5 The portable building shown as "redundant" (locker room B) on the approved
plan received on 5 January 2012 shall remain vacant during the course of this
permission unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the LPA.
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.
8.
WORSTEAD - PF/12/0356 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0418 to permit retention of re-sited buildings, CCTV cameras and
fencing; Solar Farm, Heath Road for Renpower Investments UK Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 May 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Archaeological Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/11/0418 PF - Construction of 5mw solar generating facility
Approved 24/05/2011
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to retain buildings, perimeter fencing and 11 number CCTV
cameras erected on site not in accordance with permission ref: PF/11/0418.
The buildings to be retained are located on the northern tip of the site and comprise a
1 x main high voltage switch room, a UK Power networks substation (including
export/import measuring kiosk) and a CCTV substation.
The wire mesh fencing to be retained is 1.8m high (1.9m to top of barbed wire).
The 11 no. CCTV cameras to be retained are located within the mesh fenced area,
five of which are located at intervals along the western boundary, four cameras
located at intervals along the eastern boundary and two further cameras on the
southern boundary. The applicant has indicated that the cameras are set on wooden
poles and are approximately 5m tall. Onto the poles are also set a number of pieces
of CCTV related equipment including movement detectors, lights, speakers/horns,
and various electrical junction boxes. The CCTV cameras are electronically rotatable
and the CCTV imaging and control of the cameras is undertaken by an off-site third
party company/contractor.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Williams in respect of the following planning issue:
Impact on the amenity of adjacent residents.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection, but comment that the CCTV cameras are used properly within the law.
(Privacy Act, Data Protection Act and Human Rights).
Development Committee
32
3 May 2012
REPRESENTATIONS – Two letters of objection have been received.
Summary of objections:
1. The original plans have not been followed;
2. Fencing should be 10 metres from my boundary but in places is only 4.9 metres;
3. Resulted in significant loss of value (£40,000 and £20,000 for adjacent
properties);
4. 11 CCTV cameras are located on the site four of which overlook my property;
5. The CCTV cameras breach Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – “Right to
respect for private and family life”;
6. On several occasions cameras 1 and 11 have been viewing my home (two
bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom and back door) and this is clearly not
acceptable;
7. There is a public address system that goes off randomly without anyone being on
site which is a nuisance;
8. Pixellating the cameras to protect my privacy is not acceptable and can easily be
unpixellated;
9. The security system should not be monitoring my property;
10. We no longer have faith or trust in the applicant that this matter will be resolved;
11. The solar panels have an adverse impact on amenity;
12. The buildings are far greater in number and size than we were originally led to
believe;
13. Our privacy has been invaded when in our own back garden;
14. The applicant has not kept to their word;
15. The previous proposal was rushed which has led to a lot of unhappiness for
neighbours and problems now to resolve;
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Comments awaited
Environmental Protection – Comments awaited
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.
The Committee will be updated orally at the meeting.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
See Appraisal section below.
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 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 7: Renewable energy (specifies criteria for renewable energy proposals).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Development Committee
33
3 May 2012
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1.
Principle of the development
2.
Impact on residential amenity
3.
Impact on landscape
4.
Impact on crime and disorder
APPRAISAL
The site is located in the Countryside Policy Area where proposals for renewable
energy projects are considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance with
relevant Core Strategy Policies, including Policy EN 7 which specifically considers
Renewable Energy.
In considering this proposal the Committee will be aware that permission was
granted in 2011 for the construction of a 5mw solar generating facility under planning
ref: PF/11/0418. Whilst that scheme has been implemented and the scheme has
been substantially completed, during the course of the construction complaints were
received that the development was not being built in accordance with the approved
plans and that subsequently 11 CCTV cameras were installed around the perimeter
of the site.
This application therefore seeks permission to retain elements of the proposal as
constructed (boundary fencing, buildings and 11 no. CCTV cameras and poles).
Whilst the boundary fencing and the buildings to be retained are not considered to
have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties and do not therefore
give rise to significant planning concerns, Officers have significant concerns about
the potential adverse impact that a number of the CCTV cameras installed on the site
have on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. In
particular cameras 1, 2 and 3 and to some extent camera 11 (as detailed on
submitted drawing no: VO6) are likely to facilitate overlooking or the perception of
being overlooked at 1 and 2 The Gatehouse, Heath Road.
The applicant has not specifically set out to explain the need for the CCTV system
other than to confirm that security measures are required by insurers to protect the
solar investment from theft. The applicant has been asked if there are alternative
methods of adequately securing the site from equipment theft without the need for so
many CCTV cameras. The applicant has indicated that limitations can and will be put
in place to reduce the impact of the CCTV cameras on neighbouring properties in
certain areas.
The applicant has also offered to pixellate the camera imagery so that the privacy of
occupiers of these properties are maintained. Notwithstanding the proposed
mitigation, as it stands it is considered that the intrusion and impact of a number of
the cameras on residential amenity is likely to be so severe that approval cannot be
recommended without the benefit of further improvements.
The application is retrospective in nature and adjacent residents are already suffering
the impacts of the cameras as installed. Officers are therefore seeking to establish
what measures can be taken to lessen the impact of the cameras, either through
removal or wholesale redesign and the Committee will be updated orally.
In respect of landscape impacts, although likely to be localised in nature, the
Committee will be updated orally once the comments of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager are known.
Development Committee
34
3 May 2012
In respect of noise impacts, the Committee will be updated once the views of the
Environmental Protection Team are known.
In summary, whilst there are no objections to the boundary fencing and buildings as
constructed, there are significant concerns regarding the CCTV system as installed.
Whilst the operator would need to comply with the requirements of BS8418:2010 Installation and remote monitoring of detector-activated CCTV systems - Code of
Practice, there is genuine concern that the CCTV system, unless significantly
modified, would continually breach the rights of occupiers of neighbouring properties
under Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life. It is ultimately a matter
of planning judgement for the Committee in balancing the need for the CCTV
cameras to prevent theft of the solar equipment against the impact on residential
amenity that would arise.
RECOMMENDATION:
Committee will be updated orally.
9.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The following planning application is recommended by officers for a site inspection by
the Committee prior to the consideration of a full report at a future meeting.
As the application will not be debated at this meeting it is not appropriate to invite
public speaking at this stage. Members of the public will have an opportunity to
make representations at the meeting of the Committee when the application is
discussed.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
HIGH KELLING – PF/12/0278 – Demolition of single storey dwelling and
erection of two storey dwelling; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms Elwood.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Referred by Head of Planning and Building Control to enable the Committee to
appreciate the proposal in terms of its context in view of the contemporary design
and receipt of local objections.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
Development Committee
35
3 May 2012
Councillor J D Savory stated that he had also been involved with the objectors on this
matter for some time. He stated that there had been a long history of noise
complaints prior to the current occupation of the site. He requested that hours be
restricted to between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm.
The Chairman stated that she understood the office hours operated by the Company
were not the same as normal commercial office hours.
The Development Manager advised the Committee that a temporary one year
permission, restricting the use of the offices to SCIRA and its sub-contractors, was
acceptable in planning terms. In response to a comment by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard, he stated that lighting issues could be dealt with by condition under
delegated powers.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved for a temporary period of one year,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including restriction
to use of the offices by SCIRA and its sub-contractors and a lighting
condition.
(267) WORSTEAD - PF/12/0356 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0418 to permit retention of re-sited buildings, CCTV cameras and
fencing; Solar Farm, Heath Road for Renpower Investments UK Ltd
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs B Smith (objecting)
Mr Knights and Mr Meacock (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the applicant had
fitted cowls to two of the cameras and installed software which would remove images
of the gardens. However, cowls would not be effective on some of the other
cameras. The proposal was not considered to be acceptable as now submitted but it
was considered that it could be made acceptable. He requested delegated authority
to approve this application subject to satisfactory resolution of the CCTV issue in the
interests of protecting the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. If the
Committee was minded to refuse this application it would be necessary to commence
enforcement action.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee the
comments of Councillor G Williams, the local Member, who considered that the
CCTV system should be removed or replaced with a scheme which did not impact on
residential properties, or be subject to major redesign to remove or relocate cameras
1, 2, 3 and possibly 11.
Councillor P W High considered that the CCTV system was a gross invasion of
privacy and that cameras 1, 2, 3 and 11 should be relocated. He requested refusal
of the CCTV element of the proposal.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the perceived Human Rights issue was important,
as whilst it was possible to screen out the images, the perception of being overlooked
remained. He supported Councillor High‟s comments and considered that the
application should be refused on Human Rights, Policy EN8 and crime and disorder
grounds.
Development Committee
8
3 May 2012
The Development Manager stated that a split decision could not be issued in this
case. He suggested that this application be deferred for further negotiations in
respect of cameras 1, 2, 3 and 11, but that the Committee indicate that it is minded to
refuse the application in its present form.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the installation of an alarmed gate at the
location of camera 1 would be effective as anyone who arrived to steal anything
would need to access the site by lorry.
Councillor B Smith suggested that a low beam system be installed.
Councillor P Terrington considered that the applicants should also negotiate with the
affected residents in order to seek a solution.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard
and
RESOLVED
That a decision on this application be deferred pending further
negotiations with the applicants on a number of options to include
possible removal of camera 1 and amendment to, or removal of,
cameras 2, 3 and 11 or installation of low beam cameras.
The Committee is minded to refuse this application as currently
submitted because of the intrusive and perceived intrusive effect of the
cameras as installed on the occupiers of the adjacent residential
dwellings.
(268) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers‟ reports.
RESOLVED
That site visit be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
HIGH KELLING – PF/12/0278 – Demolition of single storey dwelling and
erection of two storey dwelling; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms Elwood
(269) DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers‟ reports in respect of the quarterly report
on planning applications and appeals for the period from January to March 2011,
covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes. Figures are
also included for land charge searches.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that pre-application charges
were now in force.
Development Committee
9
3 May 2012