the village) and so would significantly increase the
visibility of any development from the north and the east, most particularly from
the coastal path, and particularly in winter months given the deciduous planting.
Villagers’ past experience of the hedging boundary to the north is that residents of
WHHPk do not wish to have their sea view prevented by hedging - and so see
that it’s kept low themselves.
3. The resubmission shows even less awareness than the original of the nature and
value of a copse such as Weybourne’s Beech Copse. The value is of the whole
landscape of the trees, and of both close and distant views of the copse from the
ground to the canopy, unimpeded by man-made structures of any sort. The
resubmitted plan to erect ‘tree fencing’ to a height of 1.2 metres to keep Park
residents away from the trees entirely misses the point: it would completely
destroy the distinctiveness of this site.
4. The amended plan shows the properties on Temple Drive and Temple Close,
although neighbouring properties to the west and east are not included. The
‘existing hedgerow’ marked on the eastern boundary is in fact not on WHHPk
land: it is owned and was planted by the owners of Weybourne Mill in 1998, with a
grant from Norfolk County Council for tree planting. The actual boundary is the
western edge of this hedgerow as shown in County Council plans for the planting.
5. The access apron to and from the Holiday Park, shared with the drive for Temple
Close and Temple Drive residents, opens on to the A149 towards the bottom of
the hill from the Cemetery. At this point the road narrows past the Churchyard,
bearing to the left shortly before the junction with The Street on the left, before
bending to the right and straightening as it passes the bus stop. It is often a very
congested area, with restricted visibility for all road users and for all drivers
leaving the Holiday Park and the Temples. Additional vehicles will exacerbate
what already can be a dangerous situation.
6. The inappropriateness and insensitivity of the original application to its AONB
setting, far from being ameliorated, are increased by the resubmitted plans. The
density of lodge installation - reduced first by one, and subsequently by another
from the original 15 - is substantially increased by the compartmentalisation of the
site into two areas.
REPRESENTATIONS
44 letters of objection from local residents and occupiers of chalet/lodges within the
holiday park which raise the following concerns (summarised):1. The existing Beech woodland is a prominent local landmark.
2. The felling of trees will completely destroy the area.
3. There would be detrimental effect to the woodland of the felling of up to 40 trees.
4. The integrity of the woodland will be lost with the initial loss of 23 trees with other
being removed in years to come.
5. The provision of services to the lodges will damage the tree roots, whilst the siting
of the lodges would restrict rainwater reaching the roots.
6. The loss of trees could have an adverse impact on wildlife habitats including bats
which roost in the area.
7. The proposal would cause considerable environmental damage and result in loss
and destruction of wildlife habitat.
Development Control Committee
14
29 July 2010
8. Muntjac deer are common in the woodland.
9. The impact of the lodges would be detrimental to the appearance of the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
10. The montage submitted as part of the application which shows the lodges being
obscured from the coastal footpath in 5-10 years is misleading.
11. Unacceptable visual impact from coastal footpath.
12. Residents of Temple Drive and not aware of touring caravans having been on this
part of the site in the past.
13. The erection of the wattle fencing will cut off access to the woodland for chalet
owners.
14. The wattle fencing will cut out light to our chalet.
15. The proposed lodges are to close to the existing chalets.
16. There will be nowhere for children to play on the site.
17. There are inaccuracies in the siting of lodges which were approved in 2006.
18. Weybourne is in danger of being swamped by a holiday park.
19. 40% of properties in Weybourne are already second homes, what gain is there for
the village.
20. Development would result in more vehicles in the village.
21. Will destroy a tranquil oasis for local residents.
22. Will increase light pollution.
23. A satisfactory solution may be a reduction in the number of lodges proposed.
24. The removal of mature trees and hedging to facilitate the expansion of the site
has already compromised the character of the adjoining Schedule 25. Ancient
monument
25. Overdevelopment of the site.
26. Development could exacerbate foul drainage issues experienced elsewhere
within the village.
In addition a petition signed and addressed by 66 individuals has been received
objecting to the proposal on the basis that a large number of trees will gradually be
removed which would in due course destroy the woodland in its present form.
A letter has been received from a local resident objecting to the application,
accompanied by a petition signed by 58 residents of Weybourne who consider that
the lodges would be seen from the coastal path and would spoil this very special
feature of the Weybourne landscape. In addition the letter raises similar concerns to
those listed above however also suggests that no more major housing schemes
should be allowed in Weybourne until the foul drainage problems in Church Street
and Holt Road have been rectified and that the development would result in traffic
flow problems within the holiday park.
6 letters of support from residents of North Norfolk which state (in summary):1. Very good plan to make use and look after part of the coastline.
2. In the years I have known the Park I have never seen it look so stunning, much
better than it looked before.
3. Since the change in ownership it is lovely to see a holiday park so well kept.
4. The redevelopment of the site to date has been carried out with concern for the
environment and wildlife.
5. Local people are employed as gardeners and maintenance personnel.
6. The village shop and local businesses are well supported by visitors to the park.
7. The proposed extension is of high quality totally in keeping with the area and a
vast improvement on the original caravan park.
8. Increased all year round occupancy will help preserve local businesses in the
village.
Development Control Committee
15
29 July 2010
9. The status of the woodlands can be protected by ensuring all necessary trees are
preserved and wildlife protected.
10. Selective removal of the trees is necessary to maintain the sustainability of the
woodland.
11. The rural environment will not suffer, a number of different species of animals and
birds can be seen in close proximity to homes already in situ.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways)
No objection as the proposal would not increase the number of previously permitted
units on the site. However, given that the cumulative total of this application and the
type of holiday accommodation now easily matches the likely traffic generation of
previously consented uses, have requested that previous consents relating to
permitted caravan numbers be revoked. In addition, they consider that it would be
beneficial for the existing access to be repaired for the full width at its junction with
the highway and should be a requirement of any consent.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape)
Weybourne Holiday Park is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and
the trees on the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The adjacent
land to the south of the development is a Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). It
is not considered the development will have an impact on the SSSI.
The trees in the wooded area where the proposed lodges are to be sited are
predominantly Beech trees. Beech trees are shallow rooted, prone to disturbance
and are perceived to be structurally weak. Open access to the woodland from the
lodges would put excessive pressure on any regeneration and therefore the
woodland would turn into parkland. The developer’s arborist has produced an
Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) to ensure the trees are protected prior, during
and after construction. In addition the developers have invested heavily into
landscaping to reduce the impact of the lodges on the surrounding landscape. It is
considered that the impact of the development on the landscape can be reduced by
suitably managed trees and hedges on the northern boundary of the site whilst the
'ad hoc' positioning of the units will assist in further reducing the impact of the new
units with regards to the view from the coastal path. If the trees and hedging are left
to mature and grow to a height as to screen the lodges then the impact of the park on
the landscape will be greatly minimised. However the hedging planted along the
north of the site to screen the existing lodges from the coast path will be under
pressure from the residents of the lodges wishing to have a sea view.
Therefore subject to the imposition of conditions preventing the hedge and trees on
the northern boundary being cut and for tree protection measures to be introduced
before, during and after construction, under the supervision of an arborist, the
development is considered to be acceptable.
Environmental Health
No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Does not consider that the proposal in its current form is
consistent with national guidance and local policy, as the proposed lodges placed
close to the northern boundary of the site are likely to exacerbate the current impacts
of the existing lodges and would have an adverse impact when viewed from the
Norfolk Coast Path.
Development Control Committee
16
29 July 2010
However if the proposed expansion is seen to be acceptable in principle by the
Council then this should be seen as an opportunity to achieve improvements to the
overall appearance of the site and should include:1. Retain the existing hedges to the northern boundary of in terms of its height and
width as part of the development.
2. Require that the hedges and vegetation on the northern boundary of the existing
development are allowed to grow up naturally to a height of at least 3 metres.
3. Rearrangement of the new units numbers 1, 3 and 5 back from the northern
boundary of the site to give more space between them and the existing hedging.
4. The hedging along the entire northern boundary improved to achieve a denser,
taller screen using suitable locally native species of hedging and tree species in order
to screen the site when viewed from the Norfolk Coast Path.
Anglian Water – No objection.
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EC 10: Static and touring caravans and camping sites (specifies criteria for
new sites and extensions or intensification of existing sites).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development.
2. Impact on trees.
3. Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
4. Impact on the amenity of adjacent residents.
5. Highway safety.
Development Control Committee
17
29 July 2010
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at an earlier meeting in order for the Committee to visit
the site.
Whilst the entrance to Weybourne Holiday Park is within the development boundary
for Weybourne the site is within the Countryside policy area as defined by the North
Norfolk Core Strategy. It also lies within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast; the trees within the site are the subject of a
Tree Preservation Order. Policy EC10 of the Core Strategy would allow the
extension of, or intensification of existing static caravan sites (including replacement
with woodland lodges) where it has been conclusively demonstrated that due to a
very high standard of design and landscaping the development would have a minimal
adverse impact on its surroundings and is appropriate when considered against other
Development Plan policies.
The site is covered by an extensive Tree Preservation Order, the aim of which is to
protect the Beech trees on the site, which the submitted drawing shows divided into
two compartments, compartment 1 being the application site to the north with
compartment 2 to the south between the site and the former chalk workings, which is
a SSSI.
At the present time Compartment 1 is devoid of any under-planting, having had all
vegetation removed and is somewhat sanitised. A detailed Arboricultural Implications
Assessment accompanying the application states that the mature trees are in poor
condition and beginning to decline and that overall the woodland is in urgent need of
regeneration to ensure that it is sustained into the future. As part of the scheme the
Assessment identifies that it would be necessary to remove 4 Category A , 2
Category B and 8 Category C trees within compartment 1 which would be replaced
on a one-for-one basis, with extra heavy standard and heavy standard Beech in the
woodland and Sycamore on the edge.
In addition the Assessment details tree protection measures during and after
construction. The Assessment states that 91% of the trees surveyed will be retained
and provided with proper protection as set out in BS5837:2005. A key feature of
these measures would be the erection of permanent wattle fencing and native
hedging which would be introduced in order to exclude access to a large part of the
Beech woodland, so as to promote its proper preservation and regeneration and also
increase wildlife habitats.
As part of a 20-year Management Plan, submitted as part of the application, within
compartment 1 in the first five years it is proposed to introduce in excess of 150 new
trees including 80 Beech. In years 6, 11, and 15 further felling would take place so
that by year 20, 50% of the area would be regenerated with young Beech and
Hornbeam ranging in age from 1 to 20 years. In addition a similar management plan
is proposed for compartment 2 involving extensive replanting, but would initially
involve the removal of 28 Category R trees.
The Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape) has indicated that the
current open access to the woodland would put excessive pressure on the Beech
trees which are shallow rooted, prone to disturbance and are perceived to be
structurally weak. Therefore the proposed investment in landscaping and under
planting of the Beech woodland would not only help to protect the existing trees but
would perpetuate the wood’s re-generation. The additional trees and hedging, left to
mature, would screen the park from the surrounding landscape and the 'ad hoc'
Development Control Committee
18
29 July 2010
positioning of the lodges, particularly to the northern boundary would further assist in
reducing their impact especially from the coastal footpath. Therefore it is considered
that the impact of the development on the trees and surrounding landscape can be
suitably managed.
As far as the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is concerned the
principal view of the holiday park is from the coastal footpath some 400m to the north,
from where at the present time the lodges granted permission in 2006 are visible.
However, due to the proposed orientation of the proposed lodges together with the
reinforcement of the existing hedgerow to the northern boundary and planting in the
form of trees between the lodges the Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager
has indicated that if the planting is left to mature the impact on the landscape would
be limited. Furthermore the applicants have indicated that it their intention to
introduce lodges of more recessive colours to the boundaries of the site, which
should further reduce their impact.
When viewed from the east at the present time the boundary of the site consists of a
mix of established hedging, which is somewhat patchy and which has been under
planted with Hawthorn. In addition within the adjacent field, which is outside the
applicants' control, a tree belt consisting predominantly of deciduous trees has been
planted which during the summer months effectively screens the park. It is not
therefore considered that the proposed development would have a significantly
detrimental impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In terms of the impact on the amenities of adjacent residents, this falls into two
categories. As far as park residents are concerned, those most affected by the
development would be the owners/occupiers of the brick chalets directly to the west,
who currently enjoy an open aspect across the site. As part of the scheme it is
intended that wattle fencing with a minimum height of 1.2 metres, with a native
hedgerow to the eastern side would be erected and planted approximately 3 metres
from their rear windows in order to form a boundary between properties. Whilst this
boundary would clearly restrict direct access into the wooded area it is not considered
that a fence of this height would result in any loss of light or other amenities. For other
park residents, there could be an increase in traffic movements at certain times and
particularly during school holidays. As the site currently provides an unofficial play
area children may play elsewhere within the site.
As far as residents in the vicinity of the park are concerned, the closest properties to
the site are those in Temple Drive to the south west, with the nearest property, The
Spinney, having the north eastern corner of its fairly substantial rear garden abutting
the site. The dwelling itself would be 40m from the nearest lodge, the southern and
western boundaries of which would be formed by a wattle fence and hedging. The
only other property potentially affected by the development would be the Old Mill at
Mill Lane. Although this property is separated from the site by an adjacent field and
has a dense hawthorn hedgerow screening the ground floor, as its principal rooms at
first floor level look west toward the park it is possible that at certain times of the year
the lodges would be visible when the tree belt, which is with the ownership of the Old
Mill is not in leaf. However, notwithstanding these concerns, overall it is considered
that there can be no substantive grounds for refusal based on loss of amenity or
visual impact.
In terms of highway safety, whilst the lodges would generate additional traffic within
the park and the surrounding roadwork this has to be balanced against the fact that
prior to the 2006 application various permission permitted 100 caravans on the site
at any one time, which would have generated a substantial amount of traffic. As a
Development Control Committee
19
29 July 2010
result the Highway Authority has indicated that subject to the entrance to the site
being repaired for its full width it would not wish to raise an objection to the proposal.
However in its response it also suggested that the previous permissions relating to
permitted caravan numbers be revoked. These permissions were in fact revoked
when planning permission 20060628 was granted. As a result the Highway Authority
has subsequently indicated that it has no further comment to make.
In summary, whilst the Beech woodland is considered to be an extremely important
feature within the landscape, expert advice suggests that the trees are reaching
maturity and whether or not additional lodges were to be permitted over the period of
the next 20 years substantial felling and replanting would be required in order to
secure its future for the longer term.
Whilst it has to be accepted that in the short term the introduction of bases for 13
additional woodland lodges would result in the loss of some trees and that the lodges
themselves might have some impact on the wider visual landscape of the area this
has to be offset against the substantial investment in landscaping and woodland
management being proposed as part of the scheme, which once established would
not only help to mitigate against the impact of lodges but would help secure the wood
for future generations and also enhance the wildlife habitats.
In terms of the impact on the amenities of residents, whilst the development would
restrict the open access of the area currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the park this
could be to the longer term benefit of the trees. As far as the residents of properties in
the vicinity of the site are concerned any adverse impact in the short to medium term
is not considered sufficient justify refusal of the application.
It is therefore considered that the development would have a minimal adverse impact
on its surroundings and would accord with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
7.
SHERINGHAM: 10/0143 Land to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill, Road
This report concerns the alterations to ground level on land to the rear of 20 Hooks
Hill Road, Sheringham
Background
This matter was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee in order for a site visit
to be carried out. It relates to a site upon which two detached single storey dwellings
have been constructed under planning permission 20051110. The dwellings have
been completed but are not occupied. A complaint has been received in respect of
loss of vegetation, damage to a fence and changes to ground levels. Topographically
the site is located on a downward slope from south-east to north-west from Hooks
Hill Road towards Holt Road, Sheringham. There is also an incline running across
the site from north-east to south-west. The site is surrounded on all boundaries by
existing dwellings.
History
In August 2008 an enforcement complaint was received alleging a breach of planning
control insofar as trees and shrubs had been removed from a double hedge along
the boundary between the development site (planning permission 20051110) and 9B
Development Control Committee
20
29 July 2010
Holt Road, Sheringham. It was also alleged that this work and changes to the ground
levels had damaged a boundary fence. Following a site inspection by the
Enforcement Officer it was concluded that damage to the fencing and the removal of
the trees and shrubs did not represent a breach of planning control. However, in
relation to the altered ground levels the developer was contacted and advised that a
retaining wall of 1.8 metres in height should be constructed along the north-western
boundary of the site as shown on the approved plans of planning permission
20051110. The developer during the following year constructed a 0.5 metre to 1.4
metre high block work retaining wall, along half the length of the boundary. Since the
bungalows were substantially complete, on 28 August 2009 the developer was asked
to provide the date by which the retaining wall would be completed. In reply the
developer stated (correctly, on detailed inspection of the plans) that the retaining wall
marked on the approved plan related to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill Road, Sheringham,
not to the rear of the development site and had already been constructed.
Although there is not a condition requiring the construction of a retaining wall,
between the rear gardens of the two new bungalows and 9B Holt Road Sheringham
the development continued to be the subject of complaints and further investigations
were undertaken, particularly into the alleged works to alter the ground levels.
A comparison of recent photographs of the completed development with photographs
taken in 2005 indicates that there have been substantial alterations to ground levels
throughout the development site not just on the boundary which is the subject of the
complaint. As previously stated the development site is on a slope and there has
been significant excavation into the slope along the south-eastern and north-eastern
boundaries. An invoice has been obtained which shows that on the 27 August 2009
132 cu metres of “stockpiled excavated materials and mixed construction waste”
were removed from the site in 11 lorry loads.
Along the north-western and south-western boundaries the ground levels have been
raised. Along the north-western boundary the difference in ground levels is between
0.4m and 1.4 m. However, a site inspection on unaltered ground levels adjacent to
the site indicates that the ground level of 9A Holt Road, Sheringham was lower by
approx 0.5m at the lowest point. This indicates the ground level has been raised by a
maximum of 0.9 m. Along the south-western boundary the difference in ground levels
is between 0.23m and 0.6 m.
Representations
A letter has been received from solicitors acting on behalf of neighbouring residents
and is attached as Appendix 1.
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).
Appraisal
It is clear that there has been remodelling of the ground levels on this site due to
excavation and redistribution of the soil. This comprises operational development for
which planning permission is required. The developer has so far declined to submit a
planning application to regularise the development. Whilst it is open to the Local
Planning Authority to serve an enforcement notice, such a notice should not be
issued solely to regularise a development which is acceptable on its planning merits.
Development Control Committee
21
29 July 2010
Policy EN4 requires development proposals to respect the character and landscape
of the surrounding area and not to have a significantly detrimental effect on the
residential amenities of nearby occupiers. In this case, the remodelling of the
landform has led to increased potential for overlooking of the property to the rear and
to the creation of a stark feature in the form of a blockwork wall on the boundary with
the property to the north-west. It is therefore considered that neighbouring residential
amenities have been adversely affected by these works.
Had a planning application been submitted, it is considered that it would have been
possible to mitigate these impacts through the imposition of conditions. In the
absence of an application, the Committee is asked to authorise the service of an
Enforcement Notice in order to secure the imposition of conditions which will:
1) require the erection of a 1.8m fence as measured from the newly modelled ground
level at the rear of the development site and;
2) require landscaping in the form of climbing plants to screen the exposed sections
of blockwork wall on the boundary.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the development to which this report relates has raised 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, the commencement of enforcement proceedings as
recommended is considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with
planning law.
RECOMMENDATION:
That authority be given to serve an Enforcement Notice as recommended
above with a compliance period of three calendar months from the effective
date of the Notice.
Reason:
In order to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties and to ensure
compliance with Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(Source: Kate Steventon, Planning Enforcement Officer ext 6247)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
8.
PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE
This report updates Members on the quarterly performance statistics covering the
planning service for the period from April to June 2010.
This is the quarterly performance report covering the planning service for the period
from April to June 2010. It covers the turnround of planning applications, workload
and appeal outcomes and provides an update on some of the staffing changes which
have taken place as a result of the restructuring of the service.
Development Control Committee
22
29 July 2010
Table 1A in Appendix 2 sets out performance for the first quarter of 2010/11. Of the
five major decisions taken, four were within the 13-week period, thus in excess of
both Council and Government targets. In terms of minor decisions, 71.4% were
within the 8-week period, slightly under the Council’s target, whilst 88.5% of ‘other’
decisions were taken within the statutory period, again in excess of both Council and
Government targets. It remains to be seen whether the Government continues to
prescribe these planning performance targets, whether there is a new national
planning performance indicator or whether performance management will be left
entirely to Councils.
Table 1B in Appendix 2 indicates a broader measure of workload and shows that
formal applications submitted in the quarter were higher than the average for
2009/10, although pre-application enquiries were somewhat lower. ‘Do I need
planning permission?’ queries were close to the average for the last financial year.
Table 1C in Appendix 2 indicates that delegated decisions rose to 94.6% through
the first quarter of 2010/11, an increase of almost 2% compared with the previous
year. It is hoped that this system continues to enable Development Control
Committee to concentrate on those cases which are of most importance, whilst
retaining the control of Members to call in those applications which they consider
necessary to be determined by the Committee.
Table 2 in Appendix 2 indicates planning appeal decisions and shows that during
the quarter, of the three appeals determined, two were allowed. This is a very
unusual outcome when compared with terms of performance over the previous six
years, but based on such a small sample it is hoped that this does not indicate
evidence of a longer term trend.
In terms of staffing issues, Members may be aware that Andy Mitchell has been
appointed Development Manager and is responsible for Development Control
matters covering the entire District. John Williams has taken flexible retirement and
will be leading the new Major Developments Team. This team will be responsible for
developing briefs, master plans and planning obligations for the sites allocated for
development through the Site Specific Proposals which are currently being examined
by an Inspector. The team will also process planning applications for major
residential developments and will have a particular brief for assisting in the delivery of
affordable housing.
Ian Thompson will be retiring from the Development Control Team from the end of
July and his post will be held vacant under the restructuring arrangements. Further
changes are anticipated during the next two months.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Head of Planning and Building Control ext 6135)
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ANTINGHAM - PF/10/0374 - Erection of Two-Storey and Single-Storey Side
Extensions and Detached Garage/Car-Port; The Thatched Cottage, Southrepps
Road for Ms Reynolds
(Householder application)
ASHMANHAUGH - PF/10/0446 - Demolition of existing car port and erection of
sun room and double garage; The Old Rectory, Rectory Road for Dodge
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
23
29 July 2010
AYLMERTON - NMA1/09/0604 - Request for a non-material amendment to relocate window; 1 Laurel Farm Cottages, Holt Road for Mr D Youngman
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BACTON - PM/10/0318 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent Mera
Ghar, North Walsham Road for Mr A Starkings
(Reserved Matters)
BACTON - PF/10/0508 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (restaurant) and A5
(hot food take-away); Unit adjacent Cafe Bacton, Walcott Road for Mrs E
Pettersson
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/10/0583 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and second
floor balcony.; Brongolds, Beach Road for Mr and Mrs M Anderson
(Householder application)
BACTON - NMA1/10/0039 - Non-material amendment for installation of
temporary gate and fencing; Shell (UK) Ltd, Paston Road for Shell UK Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BARTON TURF - PF/10/0488 - Construction of raised roof section to provide first
floor living accommodation; Old Mill Bungalow, Smallburgh Road for Mr K
Swetman
(Householder application)
BINHAM - NMA2/01/1632 - Non-material amendment request to permit
installation of additional window to Barn 1 & roof light to Barn 2; Westgate
Barns, Warham Road for Mr A Perren
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BLAKENEY - LA/10/0479 - Internal alterations and installation of internal and
external spiral staircases; 1 The Granary, High Street for Janus Investments
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0544 - Erection of Single-Storey Front Extension; Rubberry
Cottage, Back Lane for Mr and Mrs Pemble
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0552 - Change of use from A2 (financial and professional
services) to ancillary residential accommodation; 91, High Street for Mr D
Burlison
(Full Planning Permission)
BRININGHAM - PF/10/0399 - Erection of Agricultural Building; Meadowsweet,
The Street for Broughton
(Full Planning Permission)
BRISTON - PF/10/0550 - Erection of one and a half storey detached dwelling and
garage; Westview House, 36 Church Street for Mr and Mrs S Frosdick-Grand
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
24
29 July 2010
BRISTON - PF/10/0591 - Erection of side conservatory; 26 The Lane for Mrs J
Sewell
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - NMA1/91/1092 - Non-material amendment request for raising roof
height and installation of dormer window and roof lights; Green Shutters,
Fenside for Mr R Mckenzie
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0467 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 1
Beau Rivage for Johnson-Watts
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0506 - Erection of one and a half storey side
extension, single-storey rear extension and detached garage; 2 Hilltop for
Wright
(Householder application)
COLBY - PF/10/0342 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Land at Church
Road Banningham for Mr D Sarsby
(Full Planning Permission)
COLBY - PF/10/0462 - Erection of first floor side extension and single storey
rear extension; Hillside, Long Lane for Wilson-North
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/0361 - Variation of Condition 2 of 01/0940
to enable continued use of annexe as holiday accommodation; Dingley Dell,
Irmingland Road, Corpusty for Mr & Mrs A Fiorentini
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/10/0417 - Erection of conservatory; Ronan, Meadow Road for Mr
Chesterfield
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0455 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 2 St Margarets
Close for Mr & Mrs R King
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/10/0580 - Erection of rear garden room extension and installation
of gable window; 2 Barclay Close for Mr and Mrs Lovatt
(Householder application)
CROMER - NMA1/06/1548 - Non-material amendment request to permit
conversion to seven flats; 129 Overstrand Road for Hon Robert HarbordHamond
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
CROMER - NMA1/06/1549 - Non-material amendment request to permit
conversion to seven flats; 131 Overstrand Road for Hon R Harbord-Hammond
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
Development Control Committee
25
29 July 2010
CROMER - NMA1/10/0170 - Non-material amendment request to increase size of
roof windows; 5 Court Drive for Mr & Mrs L Cardani
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
DUNTON - NMA1/09/1227 - Non-material amendment request for revisions to
door and windows; 13 Tatterford Road, Doughton for Mr G Warnes
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/0403 - Erection of garage/trailer shed with storage loft
above and change of use of land from agricultural to garden; Furze Cottage,
Long Common for Mr Kirby
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/0526 - Erection of two-storey side extension; Vancouver
Cottage, Chapel Road for Mr and Mrs Usher
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/10/0588 - Erection of single storey side extension; Foxhill
Cottage, Fox Hill for Capper
(Householder application)
ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0492 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Monterey,
The Street for Mr and Mrs I Barnard
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/08/1411 - Request for non-material amendment for
increased dimensions of staircase housing; The Grove Veterinary Group, Holt
Road for CVS (UK) Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FAKENHAM - AI/10/0615 - Display of illuminated and non-illuminated
advertisements; W J Aldiss Ltd, Oxborough Lane for Aldiss
(Advertisement Illuminated)
FAKENHAM - PF/10/0616 - Erection of lobby and installation of cladding to front
and side elevations; W J Aldiss Ltd, Oxborough Lane for Clifford
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/08/1202 - Non-material amendment for increased height of
warehouse/distribution building, installation of door and revised door with
canopy over; Land at Enterprise Way for GJL Animal Feeds
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELBRIGG - PF/10/0534 - Re-construction of gate piers to provide widened
entrance and installation of gates and replacement railings; Cromer Lodges,
Felbrigg Hall for The National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
FELBRIGG - LA/10/0535 - Demolition and re-building of gate pillars and
installation of gates and railings; Cromer Lodges, Felbrigg Hall for The National
Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
26
29 July 2010
FELMINGHAM - PF/10/0458 - Conversion of barns to two units of holiday
accommodation and new access (replacement planning permission reference:
07/1423); Ruggs Hall Barns, Ruggs Hall Farm for Albanwise Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
FULMODESTON - PF/10/0538 - Erection of detached garage/greenhouse; Old
Station House, The Street, Barney for Miss Astin
(Full Planning Permission)
GREAT SNORING - NMA1/08/1712 - Non-material amendment request to permit
incresed width of window and change of materials beneath rear windows; White
House, Dilldash Lane for Mr & Mrs K Bushell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
GRESHAM - PM/10/0277 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Two-Storey
Dwelling; Land Adjacent to Loke End, The Loke for Bronzewell Management Co
Ltd
(Reserved Matters)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/10/0563 - Erection of side/front extension; 18 Doggetts
Lane for Mr and Mrs Greatbanks
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/10/0515 - Erection of extension to agricultural building;
The Old Limeworks, Broomsthorpe Road for Mr A Duckworth-Chad
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/10/0513 - Formation of vehicular access; 2 Lodge Cottages,
The Street for Mr K Stone and Ms K Mulligan
(Householder application)
HICKLING - NMA1/07/0759 - Non-material amendment request to permit
reduction to single-storey extension and installation of flint facing to east gable
wall; Grosvenor Cottage, Stubb Road for Mr & Mrs M Hodgson
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HIGH KELLING - PF/10/0582 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
replacement link extension; 1 Heathfield Road for Mr B and Mrs R Foxley
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0360 - Erection of potato storage building; Row Hill
Farm, Walsingham Road for Wace & Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/10/0522 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Henry's
House, Harvest Lane for Mr A Oliver
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0448 - Erection of attached garage; Barn 1, Lodge Farm, Norwich
Road for Mr N Gray
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
27
29 July 2010
HOLT - PF/10/0481 - Installation of solar panels; Holt Community Centre,
Kerridge Way for Holt Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - AI/10/0499 - Display of illuminated advertisements; 29 Market Place for
Santander
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HOLT - PF/10/0507 - Installation of two rooflights; 8 The Beeches, Station Road
for Mr R Foster
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/10/0558 - Installation of replacement shop fronts; 29 & 29a Bull
Street, Bull Street for Mrs L Furniss
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - AI/10/0587 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 29 & 29a Bull
Street for Mrs L Furniss
(Advertisement Illuminated)
HORNING - PF/10/0466 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 6 Church
Cottages, Upper Street for Dr & Mrs Bird
(Householder application)
HORNING - PF/10/0469 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 5 Church
Cottages, Upper Street for Mr & Mrs Doncaster
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/10/0436 - Continued use of former shop as dog grooming salon;
Pink Paws, Grange Close for Miss Donges
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/10/0464 - Erection of detached garage/store; Keepers Cottage
15/16, Carrs Loke, Stalham Road for Deane
(Householder application)
HOVETON - PF/10/0579 - Erection of B8 (storage)/ B1 (light industrial) unit; Unit
3, Stalham Road Industrial Estate, Littlewood Lane for Broadland Products Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
KELLING - NMA1/09/1122 - Non-material amendment to permit revised eaves,
glazing system and cladding to reception building; Kelling Heath Holiday Park,
Sandy Hill Lane, Weybourne for Timewell Properties
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
LANGHAM - PF/10/0459 - Raising of height of rear extension; 26 and 28 Holt
Road for Mr Newman
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - LA/10/0475 - Alterations to rear extension to provide increased
height; 26/28 Holt Road for Mr M Newman
(Listed Building Alterations)
Development Control Committee
28
29 July 2010
LESSINGHAM - PF/10/0485 - Erection of single storey side and rear extensions;
Willowbrook Lodge, The Street for Fleming
(Householder application)
LUDHAM - PF/10/0500 - Garage and garden store; The Croft, Catfield Road for
Sargant
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/0560 - Variation of condition 2 of planning ref:
08/0664 to permit installation of window, roof light and flue and re-positioning of
door; Melton Park, Dereham Road for Mr T Perry
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - LA/10/0561 - Variation of condition 2 of planning ref:
08/0664 to permit installation of window, roof light and flue and re-positioning of
door; Melton Park, Dereham Road for Mr T Perry
(Listed Building Alterations)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/0567 - Erection of a cart lodge; The Old Dairy,
Holt Road for Carr
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/10/0498 - Change of use from a mixed use of A3
(tearoom)/residential to residential; 6 High Street for Mr J Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0465 - Erection of Front Porch Extension; 20
Mayfield Way for Gray
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/09/0480 - Request for a non-material amendment for
re-location of disabled parking bay and road to service area and lowering roof; 6
Bainbridge Close for Orbit Homes 2020 Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0527 - Erection of extension to front porch; 30
Kingsway for Mr and Mrs Tuttle
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - AI/10/0541 - Display of replacement signage; 6 Market
Place for Santander
(Advertisement Illuminated)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0564 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions; 47 Yarmouth Road, North Walsham, NR28 9AT for Mr P Yaxley
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0606 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 8
Fuller Road for Currie
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0611 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 169
Mundesley Road for Mr Jackman
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
29
29 July 2010
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/91/0190 - Non-material amendment for re-positioning
of acess road, re-siting of dwellings on plots 1, 5 & 6 and revised materials;
Former Garage, Happisburgh Road, White Horse Common for Wright Properties
E A Ltd
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/0501 - Alterations to site layout to provide 133 static
pitches and 22 touring pitches; Ivy Farm, 1 High Street for Ivy Farm Holiday
Park
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/10/0487 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Cutlers
Cottage, Lower Common, East Runton for Mr and Mrs Robinson
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/10/0581 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref:
05/0264 (change of use of shop to food and drink) to permit extended opening
hours; 38 Cromer Road, West Runton for Ms N Scurll
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0554 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; Barn 4, Manor Farm,
Cross Street for D and M Hickling Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0555 - Conversion of barn to dwelling; Barn 2 Manor Farm,
Cross Street for D and M Hickling Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
SALTHOUSE - PF/10/0571 - Raising of roof and construction of rear dormer
windows to provide first floor living accommodation; 2 Bungalow, Bard Hill for
Featherstone
(Householder application)
SCOTTOW - PF/10/0426 - Conversion of ground and first floors to 8 flats; 189200 Ormesby Road, Badersfield for PH Developments Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0003 - Erection of building for use as toilets, buffet and
retail purposes; Sheringham Station, Station Approach for North Norfolk
Railway
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0449 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with partial
mezzanine floor and detached garage; Land adjacent 1 Robertson Close for PP3
Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0480 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 25 Cliff
Road for Mr and Mrs P Fenton
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0482 - Alterations to shop front to provide ice cream
sales counter and installation of folding doors; 37 High Street for Mr I Denizli
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
30
29 July 2010
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0575 - Installation of solar panels; New Dawn, 2B The
Rise for Mr T Buck
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0584 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (financial and
professional services); 15A Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs E Mayell
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/10/0411 - Non-material amendment request to permit use
of brickwork to gable and rear garage walls, installation of roof light and
cladding of upper south walls; 17 Uplands Park for Mr Sidebotham
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/10/0574 - Erection of attached garage; Hillcrest, Sandy Lane
for Taylor
(Householder application)
STALHAM - PF/10/0548 - Proposed dwelling and garage; 2 Albion Drive for
Chambers
(Full Planning Permission)
STIFFKEY - NP/10/0697 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
building; Old Hall Farm, Bridge Street for Stiffkey Farms Ltd
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
STODY - PF/10/0511 - Erection of single-storey side extension and alterations to
garage; Harthill House, The Green, Hunworth for Mr A Birks
(Householder application)
STODY - LA/10/0519 - Erection of single-storey extension; Hunworth Mill,
Thornage Road, Hunworth for Mr N Hamwee
(Listed Building Alterations)
STODY - PF/10/0520 - Erection of single-storey extension; Hunworth Mill,
Thornage Road, Hunworth for Mr N Hamwee
(Householder application)
STODY - PF/10/0546 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide cart shed
and annexe; The Old Inn, Brinton Road for Mr and Mrs J Thomas
(Householder application)
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0589 - Erection of replacement manor house; Bessingham
Manor, Lime Kiln Lane, Bessingham for Norwood Homes (Valley Drive) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - LE/10/0590 - Demolition of manor house; Bessingham Manor, Lime
Kiln Lane, Bessingham for Norwood Homes (Valley Drive) Ltd
(Conservation Area Demolition)
SUTTON - PF/10/0518 - Erection of two-storey side extension and single-storey
rear extension; 26 Goose Lane for Mr and Mrs T Fox
(Householder application)
Development Control Committee
31
29 July 2010
SWANTON ABBOTT - LA/10/0625 - Blocking up of internal window; Lilac
Farmhouse, Long Common Road for Mr P Clarke
(Listed Building Alterations)
TATTERSETT - PF/10/0570 - Erection of rear conservatory; 20 Wellington
Crescent, Sculthorpe for Peters
(Householder application)
THORPE MARKET - PF/10/0425 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Corner
Cottage, Topps Hill Road for Lewis
(Householder application)
TUNSTEAD - PF/10/0605 - Erection of first floor extensions and single-storey
front extension; Menwyth House, Market Street for Rowe
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0213 - Change of Use of Land for Siting Portable
Building to Provide Office Accommodation; Sheringham Hall, Off Park Road,
Sheringham Park for The National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
WALCOTT - PF/10/0576 - Change of use of land from agricultural to gardens;
Land adjacent Coastline Holiday Village for Mr and Mrs R Judge
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - LA/10/0523 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate conversion
to annexe, erection of replacement rear conservatory and entrance gates and
formation of pedestrian entrance in boundary wall; Windmill Hill, 18
Hindringham Road for Mr M Napier
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - PF/10/0524 - Conversion of outbuilding to annexe, erection of
replacement rear conservatory, summerhouse and shed and replacement
entrance gates and formation of pedestrian opening in boundary wall; Windmill
Hill, 18 Hindringham Road for Mr M Napier
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0200 - Erection of replacement fishermen's
store; Land at East End for Mr J Nudd
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0486 - Erection of single-storey side extension
(amended design); Westend House, 26 Dogger Lane for Mr and Mrs A Dixon
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/10/0512 - Internal alterations to provide shower
room, blocking up of internal window, alterations to fireplace and installation of
replacement window; 12-14 High Street for Mr S Wainwright
(Listed Building Alterations)
WEYBOURNE - PF/10/0427 - Erection of one and half-storey detached dwelling
and garage; Land adjacent Forge Cottage, The Street for Derek Foreman House
Builders Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee
32
29 July 2010
WITTON - PF/10/0521 - Erection of two-storey rear extension with balcony;
Bramley House, The Street, Ridlington for Mr A Driver
(Householder application)
WORSTEAD - PF/10/0514 - Erection of shed with underground root store;
Matopos Hills, Meeting Hill Road, Briggate for Mr G Gazzard
(Householder application)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
LITTLE SNORING - PO/10/0565 - Erection of 2 dwellings; Land at The Old Dairy,
The Pastures for Mrs R E Fittall
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/10/0517 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling;
Land adjacent 4 Brick Kiln Barns, Manor Road for Mr A Mair
(Outline Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0551 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
detached outbuilding; 13 Debenne Road for Mrs J Potter
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - PF/10/0489 - Erection of single-storey side extension and
replacement garage; 1 Thurst Road for Mr and Mrs D Hollingsworth
(Householder application)
OVERSTRAND - NMA1/09/0931 - Non-material amendment request to permit
revisions to fenestration, roof height and projection and materials; 34 High
Street for Mr D Walsgrove
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0545 - Conversion of dwelling to four flats; 19 Cromer
Road for Mr and Mrs S Kerr
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
HOVETON - PM/10/0058 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning reference
20041723 to enable approved holiday units to be occupied as two residential
dwellings; Two Saints Barn, Tunstead Road for Legislator 1363
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
12.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
CROMER - PF/09/0929 - Installation of Replacement Shop Front, Roller Shutter
and Air Conditioning System; 57, Church Street for Iceland Foods Limited
INFORMAL HEARING 07 September 2010
Development Control Committee
33
29 July 2010
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
BODHAM - PF/09/1202 - Erection of agricultural building and formation of
access roadway; Land at Hart Lane for Mr Knowles
SHERINGHAM - PF/08/1228 - Conversion Of A1 (Retail Shop) to two-storey
dwelling and re-location of bin-store; Barber's Shop to rear 22, Station Road for
Museum Cottages
SHERINGHAM - PF/09/0714 - Erection Of Single Storey Dwelling; 43, Nelson
Road for Holbrook
SHERINGHAM - PO/09/1190 - Erection of two detached dwellings; Land at 5
Meadow Way for Mr P James
SUSTEAD - PF/10/0197 - Proposed general purpose agricultural building; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr Clark
WOOD NORTON - PF/09/1064 - Erection of Single-Storey Dwelling and Cattery
with Welfare Facility; Land at Foulsham Road for Jeffrey
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS
SUTTON - LA/09/0806 - Reconstruction of Fire Damaged Dwelling Including New
Roof and Erection of Extensions; High Cottage, Rectory Road for Mr and Mrs
Jolly
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
WORSTEAD - PF/09/0748 - Conversion and Extension of Forge to Provide
Annexe and Erection of Single-Storey Rear
Extension; Forge Cottage,
Westwick Road for Mr Gilligan
APPEAL DECISION:- ALLOWED
Development Control Committee
34
29 July 2010