Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer... of the Head of Planning ... OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO – 29 JUNE 2012

OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

– 29 JUNE 2012

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 – ITEM FOR DECISION

1. DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 4(1) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

(GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 (as amended)

LAND TO THE REAR OF NOS. 7 – 29 NELSON ROAD

AND NOS 1 AND 3 HILLSIDE, SHERINGHAM

Recommendation to Cabinet for the confirmation of a Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (as amended), land to the rear of 7 – 29 Nelson Road and nos. 1 and 3 Hillside,

Sheringham

1. Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek confirmation of a Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development) Order 1995

(as amended) in relation to the erection of fences, walls, gates or other means of enclosure, on land at the rear of 7 – 29 Nelson Road and Nos. 1 and 3 Hillside,

Sheringham. This report follows agreement for the making of the Direction at the

Development Committee meeting on 10 February 2012.

This required a statutory period of consultation which has been undertaken, during which time a total of 8 representations (3 from the occupiers of 1 residential property) have been received, the details of which are summarised in the report below.

2. Background

The land the subject of the Direction was purchased by 15 separate property owners on Nelson Road and Hillside, Sheringham last year.

It is currently primarily open uncultivated land lying between the rear of those residential properties and the cliff top. It is highly visible from the existing footpaths along the cliff top and Beeston Bump.

Following the purchase of the land in question, it was drawn to the attention of the

Local Planning Authority, that fencing had been erected on an area of this land, and upon inspection, it was determined that the fencing involved was “permitted development”.

(Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995, a means of enclosure up to 2 metres in height can be erected on land not adjacent to a highway without the need to submit an application for planning permission. This includes the erection of fencing, walls, gates or other means of enclosure and such proposals are known as “permitted development” under this Act).

Development Committee

1

29 June 2012

Having become aware of the situation, Officers were concerned that this could lead to potentially 15 different types of fencing/means of enclosure being erected on the land, which it was considered would be seriously detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. As a result, agreement to the serving of an Article 4 Direction

(preventing the erection of such means of enclosure without first having planning permission) was sought from the Development Committee on 10 February 2012 and this was duly approved. Landowners were notified, the Direction was advertised and the required consultation period commenced.

The Direction remains in force until 10 August 2012 (being 6 months from the date of the Direction). Unless it is confirmed by the Council as Local Planning Authority, it will expire.

3. Representations

8 letters of representation have been received, following the consultation, 2 in support, and 6 against, (unless some form of fencing is allowed). The expiry date for receipt of responses was 1 June 2012.

The representations received objecting to the confirmation of the Direction are summarised as follows:- i. the erection of simple post and rail fencing should be acceptable. It would not affect anyone‟s views but would simply show that it is not public land.

Ii. the land in question was always privately owned and local residents used to pay a yearly peppercorn rent for access onto it. iii. the land was offered for sale in the open press and to the Council. iv. local residents have spent many years negotiating the purchase of the land, and its purchase will enable a number of issues that have arisen over the years, to be dealt with. These include: a) people using residential properties as a short cut from the land to Nelson Road and vice versa. b) theft from existing gardens. c) backpackers putting up tents and leaving rubbish, etc. d) use by courting couples. e) loss of privacy as a result of people walking close to the existing houses. vi. the introduction of fencing is also required for legal reasons, i.e. defining the boundary (for selling purposes), to reduce the likelihood of being sued (or persons having an accident) and finally for possible future neighbour disputes

(boundary issues etc.). vii. 14 different householders own their own parcel of land to the rear of their properties. The proposed Order misleads the public into thinking it has only one owner. viii. It is considered that the land would be better maintained than it has been previously.


2

29 June 2012

ix. In recent years, the Council has used the grass cutter/tractor to start to cut the vegetation on the land. All this achieved was to spread the Alexandra plant to infestation levels. It also destroyed the boundary posts and killed off the wildflowers and most of the wild lupins. x. Without the Direction residents could start to fence their own parcel of land and manage and restore it to its former glory. This would encourage neighbouring properties to do the same.

Alternatively the land will look an overgrown mess and be an eyesore. There would no longer be access for tractors to cut the vegetation and it will be difficult to get all the owners of the land to help out as they would be aggrieved by the decision. xi. Neighbourhood disputes could arise if boundary fences were declined. xii. Will NNDC be liable for any injuries or damage if a member of the public were to have an accident on the land? xiii. The proposed action would render the land worthless and unsalable just a few months after jointly spending over £12,000. xiv. Some of the properties appear to have already fenced some of the land in question. This sets a precedent and would be key if it went to appeal. xv. Local residents would be likely to seek compensation not only for the cost of the land but also for the time and effort spent over the last 13 years trying to buy it.

This claim will also include any possible impact on the value of the property. xvi. Would be prepared to accept a uniform post and rail type fencing across the land in question. xvii. Another local resident has also suggested that the Direction could be agreed, provided again there was a consistency of fencing allowed to sub-divide the plots, and it is suggested that it be up to 1 metre in height chain-link fencing which would have a least detrimental impact on the landscape as viewed from

Beeston Bump. He considers that it would be barely visible and it may be possible to persuade the majority of residents against pursuing a compensation claim if such fencing were to be allowed. xviii. The likelihood is that compensation claims will be made unless some form of fencing will be allowed, and the claim is likely to be substantial. On the basis of there being 15 affected properties, and it is suggested that overall this could represent a cost of more than £100,000 to the Council. This is based on it having a minimum 3% change in the value of the properties in question. xix. It is appreciated that there is a need to restrict the type of fencing that can be erected in the interests of visual amenities, however, it is considered that an agreed form of fencing would be a reasonable compromise. xx. It is recognised that any attempt to “gardenise” the plots would be unacceptable to the Council. xxi. At no time during the years leading up to the final purchase of the land, has it been suggested that it could not be fenced.


3

29 June 2012

xxii. The residents who now feel so strongly about retaining their view should have purchased the land themselves and kept it open. xiii. No-one has a right to a view. xxiv. People objecting to the fencing of the land maybe concerned about property devaluation xxv. Can the Council satisfy itself that it is expedient to grant the Order, and if so, has it satisfied itself that it would be legally sound and could withstand a legal challenge. xxvi. This is grossly unfair to residents that have purchased the land. It has never been part of an area of an Area of Special Scientific Interest or included as part of the Coastal Path. It was and still is private land owned by residents. xxvii. Is the cost involved with the serving of the Order, and any potential costs of compensation claims, a justifiable and legitimate use of Council revenue?

2 letters of support have been received from the occupier of one of the properties affected, and these are summarised below: i) Pleased that the Council is seeking to keep the area open in nature and protect the visual amenities of the area. No discussions have previously taken place regarding fencing of the land, the proposed purchase was to secure rights of access across the land to the coastal path and to preserve its current open aspect. ii) Any further fences will affect the visual amenity which is currently enjoyed. iii) Also ask if it is possible to remove the fences already erected.

4. Appraisal

Members will have had an opportunity to visit the site and will appreciate that it currently remains very open in nature and forms an integral part of the iconic open view of this part of Sheringham, when seen from the heavily used coastal path, and looking down from Beeston Bump.

The introduction of a variety of fences/means of enclosure would in the opinion of officers, seriously undermine the special character of the area. This is the reason why the Direction was proposed, and Officers remain of the opinion that it should be confirmed.

Officers consider that the appropriate permitted development rights relating to the erection of walls, fences and other means of enclosure as described under the

Direction should be removed, which means that planning permission must be obtained before any such structures can be erected. This gives the necessary level of control to protect the area.

It is appreciated however that there is a desire for some local residents to have some form of means of enclosure/boundary definition to their properties, and it is considered that there is merit in seeking to agree to a form of simple low-key form of fencing which can be used which will meet some of the local residents‟ wishes whilst


4

29 June 2012

retaining much of the open visual aspect. An application for such fencing could then be made to allow the erection of an agreed uniform form of fencing as suggested.

No fee would be required for such an application.

(It should also be noted that the Direction does not restrict the introduction of any hedgerow planting and indeed a native hedgerow has already been planted along the site boundary).

Should any of the residents wish to use the land as part of their residential gardens, planning permission would be required for such a change of use. Should such applications be considered acceptable, suitable conditions could be imposed to restrict the erection of sheds/greenhouses etc.

5. Procedure

If the Direction is confirmed by the Cabinet, all owners and occupiers affected will be notified in writing and a notice of confirmation of the Direction will be published in the

Eastern Daily Press.

As has been indicated by some local residents, it is possible that the serving of an

Article 4 Direction could give rise to compensation claims by the owners of the properties in question. Compensation may be claimed “for abortive expenditure or other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of permitted development rights”.

Local planning authorities may be liable to pay compensation to those whose permitted development rights have been withdrawn if they:

Refuse planning permission for development which would have been permitted development if it were not for an article 4 direction; or

Grant planning permission subject to more limiting conditions than the GPDO would normally allow, as a result of an article 4 direction being in place.

From the representations made, it is clear that there is a risk of such claims, and the

Planning Division has there fore appointed the District Valuer‟s Office to advise on this matter. At the time of writing this report, this advice is awaited.

Members will be updated orally on this matter at the meeting.

Recommendation

That subject to further consideration of the compensation aspect, that the

Development Committee recommends to the Cabinet that the Direction under

Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995 (as amended) at nos. 7 – 29 Nelson Road and nos. 1 and 3 Hillside, Sheringham be confirmed and to cover the following matters: the erection of fences, walls, gates or other means of enclosure, being development comprised within Class A, part 2, Schedule 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. that formal notification of affected householders be carried out.


5

29 June 2012

that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be notified of the Council’s intention to serve an Article 4(1) Direction.

2.

Furthermore, that the affected households also be advised that the Council would be prepared to consider without prejudice an application or applications for planning permission(s) for an agreed low key uniform form of fencing for the plots in question.

(Source: Andrew Mitchell, Development Manager Ext. 6149)


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

To give further consideration to a planning application which was deferred at a previous meeting to allow further negotiations with the applicant.

Introduction

The application seeks to retain buildings, perimeter fencing and 12 (previously 11) number CCTV cameras erected on site not in accordance with permission ref:

PF/11/0418.

The application was last considered by the Committee on 3 May 2012 when it was 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.

A copy of the report to the meeting on 3 May 2012 is attached at Appendix 1.

Amended proposals

Following the decision on 3 May 2012, the applicant has sought to identify ways to improve the CCTV system so as to reduce the identified significant adverse effects.

The applicant has submitted a schedule of proposed amendments, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 1 . In summary these are as follows:

Fencing

The height of the fencing along the western boundary between cameras 1 and 3 would be raised from the existing height of 1.8m (1.9m to top of barbed wire) up to

2.4m high and would covered with a green fabric to obscure any views of the site to fence height from the adjacent residential properties. The applicant has not expressly stated the type of green fabric to be used other than reference to „FenceNet‟.


6

29 June 2012

Camera 1

The equipment, camera, PA, junction boxes, lights etc. with the exception of the motion detectors and the UV lights would be lowered to a height of 2m. The fence would be made 2.4 metres for the length of the gardens (to the specification in the original application). The fence would be lined the length of the gardens with a green fabric (FenceNet) to obscure any view of the site to fence height. In this way, the applicant is if the opinion that Camera 1 would not be visible to the residents from any part of their property.

Camera 2

The equipment, camera, PA, junction boxes, lights etc. with the exception of the motion detectors and the UV lights would be lowered to a height of 2m. The fence would be lined the length of the gardens with a green fabric (FenceNet) to obscure any view of the site to fence height. The camera would have a software lock preventing it from viewing to the North. In this way, the applicant is of the opinion that

Camera 2 would not be visible to the residents from any part of their property.

Camera 3

The equipment, camera, PA, junction boxes, lights motion detectors and the UV lights would remain at the existing height. The fence would be lined the length of the gardens with a green fabric (FenceNet) to obscure any view of the site to fence height. The camera would have a software lock preventing it from viewing to the

North. A screen would be erected to prevent the perception of possible viewing over the gardens. The screen would obscure Camera 3 to the residents from any part of their property.

Camera 11

The equipment, camera, PA, junction boxes, lights etc. with the exception of the motion detectors and the UV lights would be lowered to a height of 1.7m. The camera would be mounted on the inside of the pole. In this way the applicant is of the opinion that Camera 2 would not be visible to the residents from any part of their property.

Camera 12 (New)

Camera 12 is a fixed camera and is in place to cover the gate and a portion of the eastern boundary. This camera does not view the cottages, according to the applicant and is static and cannot be moved by an operator. According to the applicant, this camera would be visible from the cottages but never turned toward the properties.

Further representations

Following receipt of the initial proposed amendments, further consultations were undertaken with the residents most affected by the proposal.

The following comments have been received:

1. Notwithstanding the raising of the fence height, still have concerns that Camera 1 would continue to look into bedroom windows;

2. Camera 1 should have restricted movement;

3. Fence should be raised in height all down our garden length (this is now included in the latest amendments);

4. Fabric netting not guaranteed for duration of the project (i.e. 25 years);

5. A more secure fence should be considered as this has already been damaged by tractors;

6. Cameras 9 and 10 have not been addressed in any way;


7

29 June 2012

7. The public address system keeps going off randomly day and night with a „snap crackle and pop‟ sound. Over the past month this has become increasingly worse going off 8-9 times daily (we have kept a log);

8. Our concerns raised with the CCTV operators were just dismissed out of hand;

9. We should not be expected to endure public address noise for the next 25 years;

10. We are at the end of our tether and want some kind of conclusion;

11. The fabric being used for the increased fencing height is not what we were told it would be by the applicant. Debris netting will not be adequate for the lifetime of this project;

Planning considerations

The key planning considerations are set out within the previous report to the meeting on 3 May 2012. It is a matter of planning judgement for the Committee as to whether or not the proposed amendments put forward by the applicant are sufficient to overcome the concerns previously identified by the Committee in relation to relevant

Development Plan policy issues and any other material considerations.

In respect of impact on residential amenity the proposed changes would, on the face of it, significantly reduce the perception of being overlooked, particularly from cameras 1 and 2 which are now proposed to be lowered below fence height.

Concern still exists from the neighbour about the potential for camera 1 to view upstairs rooms. However, subject to restrictions in scope of movement and/or appropriate screens to limit the field of view of camera 1, on balance, it is considered that the perception of overlooking from the CCTV cameras 1 and 2 would be reduced by the proposed amendments such that the perception impact could no longer be considered so significant as to justify refusal.

Camera 3 remains at the originally proposed height. However, the impact of this camera on residential amenity is considered to be significantly less than cameras at a similar height at points 1 and 2. Whilst the changes proposed to camera 3 are minimal, it is considered that refusal on the grounds of significant impact of camera 3 would be more difficult to justify.

Camera 11 would be lowered and it is considered that the perception of overlooking from this camera would be reduced such that its impact could no longer be considered to be so significant to justify refusal.

It is not considered that camera 12 would give rise to any overlooking concerns.

Notwithstanding the above comments, if the Committee is minded to approve the amendments it is considered essential that the applicant makes the necessary changes in accordance with an agreed standard to ensure that the perception of overlooking does not return at any point in the future either through a failure in materials or through wear and tear of equipment. Appropriate planning conditions would therefore be required to protect the amenity of adjacent residents for the lifetime of the approved development.

In respect of noise from the public address system, whilst the Environmental

Protection Officer (EPO) had originally raised no objections to the scheme, in light of the further concerns raised, the EPO is considering the evidence available to establish whether the public address system being activated „at random‟ constitutes a statutory nuisance under relevant Environmental Health legislation. Committee will be updated orally in this regard.

In respect of landscape impacts, it is considered that the application would not give rise to significant adverse impacts.


8

29 June 2012

Recommendation:

Delegated authority to approve subject to no further grounds of objection from the Environmental Protection Officer and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including details of screening materials and a timetable for implementation of the agreed amendments.

(Source: Geoff Lyon, Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases), ext 6226)


3. The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design

This report outlines the need to establish a Judging Panel for this year’s Graham

Allen Award for Conservation and Design and to agree the proposed dates for the judging and presentation of the awards.

The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design was inaugurated in 1982 as a memorial to the late Councillor G.S. Allen, first Chairman of North Norfolk District

Council. Since then it has been presented annually by the Council to the scheme considered to make the most significant contribution to the built environment within the District. Eligible projects can involve the conservation and restoration of historic properties as well as new buildings which, through their design, make innovative use of traditional building forms and detailing.

A Judging Panel needs to be set up to consider, evaluate and judge submissions under the award scheme, and make awards accordingly. Membership of this Panel will be drawn from the Development Committee. Please note that the panel no longer has to be politically balanced. The Panel comprises nine Members (one of whom will be elected Chairman), the relevant Portfolio Member, and Mr Edward Allen, Graham

Allen‟s eldest son, who once again has kindly agreed to be the permanent representative from the Allen family. The closing date for entries is 30 th

June 2012.

It is suggested that the Judging Panel convenes on 2 August 2012 at the Council

Offices to consider and judge the entries. As in previous years, the day will commence with a short presentation of all entries in the Council Chamber followed by a tour of those short-listed. There will then be a brief plenary session back in the

Council Chamber on the merits of each scheme. The day will conclude with members of the Judging Panel voting on the entries. The awards will then be presented at a ceremony later in the year. At the time of writing this report 8 October 2012 after

Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party would appear to be the preferred date, pending confir mation of Edward Allen‟s availability.

RECOMMENDATION:-

1. That the Committee nominates a total of nine Members to form the

Graham Allen Award Judging Panel, one of whom will be elected

Chairman.

2. That the date for judging the entries be accepted and that the date for the presentation be noted pending final confirmation.

(Source: Paul Rhymes, Extn: 6367 – File Reference: GA Award)


9

29 June 2012

PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Note : Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition

No.1, unless otherwise stated.

4.

CROMER - PF/12/0376 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with glazed link and replacement side extension, and proposed re-routing of Public Right of Way FP11; The Lookout, East Cliff, Cliff Drive, Cromer for Mrs E Readett-

Bayley

- Target Date: 29 May 2012

Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton

Householder application

See also PF8/12/0406 below

CONSTRAINTS

Countryside

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Undeveloped Coast

Public Footpath

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

PLA/19980366 PF - Change of use of former coastguard look-out to holiday accommodation

Approved 08/10/1998

PF/10/0856 PO - Erection of single storey rear extension with glazed corridor link, and proposed re-routing of Public Right of Way FP11

Approved 18/10/2011

THE APPLICATION

Is for a single storey rear extension, glazed link to the existing building, and a side extension on the existing building. The rear extension would measure 6.7m by 8m.

This application would require the re-routing of Public Footpath11 as it currently dissects the site and crosses it at the location of the proposed rear extension.

REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control, in light of the proposed formal Diversion Order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 for FP11.

TOWN COUNCIL

Object on the grounds of loss of parking.

CONSULTATIONS

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - no objection. The principle of a single storey rear extension has already been established under

PF/10/0856. Any proposed extension should be proportionate to the existing building and respectful of the setting of the property.


10

29 June 2012

The proposed extension has a greater footprint than the existing building, however being stepped down and single storey the impact is reduced slightly. Given the small size of the building it is difficult to see how living space can be accommodated without adding a significant extension to the old Lookout.

The glazed link however will introduce a substantial two-storey addition to the property which has a greater impact on the wider setting than the single storey extension. The glazing will allow light spill into the natural setting and adds considerable bulk to the existing property. Options should be considered to reduce the scale of the glazed link and methods to reduce the potential light pollution, for example through specialised glass.

The proposals do not include any landscaping to the eastern and western boundaries of the property which is unfortunate. It is likely that a fence will be required on these boundaries and details of the fencing should be provided and agreed.

Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments awaited.

Property Services - no objection, as the Transferors. The original transfer arrangements provide for any external alterations to be approved in writing to the

Transferee or their successors. This will be be dealt with by Property Services.

Ramblers Association - Comments awaited.

Open Spaces Society - object (summarised). There is no route on which it appears that FP 11 could reasonably be diverted and retain its current amenity value to the public. To divert the path onto the coastal path to the north of the site would effectively mean the permanent loss of FP 11 to the public. Public highways, including FP 11, are permanent features, and it is vital to consider long term implications. The coastal path is closer to the cliff edge than FP 11 and is likely to suffer from coastal erosion sooner.

The building is in an extremely visually sensitive location, elevated and within prominent view of the public from a number of different directions, including from FP

11. The proposed extension is very substantial in scale, and in terms of that scale and it's design, would detract severely from the established character and appearance of the former coastguard lookout building.

Norfolk County Council has failed to meet its statutory duty under the Countryside

Act 1968, section 27 to maintain FP 11. The application should be considered as though the path was open, properly maintained and clearly signed. The application would have a very severe impact upon the existing FP 11, which is a material consideration.

Please refer to Appendix 2 for the Open Spaces Society full comments.

Highway Authority - No objection. The proposed extension would result in a slightly smaller footprint than that proposed under PO/10/0856.

The parking arrangements have not been detailed, however given that the parking area becomes larger, the provision of parking can be controlled by a condition. This application takes into account that the FP 11 would need to be diverted to construct the development; this should be done under the Town and Country Planning Act

1990. Should permission be granted, a condition should be added to ensure that sufficient parking provision is created.


11

29 June 2012

Director of Environment, Transport and Development (Norfolk County Council) - no objection. The planning permission cannot be acted upon until the proposed diversion of Footpath 11 is completed.

Historic Environment Service - no objection. The property is a former coast guard lookout building constructed during the Second World War as the observation post for a coastal 6" gun battery. It appears to be the only surviving structure from the gun battery and as such has significance as a heritage asset with historical significance.

The proposed works will alter the form and affect the significance of the heritage asset, which is worthy of recording prior to its extension.

Therefore a programme of historic building recording should be conducted prior to any development. In this instance a photographic survey is considered appropriate.

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 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can be permitted).

Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).

Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside

(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).

MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Visual impact of proposed extensions

2. Re-routing of Public Footpath

APPRAISAL

The site lies near the coastline in Cromer and is within the designated Countryside policy area. It also falls within the Undeveloped Coast, Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty (AONB) and a Rural Residential Conversion Area. The property is currently used as a holiday unit and has the benefit of current planning consent for a rear extension (application PO/10/0856).

Policies SS 2, EN 1, EN 3, EN 4 and HO 8 are particularly relevant, with extensions to holiday units permitted in principle by all of these policies.


12

29 June 2012

A similar rear extension to that approved in 2011 is proposed, but with a slightly smaller footprint. The approved extension measures 7m by 9m, with the current planning scheme proposing an extension measuring 6.7m by 8m. A two storey glazed link is also proposed, with a lean to on the western elevation being replaced by a single storey side extension.

Policy HO 8 seeks to ensure that extensions to dwellings in the Countryside policy area do not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height or scale of the building or materially increase the impact upon the appearance of the surrounding countryside. Whilst the proposed development would more than double the footprint of the existing building, most of the development would lie to the rear of the property, largely screened from most of the public vantage points. The side extension would measure 5.5m by 1.9m, in comparison to the existing 2m by 1.7m. With a flat roof to both extensions, they are considered in themselves to be relatively inconspicuous.

Balconies are proposed on top of both extensions, which are shown on the plan as glazed. Moreover, in this case the principle of a substantial rear extension to the property has been accepted through the granting of outline permission in 2011.

Located just under 40m from a residential area, the land immediately surrounding the site forms part of the area known as 'Happy Valley'. To the front of the site (north east) is an open grassland area, before the coastal path and cliff edge. Except for the access track (which lies to the rear) the western, north western, eastern and southern sides are all surrounded by trees. As such any development to the rear of the building would be well screened from the main public vantages of the coastal footpath and grassed area around the pavilion to the north west. No landscaping details, including details of boundary treatment, are yet to be decided. Suitable landscaping could further reduce the impact of the development. The impact upon the Undeveloped Coast and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is considered to be acceptable in this case, complying with both policies EN 1 and EN 3.

Policy EN 4 seeks to ensure that the design of any development is suitably designed for the context within which it is set, preserving or enhancing the character of the local area. Development should also not have a significant detrimental effect upon the residential amenity of neighbours. With the closest neighbour just under 40m away, there are no concerns that the alterations will impact significantly upon any neighbour. The design shown on the amended plan, with the imposition of appropriate conditions, is considered to reflect the nature and style of the existing building. Whilst perhaps larger than ideal, the development would manage to retain the existing building as the main visual focus, whilst minimising its impact upon the wider area.

With appropriate conditions the development is considered to comply with policies

EN 1, EN 3, EN 4 and HO 8, whilst not conflicting with other Development Plan policies.

Footpath -

A public footpath (Cromer Footpath 11) crosses the application site and the earlier outline permission, PO/10/0856 envisaged FP11 being diverted around the perimeter of the curtilage of the building to the north-east. The footpath was blocked by fencing to the rear of The Lookout building, although this has recently been removed.

The diversion proposed as part of application PO/10/0856 would have resulted in

FP11 taking an awkward „dog-leg‟ around the building with four right-angle turns.

Officers have considered two possible alternative routes to which FP11 could be


13

29 June 2012

diverted. The first is to the north (seaward) side of the building where there is already a well-used path along the cliff-top. A second alternative route south (inland) of the building and comprises a hard-surfaced track which runs from the end of Cliff Lane towards Happy Valley before turning northwards to rejoin FP 11. A number of interested parties, including the County Council, Town Council, Ramblers Association and Open Spaces Society (OSS), have been consulted informally about the possible diversion of FP 11. The OSS have objected to diverting FP11 in respect of both of the proposed alternatives (OSS representations: Appendix 2 ).

Notwithstanding the objections received it is considered that it is appropriate to divert

FP 11 since this diversion is considered to result in an equally convenient and commodious route for users of the footpath. The Committee is therefore requested to authorise the making of a formal Diversion Order under section 257 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The OSS had raised objections to the diversion of the FP11 onto the northern seaward) route because of concerns about the possible long-tern effects of coastal erosion. Taking these views into account it is therefore recommended that FP 11 be diverted onto the southern (inland) route as shown on the appended plan ( Appendix 2 ).

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve, subject to conditions in relation to boundary treatments, a programme of historic building recording and materials.

5.

CROMER - PF/12/0406 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission reference: 98/0366 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Lookout,

East Cliff, Cliff Drive for Mrs E Readett-Bailey

Minor Development

- Target Date: 29 May 2012

Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton

Full Planning Permission

See also PF/12/0376 above

CONSTRAINTS

Countryside

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Undeveloped Coast

Public Footpath


19980366 PF - Change of use of former coastguard look-out to holiday accommodation

Approved 08/10/1998

PF/10/0856 PO - Erection of single storey rear extension with glazed corridor link, and proposed re-routing of Public Right of Way FP11

Approved 18/10/2011

THE APPLICATION

Is to permit permanent residential use of The Lookout by removing condition 3 imposed on permission 19980366 which restricted its use to holiday use only.


14

29 June 2012


At the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control, in light of the proposed associated Diversion Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 for Footpath 11 in relation to PF/12/0376 above.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objection/comment made

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection received raising the following issues;

1. Residential use would imply more frequent vehicular access than holiday use.

Frequent car journeys along Cliff Lane (the access track) would conflict with the constant use by pedestrians established over many years

2. Existing pedestrian use is relatively heavy, with people using it for; access to

Cromer Town Centre, beach and beach huts (accessed via steps close to The

Lookout), the Lighthouse and Overstrand, and Warren Woods and Kings Chalet

Park.

3. The lane is too narrow for a pedestrian and car to pass one another. This will inevitably lead to problems, conflict and even accidents, leading to potential litigation. Many of these pedestrian users would physically struggle to deal with oncoming cars.

CONSULTATIONS

Countryside and Parks Manager - Comments awaited.

Property Services - no objection. The application is in compliance with the Transfer

Restriction dating from NNDC's sale of the property.

Ramblers Association - Comments awaited.

Open Spaces Society - object. Permanent residential occupation would lead to increased vehicular movements to and from the site. It appears that the track running to the south and west of the site would be used for vehicular access. This route is habitually used by members of the public on foot, and increased vehicular access would be in conflict with such use.

Director of Environment, Transport and Development (Countryside Access Officer) - no objection/comments to make.

Highways (Norfolk County Council) - no objection. The existing and previous use has been without incident. The proposal does not significantly affect current traffic patterns, affect the free flow of traffic nor place any additional burden upon the parking provision, therefore Highways does not wish to raise any objection nor restrict the grant of consent.









15

29 June 2012

POLICIES


Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the countryside with specific exceptions).

Policy EC 8: Retaining an adequate supply of mix tourist accommodation (specifies criteria to prevent loss of facilities).

Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the reuse of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).

MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Principle of use of building for permanent residential use

APPRAISAL

The site lies near the coastline in Cromer and is within the Countryside policy area. It also falls within the Undeveloped Coast, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and a Rural Residential Conversion Area, as defined by Policy HO 9. The property is currently used as a holiday unit and has the benefit of outline planning permission for a rear extension (application PO/10/0856). Planning application PF/12/0376 has been submitted to enlarge the property and divert the footpath which currently runs through the centre of the site.

In principle Policy HO 9 permits a change of use to permanent residential use within designated areas. The Lookout falls within one of these designated areas, and this use is considered suitable under the terms of the policy subject to the building being worthy of retention, structurally sound and suitable for conversion.

In this case the building is considered to be worthy of retention. Built during the

Second World War as the observation post for a coastal gun battery, it appears to be the only surviving structure of this battery. As such it has significance as a heritage asset. It has since been used as a coastguard lookout building, before being converted into a holiday unit. As such it is also considered to be structurally sound and therefore suitable for conversion.

The property has a vehicular access and sufficient parking to provide for a 3 bed house (2 spaces), as proposed under PF/12/0376. Part of the curtilage extends to the south east of the existing building, which can be used as private amenity space.

The proposal is considered to comply with policy HO 9.

Whilst the vehicular access to the property may not be ideal, it is already established as the access for the holiday unit. The Highway Authority has no objection.

Located just outside the residential area of Cromer, there are many holiday units within the town, and as such alternative provision of a similar type of holiday unit can be expected to be found easily within the nearby area. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy EC 8.

The proposal is considered to comply fully with the adopted Development Plan

Policy.

RECOMMENDATION:

Delegated approval, subject to no objection being raised by outstanding consultees.


16

29 June 2012

6.

HOLT - PF/12/0471 - Erection of rear two-storey extension and detached double garage with studio above; 31 Cromer Road for Mrs Elliott

- Target Date: 13 June 2012

Case Officer: Mrs M Moore

Householder application

CONSTRAINTS

Residential Area

Conservation Area

Tree Preservation Order

Contaminated Land Buffer

PLA/19760862 HR - Proposed two storey extension

Approved 09/08/1976

THE APPLICATION

Seeks to erect a rear two-storey extension and detached double garage with studio area above.

The extension would measure approximately 10m in length at ground floor level by

8.7m wide. Maximum height would measure 6.4m.

The garage and studio would measure approximately 5.7m wide by 8.6m long with a height of 5.55m.


At the request of Councillors High and Baker having regard to the following planning issues:

Overlooking/privacy to neighbouring dwelling and size of development

TOWN COUNCIL

Comments awaited

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been submitted on the following grounds:

1. Size of development; scale and mass

2. Detrimental impact on neighbour; over-shadowing, loss of light, noise and disturbance

3. Detrimental impact on the Conservation Area

4. Highway safety concerns; increase in vehicular movements resulting from doubling number of dwellings on plot, increased potential of accidents

CONSULTATIONS

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): By virtue of its size, wrap-around form, rooflights and large dormer, the proposed rear extension is considered to be a less than ideal addition to the existing building.

However, no objection to this element of the scheme for the following reasons:

1. It would be entirely tucked away behind the existing property (and garage next door), and would therefore not harm the appearance & character of the Holt

Conservation Area,

2. It would retain a degree of subordination through its lower ridgeline,

3. It would replace a large, less than sympathetic conservatory, and

4. It would not block or impinge upon any views of the adjacent Grade II Listed

Building next door.


17

29 June 2012

As regards the garage, this raises no particular conservation or design issues and certainly would not harm any existing heritage assets.

In the event of the application being approved, please condition that the brick is agreed prior to its use and that the tiles match the existing.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape): The proposed development requires the removal of a mature Scots Pine to the rear of the main property. The Officer has assessed the tree for amenity value and considers that the arborist's suggestion of felling and replanting would be appropriate for this site.

If the tree is retained it would be in constant conflict with the buildings.

Landscape has no objection to the proposal however a landscape plan showing the size, species and location of a replacement tree should be conditioned and be submitted prior to any works on site. Tree protection on site during construction should be in line with the arborist's report dated 18/04/12.

Environmental Health: No comments

County Council Highways: With consideration that this application proposes to construct a new garage for two cars with studio workspace above, given the concerns regarding the restricted access into the property and the limited frontage parking area, Norfolk County Council would not raise any objection but would seek to remove Permitted Development rights from the proposed garage to prevent conversion and to retain the available parking provision.








POLICIES


Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and distribution of development in the district).

Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).

Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other valuable buildings).

Policy CT 5: The transport impact of 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).


1. Design

2. Impact on the Conservation Area and Listed Building


18

29 June 2012

3. Impact on neighbour's amenities

4. Impact on highway safety

APPRAISAL

The site lies within the Holt Settlement Boundary, where proposals for extensions to existing dwellings are considered to be acceptable in principle, providing compliance with relevant Core Strategy policies. The site also lies within a Conservation Area and is adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building, where development proposals are required to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area.

The property is a detached, two-storey house facing onto the Cromer Road.

The extension

The proposed development would involve the demolition of a significantly sized conservatory to the rear. The extension would be two-storey, sited to the rear of the original property to avoid visual competition with the original dwelling and to ensure that there would be a clear break between old and new. The proportions and scale are considered to be acceptable; the ridge height of 6.4m would be lower than the height of the existing dwelling.

Materials proposed are considered to be acceptable; tiles to match existing and a red facing brick.

The proposed development would create an annexe; a new dwelling is not proposed.

The annexe would be attached and would, therefore, share a close relationship with the main dwelling. Given its siting to the rear of the building, that it would not be overly visible within the wider landscape and that it is not considered that it would harm the architectural character of the original building which would remain dominant, it is considered to be acceptable.

It is considered that the design as proposed would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed

Building, in accordance with policies EN8 and EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy, since the extension would be tucked away behind the existing property and garage next door resulting in limited public views of the extension and it would replace a large, less than sympathetic conservatory.

In terms of neighbouring amenity, the adjacent property to the west is built hard-up to the boundary. In terms of overlooking of that property, windows in the extension would be primarily at ground floor level (facing kitchen and living space windows, including rooflights in the living space area). At first floor level a high-level bathroom rooflight has been proposed; the agent has confirmed that this could be obscure glazed.

It is not considered that the proposed development would result in a significantly detrimental impact in terms of overbearing or loss of light; the extension would be approximately 3.75m away from the boundary to the west where there is boundary treatment forming a neighbouring outbuilding and garage. The neighbour's outbuilding measures approximately 2.7m in height, and the eaves of the garage measure approximately 2.4m. The proposed extension would have low eaves at

2.4m with the roof sloping away from the neighbouring dwelling which would limit any overshadowing/overbearing impact.

The majority of windows would be sited in the eastern elevation, with windows and glazed roof to the kitchen and entrance lobby, whilst at first floor level glazing is proposed to the landing, a bathroom rooflight and a dormer bedroom window. These


19

29 June 2012

windows would face out onto a commercial garage with the closest dwelling over

25m away.

It is considered that there would be sufficient space for parking within the curtilage of

31 Cromer Road to accommodate the proposed development. Following further discussions with the Highway Authority, it has been agreed that in the event of approval a condition would be recommended requiring the extension to be ancillary to the use of 31 Cromer Road as a dwellinghouse. In terms of highway safety, subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the extension and garage and studio to be ancillary to the use of 31 Cromer Road as a dwellinghouse, it is considered that the proposed development would accord with Policies CT5 and CT6 of the adopted

Core Strategy.

The garage with studio above

The design of the proposed double garage with studio above is considered to be acceptable. Materials proposed are considered to be compatible; timber boarding construction and tiles to match the existing dwelling would allow some compatibility between the garage and studio and the main dwelling.

It is considered that the proposed garage would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent Listed Building.

As with the extension, it is noted that the garage would be sited close to the neighbouring commercial garage. Eaves level would be 3m, with the roof then sloping away from the boundary. This element is considered to be acceptable.

As with the extension, a condition is recommended requiring the garage/studio to be ancillary to the use of 31 Cromer Road as a dwellinghouse to ensure compliance with

Policies CT5 and CT6 of the adopted Core Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the removal of permitted development rights for the insertion of any additional first floor window or rooflight in the western elevation of the extension or in the eastern roofslope of the studio; requiring the extension and garage/studio to be ancillary to the use of 31 Cromer Road as a dwellinghouse; requiring tiles to match existing; requiring the brick to be agreed; requiring a landscaping plan and tree protection during construction, in accordance with the submitted arborist's report.

7.

HOVETON - PO/12/0350 - Demolition of hotel and erection of 17 apartments with car parking below.; Broads Hotel, Station Road for Mr J Herbert

Major Development


Case Officer: Mr J Williams

Outline Planning Permission

CONSTRAINTS

Unclassified Road

Flood Zone 2

Flood Zone 3

Town Centre


20

29 June 2012


PLA/20071247 PF - Demolition of hotel and erection of 24 apartments with car parking below.

Refused 23/10/2007

Appeal dismissed 16/05/2008

THE APPLICATION

Details of access, layout and scale are applied for at this stage, with appearance and landscaping being reserved for future approval.

Revised elevation plans (illustrative) have been submitted.

The proposal is for a single building of two and three storey height.

Thirteen of the apartments would comprise two bedrooms, four would be one bedroom units.

Whilst details of appearance do not form part of the current application the submitted plans make reference to the external materials being a mix of coloured timber cladding, brickwork, natural slate and plain clay tiles. The plans also show illustrative window and door details.

A single vehicular access is proposed to serve the site towards its southern corner with Station Road. The access would serve a concealed 'basement' car park which

(as amended) would provide 25 parking spaces. In addition the plans show covered areas for cycle parking and bin storage.

There are three trees on the site which are proposed to be removed (including an oak on the road frontage following receipt of a revised tree report).

The following documents accompany the application:

Design and Access Statement

Planning Statement

Statement of Community Involvement

Affordable Housing Statement (Confidential - Financial Viability)

Flood Risk Statement

Ecology Report

Arboricultural Report (revised)

Energy Consumption / Solar Energy Report

Sustainable Construction Report

Parking Statement

Planning Obligations Statement (revised). This includes a contribution of £23,075 towards children's local play facilities and agreement that the existing building is demolished, the site cleared and hoardings erected around the boundaries within one year of the grant of planning permission.


At the request of Councillor Dixon having regard to the following issues:

Previous site history, a locally strategic site, affordable housing, scale / character of the area, public interest in ensuring that the existing building is demolished and the site cleared as soon as possible.

PARISH COUNCIL - Originally commented as follows:

Do not wish to object subject to the following comments:

1. As you will know there have been considerable concerns over the present condition of the site. Although it is appreciated that this is an outline application the

Council are concerned that there should be some form of condition imposed, probably in the section 106 Agreement, to ensure that demolition of the existing buildings as soon as possible, the site cleared and hoardings erected around the site.

The Council thought that a year from the decision notice being issued would be an appropriate time scale. Although normally the section 106 Agreement would only


21

29 June 2012

apply from implementation of the planning permission (which may be some time away) it is of course possible that the planning application relating to demolition and securing the site could be effective from the date of signing the Section 106

Agreement. This would avoid many more years of the dilapidated building scarring the environment of Hoveton. .

2. The current draft Section 106 Agreement states that there should be a payment towards the provision of allotments. We are somewhat bemused at this proposal. At present there are no allotments in Hoveton and from our experience no demand. For as many years as can be remembered by Councillors only one enquiry has been made to the Parish Council about an allotment. As you may know the Parish Council are responsible for street lighting in Hoveton most of which was installed many years ago and requires replacement on an urgent basis. We replaced some 30 lamps in

2011/2012 at a cost of £25000.00 to Parishioners leaving a further 35 to replace with energy saving LED lights at an approximate cost of £30000.00. It is recommended that a contribution towards this cost would alleviate the finances of the Council from a considerable burden and contribute greatly to the safety and welfare of the community. In this respect you will know that Hoveton did not increase its precept this year.

3. There were some concerns expressed over the height of the proposed buildings in comparison to surrounding buildings. Station Road is of course a major entrance into

Hoveton and the tunnel effect created by the buildings proposed for this site together with the existing planning permission on the opposite side of the road could be visually intrusive. We would ask you to carefully consider this aspect of the application.

The Parish Council has subsequently written to confirm agreement to the S.106

Obligation as now proposed in terms of demolition of the building, emphasising that the one year period should be from the date of signing the Obligation and not from the commencement of development.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of objection have been received from two individuals. One of these writes on behalf of the neighbouring landowner (Roys of Wroxham), expressing an overriding concern that the development will result in residents / visitors using Roys' car parks.

The specific grounds of objection are as follows:

- Lack of sufficient parking provision. Amendments to the application have further reduced the number of parking spaces from 32 to 25.

- Certain of the parking spaces are impractical to use.

- No available visitor parking.

- Car park unsuitable for large vehicles (e.g. caravans/ vans / motorhomes).

- Potential for conflict between residents and local businesses.

- Dangerous access, close to the entrance to Newey's Way.

- No provision for delivery / refuse vehicles.

- Car park at risk of flooding.

- Drawings should incorporate measures recommended in the flood risk assessment.

- 'Nautical' design out of character with the area.

- Will result in 'tunnel effect' along Station Road.

- Loss of hotel use in village. Site has not been advertised.

- No affordable units proposed.

A letter received from the owners of an adjoining garage premises seeking assurance that the boundary is adequately supported before any excavation works are carried out (to form the basement car park).


22

29 June 2012

CONSULTATIONS

Broads Authority - Does not object to the principle of replacing the former hotel with residential units. With regard to the scale, massing and design of the proposal, the site lies outside the Broads Authority area and, as such, the Authority‟s comments on these elements are limited to the impact the proposal would have on the Broads and the setting of the Broads area.

In terms of scale, it is appreciated that there is a mixed pattern of development along

Station Road and, taking this into account, it is considered that the proposed new block would be acceptable and would not harm either the Broads area or the setting of this area. There are, however, concerns regarding the design of the proposal.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the pattern and scale of development is mixed along

Station Road, a development of this scale should have a degree of architectural cohesion in itself.

The proposed elevations use a wide variety of style, form and materials none of which are particularly complimentary to one another. This is especially noticeable in the fenestration pattern which uses a wide variety of styles. It is noted that the site has two frontages but neither of these are presented in such a way to actually address either street frontage in a coherent way. The detailed design does not take advantage of the corner site and in fact the corner of Station Road and Newey‟s Way is one of the weakest elements of the elevational composition. The roof scape is disjointed as is the staggered terrace facing Newey‟s Way and the main facade to

Station Road. The site is fairly large in terms of the Hoveton village scape but the design solution is over complicated and the result is visually unacceptable in design terms. Having regard to the above, it is considered that a simpler, more cohesive design would be more appropriate in this location.

The comments regarding visual cohesion apply also to the materials which seem to take little from the locality and again lack cohesion. It is accepted that on a building of this scale a variety of materials can help break up mass and also visually link different elements of the building, however in this instance the variety of materials with little reference to local character would, serve only to highlight the design concerns outlined above.

Following the submission of revised plans the Broads Authority has confirmed its objections to the submitted proposals, stating that "The Authority is aware that there is a high degree of local interest in this site and is keen to see the redevelopment of the site to secure environmental improvements along Station Road. It is the case, however, that this is an important site and it is the Authority‟s view that the submitted scheme could be improved upon, resulting in a significantly improved street scene along Station Road a nd Newey‟s Way."

Broads Society - No objection to replace the existing hotel building. Pleased to note adequate parking provision for the development. Disappointed that no provision for affordable housing is included on the grounds of economic viability.

Norfolk County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions in respect of access provision, drainage, visibility splays, parking and public footway improvements.

Sustainability Officer - Advises that the application complies with Core Strategy

Policy EN6 based on the supporting information with the application (compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 and 10% renewable energy by use of 17 solar hot water panels). Recommends conditions to secure these requirements.


23

29 June 2012

Environment Agency - Raises no objections to the development on flood risk grounds. Recommends condition in respect of contaminated land and minimum finished ground floor level.

Anglian Water - Recommends a condition requiring the submission and approval of a surface water strategy.

Environmental Health - Recommends conditions relating to construction work hours/delivery arrangements/lighting, noise control over any extraction equipment, and flood warning measures for future residents.

Norfolk Constabulary - Raises concerns regarding the car parking area and its vulnerability to crime given that vehicles will be out of sight of residents. This can result in under use and residents parking their vehicles elsewhere. Such areas can become a haven for anti-social behaviour. To mitigate this it is recommended that measures are incorporated to include lighting, light colour finish to walls and ceilings, and access control systems (electronically activated gates). Provides detailed advice regarding other security systems and limitations on the height of any landscaping.

Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) - Raises no objection to the amended plans now submitted. Appreciates that the references to window styles and materials are illustrative only, however should a future application resemble these plans it is likely to be supported. The precise specification of materials will be important, as will any landscaping or boundary treatments, but the alignment of fenestration, including balconies and doors now (as illustrated) seems to be far more co-ordinated. The result is a piece of architecture which better holds together than illustrated on the originally submitted plans.

The form, scale and massing of the development, which has been reduced following the dismissal of the previous appeal is now considered acceptable.

Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager (Landscape) - The updated

Arboricultural Report confirms that the retention of the oak tree is untenable and will need to be removed as part of the development. This is acceptable subject to the replacement planting as indicated in the report. The replacement of the tree with a mature heavy standard will ensure that the new tree will adapt to its planting environment and will mature with the development to provide a landscape feature that should last longer than retaining the existing tree (subject to the correct maintenance of the new planting). Furthermore, as the existing tree is of significant value (Category B) the mitigation for the removal of the tree will also require the addition of 2 other trees to be planted within the development, also acceptable.

The application involves the demolition of existing buildings and as such a protected species report was considered necessary. The building inspection revealed no evidence of bats utilising the buildings however a house martin or swallows nest was found under the eaves of the main building. Recommendations include undertaking the demolition of the buildings and the removal of scrub outside of the bird breeding season (1 March to 3 July inclusive), and erecting artificial swallow or house martin nests on the proposed buildings and ecological landscaping. Based on the findings of the Ecological Report the development will not have an adverse impact on protected species or biodiversity.

Recommends conditions to secure the proposed replacement tree planting, additional landscaping and compliance with the recommendations of the submitted

Ecology Report.


24

29 June 2012

Strategic Housing - Has considered the viability information submitted with the application which shows that the development will not support the provision of any affordable housing. Whilst the information also shows a loss on the development, all as market dwellings, it is considered that a profit could be made on the scheme.

The viability of the scheme has been impacted by the scheme design which includes basement parking, 2 stair and lift blocks, glass and steel balconies, access walkways and natural slate / clay tiles. The costs of these design elements (in the viability report) has significantly impacted on the viability of the scheme and are not reflected in the indicative sales prices of the completed units. The applicant states that the inclusion of lifts will improve the saleability of the units, although there is no evidence to support this argument. The design of the scheme does not make the most effective use of the lifts, with 2 lifts to service just 3 units on the second floor. The specification is not reflected in the sales values for this location.

Points out that the viability assessment has been completed based on costs which reflect the design elements mentioned above, and if this application is approved, if there is a variation to materials or design, a new viability assessment may be required.

A short timescale on any consent should also be included, to allow the viability of providing affordable housing to be reconsidered if there is a delay in making a start to the proposed scheme.







Refer to the comments of Norfolk Constabulary (above).

POLICIES


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 HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new housing developments).

Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).


Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).

Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).

Policy EC 8: Retaining an adequate supply of mix tourist accommodation (specifies criteria to prevent loss of facilities).

Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer contributions).

Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).

Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking standards other than in exceptional circumstances).


25

29 June 2012

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework came into effect on 27 March 2012.


1. Loss of hotel use / acceptability of residential use

2. Affordable housing

3. Scale / design

4. Highway safety / parking provision

5. Landscaping

6. Flood risk

7. Planning obligations

APPRAISAL

The application site (0.15 ha.) is currently occupied by the former Broads Hotel which closed for business in October 2007. The building (3 storey height) immediately fronts onto Station Road and it is bordered by the Roys car park to one side and its rear, and by a commercial garage premises on its other side. The building has a derelict appearance (boarded up windows and neglected grounds) and presents a very poor image to this prominent part of the village.

The proposal would involve the wholesale clearance of the site and redevelopment as described above. Following the concerns of the Parish Council the applicant has now amended the Planning Obligations Statement to include a clause which would require the demolition and clearance of the site within one year of the grant of planning permission.

The site has recent relevant planning history, in that a not dissimilar application (for

24 apartments) was refused permission in 2007 and subsequently dismissed on appeal in 2008. A copy of the Inspector's decision letter is attached in Appendix 3 .

The reasons for refusal related to the loss of hotel accommodation in the village and the overall size and scale of the proposed development. The policy position pertaining to the proposal has changed since the appeal decision (following the adoption of the Core Strategy) and the current proposal is for a reduced scale of building.

In terms of Core Strategy policy, the site is located within the town centre designation. Policy SS5 states that in such designated area residential proposals will be permitted where they do not result in the loss of shops or other main town centre uses. Policy EC8 states that proposals which would result in the loss of premises currently, or last used for tourist accommodation will be permitted provided that, either, equivalent or better quality and scale provision is available in the area; and, the facility does not provide an important local facility; or, it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of retaining the current use on the site supported by evidence of a marketing exercise to sell the property for a period of at least 12 months. In this case Hoveton benefits from alternative hotel accommodation (Hotel

Wroxham) and having been closed for almost 5 years it is difficult to describe the former Broads Hotel as an important local facility. Consequently there is a strong case to argue that the proposal complies with the first test in Policy EC8. This being the case, there is no requirement to meet the second policy test. Nevertheless the applicant's submitted Planning Statement states that the costs which would be involved in refurbishing the existing premises or redeveloping the site for a hotel use, combined with the limited demand for hotel accommodation in the area, do not justify a reason to object to the proposed development. They furthermore refer to a recent significant increase in hotel bedspaces in the nearby Greater Norwich area resulting from national hotel chain developments.


26

29 June 2012

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not specifically address the loss of tourist accommodation as in this case. It does state that planning policies should support the provision of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres. It also states that it should be recognised that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres. At its core the NPPF states that the planning system should perform three roles, an economic one, a social one and an environmental one. Whilst the loss of a hotel facility on this site may be seen as having a negative (albeit minor) economic impact, the proposed development could be argued to have a positive social impact (by providing additional housing in a sustainable location) and a positive environmental impact by enhancing the existing built environment.

In conclusion it is not considered that there is any longer a policy reason to object to the principle of redeveloping the site for residential development.

The submitted floor plans establish that the application complies with Policy HO1 in terms of the size and mix of accommodation proposed. Policy HO2 requires for developments of 10 or more dwellings that 45% of the units comprise affordable dwellings, where it is viable to do so. . However the submitted Affordable Housing

Statement, which includes a breakdown of development costs and projected sales figures concludes that any level of affordable housing provision would result in a negative cost to the developer. In fact the statement concludes that under current market conditions, the development would result in a loss even with no affordable units being provided.

The Committee will note the comments of the Council's Strategic Housing Officer.

Whilst accepting that the submitted Affordable Housing Statement demonstrates that the scheme as proposed is not viable to support a contribution towards affordable housing, this is identified to an extent to be due to the relatively high costs attributed to the scheme (i.e. basement parking, the inclusion of two lifts and the use of high specification materials). The suggestion is that if a less costly development were proposed on the site there would be more scope to provide an element of affordable housing. The suggestion is also made that should these development cost details be subsequently be changed, then there may be a need to review the affordable housing viability.

As referred to above, the previous application to redevelop this site was refused, partly on grounds relating to its overall scale. That proposal involved a building ranging from 2 to 4 storeys. At the appeal the Inspector concluded that such a scale of building in this location would be "out of character and appearance with the surrounding village development". The current proposal would reduce the scale of the building to a combination of two and three storeys, predominantly two storey along the frontage with Station Road and three storey facing onto the Roys car park.

It is considered that this reduction of overall scale would overcome the previous reason for refusal.

The Committee will note the concerns raised by the Broads Authority regarding the design of the proposed building. Whilst the application seeks approval at this stage for the 'scale' of the building it reserves 'appearance' for future approval.

'Appearance' essentially relates to the exterior of the building including such aspects as fenestration and materials. The submitted plans include these details but refer to them as being 'indicative only'. With this in mind, some but not all of the concerns of the Broads Authority can be assumed not to apply to the level of detail being formally


27

29 June 2012

applied for at this stage. The Committee will also note that the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager raises no objection to the submitted plans (as amended).

The development would be served by a single vehicular access onto Station Road between the new building and the southern boundary with Newey's Way and Roys car park. The Highway Authority has confirmed that the access is acceptable subject to the imposition of certain conditions. The access would lead to a partially covered basement car park. Following amendments to devise a workable parking layout, 25 parking spaces are now proposed. This equates to approximately 1.5 spaces per unit. Some of the spaces are 'tandem' (one space behind another) which in practice would mean it is likely that a number of units would be allocated two spaces and others a single space. The Council's parking standards normally require an average of 1.5 spaces for a one bedroom unit and 2 spaces for a two bedroom unit, but the

Core Strategy states that in designated town centres the standard can be reduced 'if justified by improved accessibility'. This site is located within easy walking distance to a number of local shops and services. Furthermore Hoveton benefits from good public transport links, to Norwich in particular. Accordingly, notwithstanding the public representations received it is considered that the proposal provides adequate on-site parking provision. It should also be appreciated that the former hotel premises had no on-site parking facility. Security concerns relating to the car park, raised by

Norfolk Constabulary (see above), could be addressed by the imposition of the conditions which they suggest.

The site is mainly devoid of landscaping, although there is a medium sized oak tree at the southern corner of the site adjacent to Station Road. The submitted

Arboricultural Report acknowledges the tree as being significant in the local landscape because of its prominent position, but its root protection area is affected by the alignment of the proposed new vehicular access. Consequently the report recommends removal of the tree and its replacement with a new oak tree in the same location, plus two additional ornamental trees. The Conservation, Design and

Landscape Manager has no objection to these proposals, subject to the planting of a new mature heavy standard oak tree, observing that provided the tree is maintained properly it will result in a longer lasting feature within the locality.

The site lies some 55m from the River Bure. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment

(FRA) demonstrates that the site itself is within an area of low risk to flooding (Zone

1), although Station Road itself (which is on a lower level to the site) lies within an area identified as a high risk to flooding (Zone 3). The extreme predicted flood level which could affect Station Road would reach a height of 2.23m above Ordnance

Datum (AOD), whilst the existing site level is 2.37m AOD. The FRA states that the finished ground floor level of the development would be set at 2.5m AOD, thus making it safe from flood risk, a conclusion accepted by the Environment Agency.

Whilst the basement parking area would be set below the predicted flood level the access ramp (the only entry point for flood waters) would be above this level.

Finally the applicant's revised Planning Obligations Statement includes two provisions. Firstly a contribution of £23,075 towards (off-site) children's play space provision, and secondly, the commitment to demolish the existing building, clear the site and erect hoardings, within one year of the grant of planning permission. The

Committee will note the request by the Parish Council that a contribution is made towards street lighting in the village, but such a requirement is not considered to meet the tests for Planning Obligations referred to in the National Planning Policy

Framework, (i.e. "necessary to make the development acceptable; directly related to the development; and. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development").


28

29 June 2012

In conclusion it is considered that there are no substantive planning reasons to object to the redevelopment of this site as now proposed. An incentive to grant planning permission subject to completion of the Planning Obligation is that this would help to precipitate the early removal of the existing unsightly building and the tidying up of the site, irrespective of whether this particular development proposal goes ahead.

RECOMMENDATION:

Delegated approval, subject to the completion of a S.106 Obligation to secure a financial contribution towards off-site children's play provision and demolition of the existing building (together with clearance and securing of the site) within one year of the grant of planning permission, and subject to the following conditions:

1 Application for approval of all reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Approval of these reserved matters (referred to in condition 2) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development

(other than demolition of the former hotel building) is commenced. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason:

The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of

Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by

Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2005.

2 These reserved matters shall relate to the appearance and landscaping of the proposed development and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in the current application.

Reason:

The application is submitted in outline form only and the details required are pursuant to the provisions of Article 3(1) to the Town and Country Planning

(General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and the Town and Country

Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order

2006.

3 Except as required by condition 11 below, this permission is granted in accordance with the following plans:

Proposed Block Plan (drawing no. P490/26104/12

Basement Plan (drawing no. 1745-01 Rev E

Ground Floor Plan (drawing no. 1745-02 Rev E

First Floor Plan (drawing no. 1745-03 Rev B

Second Floor Plan (drawing no. 1745-04 Rev A

Roof Plan and Views (drawing no. 1745-00 Rev B

Views A, E & C (drawing no. 1745-10 Rev B) (part illustrative)

Views B & D (drawing no. 1745-11 Rev B) (part illustrative)


29

29 June 2012

4

5

6

7

Reason:

To ensure the satisfactory layout and scale of the development in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

In association with the requirements of Condition number 2, a scheme for landscaping and site treatment to include grass seeding, planting of new trees and shrubs (incorporating the replacement tree proposals recommended in

Section 6 of the Arboricultural Implications Assessment prepared by AT

Coombes Associates received by the Local Planning Authority on 24th April

2012); details of and the specification of materials for fences, walls and hard surfaces, and the proposed maintenance of amenity areas, shall be submitted to and approved as part of the application for reserved matters. These details shall also be informed by the recommended biodiversity enhancement measures outlined in Section 5 of the Ecology Report prepared by Kepwick

Ecological Services.

The scheme as approved shall be carried out not later than the next available planting season following the commencement of development or such further period as the Local Planning Authority may allow in writing.

Reason:

To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

Any new tree or shrub which within a period of ten years from the date of planting dies, is removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next planting season with another of a similar size and species to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction, unless prior written approval is given to any variation.

Reason:

To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the protected species mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in section 5 of the Ecology Report prepared by Kepwick Ecological Services, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation and enhancement measures shall include the provision of at least three artificial swallow and/or house martin bird nesting platforms, the specific details of which and locations for placement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. The nests shall then be erected according to the approved details and thereafter maintained in a suitable condition to serve the intended purpose.(See Note 1).

Reason:

In the interests of nature conservation in accordance with Policy EN9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the vehicular access shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan (drawing no.1745-02 Rev E) in accordance with the highway specification (drawing no.


30

29 June 2012

8

9

10

11

TRAD 1) attached to this decision notice. In addition arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.

Reason:

To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policy

CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any

Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order) no gate, bollard, chain or other means of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority.

Reason:

In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted visibility splays shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the approved plan. The splays shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.

Reason:

In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed access and on-site car park shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan (together with the provision of the secure cycle store). They shall be retained thereafter for those specific uses.

Reason:

To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted

North Norfolk Core Strategy.

Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings, no works

(other than the demolition of the former hotel building) shall commence on site until a detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement works (Site

Frontage Footway) as indicated on drawing number 1745-02 Rev E has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.

Reason:

To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North

Norfolk Core Strategy.


31

29 June 2012

12

13

14

15

16

17

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the off-site highway improvement works referred to in condition 11 shall be completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the

Local Highway Authority.

Reason:

To ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core

Strategy.

The apartments hereby permitted shall achieve a Code Level 3 rating or above in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes:

Technical Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). The apartments shall not be occupied until a Final

Code Certificate has been issued and submitted to the Local Planning

Authority certifying that Code Level 3 or above has been achieved unless an alternative timescale is first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

In the interests of achieving a satisfactory form of sustainable construction in accordance with Policy EN 6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

Veridian V15 solar hot water panels or equivalent, shall be installed on-site and operated to contribute towards at least 10% of the energy requirements of the development (as identified in the documents 'Energy Consumption

Statement' and 'Solar Energy Report' submitted with the application), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

In the interests of achieving the required level of renewable energy in accordance with Policy EN6 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

No development shall commence until a surface water strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until works have been carried out in accordance with the strategy as approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding in accordance with Policy EN10 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

The finished ground floor level of the development shall be set at a minimum height of 2.5m AOD and the ground level of the car park access entrance and associated footpath shall be set at a minimum of 2.3m AOD, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

In accordance with the details referred to in submitted the Flood Risk

Assessment and in accordance with Policy EN10 of the adopted North Norfolk

Core Strategy.

Prior to the first occupation of any of the apartments hereby permitted an

Emergency Evacuation Plan for residents of the development shall be


32

29 June 2012

18

19

20

21

22 submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

To safeguard residents in the case of localised flooding in accordance with

Policy EN10 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of demolition / construction noise and dust emanating from the site. Demolition and construction works shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved scheme.

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.

Prior to the commencement of development a schedule of construction works, including working hours and delivery arrangements, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction works shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:


Prior to the commencement of development details of any lighting to be used during construction works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

In the interests of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with

Policy EN13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.

No ventilation system shall be installed as part of the development subject to this planning permission, unless a scheme for noise control has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The system shall be installed and maintained thereafter in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason:


Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


33

29 June 2012

23

Reason:

In the interests of the visual amenities/residential amenities of the area and in the interests of highway safety and convenience, and to avoid light pollution in accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraph 3.3.70 of the explanatory text.

Prior to the commencement of construction works, details of security measures for the basement car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any apartment and shall be thereafter so retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

In the interests of crime prevention.

8.

NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0310 - Removal of Condition 15 and Variation of

Condition 16 of planning permission reference: 01/1523 to permit use of building as A1 (retail store); Former Focus D I Y, Cromer Road for Waitrose Ltd and the London and Capital Group



Case Officer: Mr G Lyon


See also PF/12/0309 below

CONSTRAINTS

Development within 60m of Class A road

Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)


Employment Area

Settlement Boundary


PLA/20011523 PO

Use of land for offices, diy/garden centre (plus ancillary office and storage accommodation), plots for commercial, light industrial and storage and distribution uses and coach park

Approved 13/08/2002

PLA/20030694 PM

Erection of retail store with access and internal estate road

Approved 24/07/2003

THE APPLICATION

Seeks removal of Condition 15 and Variation of Condition 16 of planning permission reference: PO/01/1523 to permit use of the former Focus DIY store building as an A1

(retail store).

Condition 15 of PO/01/1523, which the applicant seeks to remove, restricted the use of the building and states:


34

29 June 2012

15) The retail warehouse and garden centre hereby permitted shall not be used other than for the sale of DIY goods, garden goods and associated products (which may include power tools, secondary sales of kitchen and bathroom furniture, bulky,

"white" electrical goods and floor coverings), and the building shall not be subdivided into separate retail outlets.

Reason: In order to protect the viability and vitality of North Walsham town centre.

Condition 16 of PO/01/1523 states:

16) With the exception of the permitted DIY store/garden centre and coach park, all other uses on the site shall fall within the definitions of Classes B1 or B8 of the

Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant/agent.

The applicant seeks to vary the wording of the condition to the following:

With the exception of the permitted retail store and coach park, all other uses on the site shall fall within the definitions of Classes B1 or B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

In conjunction with this application to remove and vary conditions attached to planning permission ref: PO/01/1523, the applicant is also seeking to extend the existing building and this element of the proposal is considered separately under application ref: PF/12/0309, also on this agenda.

Applications PF/12/0309 & PF/12/0310 taken together would result in the creation of a retail store with a gross internal floor area of 2,885sqm and a net sales area of

1,830sqm.

The applicant has indicated that the store would sell in the region of 17,000 product lines and would contain meat, fish, deli and patisserie counters.

In addition the applicant proposes a café area at ground floor with capacity for 40 covers occupying approximately 120sqm. (The applicant has indicated that this would not be a full restaurant but would offer shoppers somewhere to buy a sandwich and a drink.)

154 vehicle parking spaces and 10 stainless steel cycle hoops are proposed to cater those wishing to arrive by bicycle (together with covered cycle spaces for staff)

The applicant has indicated that 150 new full-time/part-time jobs would be created equating to 90 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs).


Required by the Head of Planning & Building Control in view of the potential conflict with Development Plan policies.

TOWN COUNCIL

Supports the application – Approves the application in principle but would like further discussion with interested parties about any adverse impact on the town centre.


35

29 June 2012

REPRESENTATIONS

11 representations have been received, 7 in support, 2 in objection and 2 with comments only.

Summary of comments in support:

1. I think this would be very beneficial to North Walsham;

2. Good to have the former Focus building used;

3. Would welcome the applicant to North Walsham;

4. The changes are needed to allow this store to open;

5. Will breathe new life into a virtually derelict part of town;

6. It is extremely unlikely in the present economic climate that any other retailer would take on this building;

7. It will bring welcome employment to the town;

8. It will bring money into the town;

9. It will increase choice for shoppers and provide an alternative to Sainsbury‟s;

10. It is ideally situated on the main Cromer Road with good access for buses and cars;

11. Victory Housing Trust welcomes and supports the application;

12. Will provide staff at neighbouring businesses the opportunity to purchase take-out or eat-in food within walking distance;

13. Is a significant investment which will enhance the aesthetic appearance of the immediate area;

14. Without this investment, the unit would be likely to remain vacant and encourage anti-social behaviour;

15. The proposal would create 150 jobs, which is good news for the area;

16. Victory Housing would be willing to work with the applicant and Local Authority to ensure any parking concerns can be alleviated.

Applicant‟s agents – response to audit of retail report prepared by Mark Wood

Associates on behalf of North Norfolk DC, attached as Appendix 4 .

Summary of comments in objection:

1. Agents acting for Petros (North Walsham) Limited have raised concern that, amongst other things, the applicant has failed to properly understand and explain the policy basis against which the proposal is to be assessed;

2. Stating that it is not viable for the applicant to build a new store is not sufficient justification to circumvent the sequential test;

3. The retail assessment should not be based on the operator but on the land use that will result should the application be approved;

4. There are concerns about the approach and assumptions that have been made in respect of the impact analysis carried out;

5.

No evidence is submitted to support the assertion that “a Waitrose would attract inward investment to the area” or “that this could have a positive spin off effect for the town centre by retaining trade that would otherwise shop outside North

Walsham”;

6. There is no evidence that Sainsbury‟s shoppers using the North Walsham store do not carry out linked trips;

7. No evidence to suggest that there will not be trade draw from the town centre;

8. The applicant accepts that the site will not be accessible other than by car;

9. On the basis that the site is out of centre, public transport access is relatively poor, walking and cycling access is poor and a significant proportion of trade is expected to be attracted from beyond the 20 minute drive;

10. There must be concern that the level of parking provision is insufficient;

11. Agents acting for Sainsbury‟s Supermarkets Ltd have submitted a holding objection, although details of the basis of that objection are not yet known.


36

29 June 2012

Summary of comments only:

1. Lidl Uk GmbH have recently held discussions with North Norfolk District Council and will shortly be submitting a planning application to extend our existing town centre store on Yarmouth Road to provide an enhanced shopping experience for our customers. Whilst not objecting to the principle of the retail offering which would be provided by Waitrose, Lidl wish to reiterate the importance of maintaining the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre; upholding both the principles of EC5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and section 2 of paragraph 23 in the recently published NPPF (National Planning

Policy Framework) to ensure that any out-of-centre developments do not impact upon the Primary Shopping Area;

2. Scott Properties believe that for the following reasons it would be appropriate and beneficial for North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) to consider the Waitrose applications alongside an impending planning application that they will be making for an open A1 retail use (60,000sqft) with petrol filling station and associated car parking on the former Marrick‟s Wire Ropes (MWR) site on Cromer Road, North

Walsham so as to fully understand the cumulative impact and maximize the collective benefits to the residents of North Walsham and outlying communities.

They go on to state that whilst a Waitrose store would be complimentary to their proposal at MWR site and a plus for the town, the Waitrose proposal is unlikely to offer the residents of North Walsham and outlying communities genuine choice and competition for the two supermarkets currently operating in the town

(Sainsbury‟s and Lidl) and the proposed Waitrose Store alone will not claw back lost spending currently leaking away from the town. They consider that the retail impact assessment should be more comprehensive as some of the assumptions appear not to be realistic and the town “examples” offered (Swaffham and

Stamford) are perhaps too selective. Sequentially a Waitrose store of 12,500sqft would fit on to both the Vicarage Road car park site, identified by NNDC as a retail opportunity site and the Community Centre (New Road) site. The Marrick‟s

Wire Rope site has not been considered as part of the sequential testing. Whilst the use of the empty Bulky goods store by Waitrose would see an empty unit put back into use, careful consideration will need to be given to the loss of a purpose built DIY/Bulky Goods unit especially as NNDC have aspirations for growth, including new residential development, in North Walsham.

CONSULTATIONS

County Council (Highway)

– Holding Objection – The application is supported by a

Transport Assessment, which was subsequently amended to include data gathered from comparable stores in Norfolk. The traffic information as amended is robust and it is considered that the proposal has no implications for the vehicular operation of the highway network.

There are transport sustainability issues attaching to the proposal. The application site is remote from the centre of North Walsham at a distance of approximately

1.5km, and even further removed from most residential areas of the town. Clearly, the store will be almost totally car-dependent and whilst it is proposed to increase parking provision at the site, there will be an under-provision of some 50 spaces.

Given the lack of parking there is every likelihood of it overflowing onto the adjacent estate road, or even onto the adjacent A149 Principal Route. No plug-in points are proposed for electric cars.

The proposal to provide 12 cycle parking spaces for customers, and a further 12 for staff, fails to satisfy the requirements of the Core Strategy.


37

29 June 2012

Turning to the transport mitigation package, presented to the Highway Authority on

13 June without prior discussion, other than for the bus stops, there is a lack of substance such that this Authority is unable to provide you with definitive comments upon the offer at this time. There has been no opportunity to allow interested parties to comment on the impacts of the package offered through the consultation process.

Whilst the proposal to provide bus stops and a pedestrian refuge on Cromer Road is supported by a safety audit, concerns remain given that a speed survey recorded

85%ile speed of traffic of 51mph at a point just 120m to the north-west of the site.

The legal limit for the road is 40mph and it is considered inappropriate for shoppingladen pedestrians to cross the road. No proposals for enforcing driver compliance with the speed limit have been tabled The Highway Authority has pressed for buses to enter the estate and considers that the applicant should negotiate with the site owner for sufficient land to be made available for the construction of a turning area; such a facility would benefit users of the complex at large when redeveloped. The picking-up and setting-down of passengers away from Cromer Road is considered highly desirable.

The offer to provide a shared surface footway/cycleway lacks scheme drawings, land plans and a signed off safety audit.

Agreement on the Travel Plan has yet to be reached.

There is a holding highway objection to the application, pending resolution of the transportation mitigation package.

Environmental Health - No objection

Mark Wood Associates (Retail Consultant) – With regard to the assessment of alternative sites and the choice of the former Focus store, there is little evidence within the applicant‟s retail report to demonstrate that the company had seriously considered and rejected the four alternative sites set out in Appendix 9 before choosing the application site. In particular paragraph 3.16 of the retail report notes that the Focus unit after becoming available represented an ideal opportunity, largely it seems on the basis that it could be refurbished. However for the reasons set out in the main report, the non-viability of building a new store on a sequentially preferable site is not explained and this is at odds with the company‟s clear aim of increasing its market share nationally. The latter must involve the development of purpose built supermarkets and superstores.

We have concluded that the analysis and rejection of two edge of centre sites

(Vicarage Street car park and the Community Centre/Library/Fire Station) is less than convincing given the need for retailers to apply flexibility in terms of scale and format.

In addition we do not believe that the retail report adequately explains why the former

HL Foods site should not be preferred given that this could arguably be judged to be better connected with the town centre. The NPPF states that in respect of out of centre proposals preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to existing centres. On this basis we are unable to confirm on the basis of the submitted information that the scheme complies with the sequential approach as set out within

Policy EC5 of the Core Strategy and with paragraphs 24 and 27 of the NPPF.

In respect of the impact on the town centre and stores lying on its edge, while this would be negative, there being no evidence to suggest that it would have a positive effect, we do not believe on the basis of the available information that overall it would


38

29 June 2012

be significantly adverse and it therefore complies with Policy EC5 of the Core

Strategy and paragraph 26 of the NPPF.

(See copy of Retail Consultant report (minus appendices) at Appendix 4 ).





Committee will be updated orally in respect of this matter.



EQUALITIES ACT 2010

In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has considered the requirements under S149 of the Equalities Act 2010. It is considered that the application raises no significant equality issues.

POLICIES



Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).



Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies appropriate location according to size).

Regional Policy

POLICY SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development

POLICY SS2: Overall Spatial Strategy

POLICY SS4: Towns other than Key Centres and Rural Areas

POLICY SS6: City and Town Centres

POLICY E1: Job Growth

POLICY E2: Provision of Land for Employment

POLICY T4: Urban Transport


Planning Policy Context

Principle of Development

Retail Matters

Highway Safety and Access

S106 Obligations

Other Material Considerations in Favour and Against

APPRAISAL

PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development

Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)

(adopted Sept 2008) and at regional level, whilst it is a material consideration that the


39

29 June 2012

Government has declared its intention to abolish such Regional Plans, the East of

England Plan (EEP) (adopted May 2008) currently remains part of the Development

Plan at the date of writing this report.

Local Policy

The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy EC

5 which suggests that retail units with a net sales area of 750sqm or greater will only be permitted in the defined Primary Shopping Area of settlements with a large town centre such as North Walsham. However, retail proposals which are located outside the defined primary shopping area may be permitted provided that:-

A need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development proposed; and

no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with town centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations), and

the proposed development would not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres or nearby Service Villages or Coastal Service Villages; and

the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of transport, including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.

Regional Policy

The relevant Regional Policies are set out above. In general they are mainly directed at the drafting of Local Development Documents such as the CS.

Amongst other things the EEP seeks that such documents help to achieve sustainable development, ensure thriving and vibrant town centres, support job growth and ensure provision of land for employment generating uses to meet regional targets for job growth. These policies are reflected in the CS and thus revocation of the Regional Strategy would not materially alter the development plan in these respects.

National Policy

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27

March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements, circulars and guidance including Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for

Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). Although the thrust of the previous policy in

PPS 4 has been carried forward into the Framework, the wording is more condensed.

However, most of the supporting guidance has been retained for the time being including the Practice Guidance to PPS4 – Planning for Town Centres.

Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214 also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since

2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The definition of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other current development plan documents. It therefore here includes the East of England Plan (2008) until such time as that Plan is formally withdrawn, as provided for in the Localism Act 2011. The CS was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict between the

Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters relevant to the determination of this application.

Core principles of the replacement Framework are now that planning should

„proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the


40

29 June 2012

country needs…[and]…….take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas‟ The Framework policy on ensuring the vitality of town centres is set out in Section 2, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 4 .

Paragraph 24 of the Framework states:

‘Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-todate Local Plan…’.


‘When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold….This should include assessment of:

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made.’


‘Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused’.

In considering the advice contained within the Framework, consideration should also be given to the ministerial advice released from the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP – Minister for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March 2011. Whilst this was issued a full 12 months prior to the publication of the Framework, the Ministerial advice has not been superseded by the Framework (except in relation to reference to

PPS4) and states, amongst other things, that:

‘When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory obligations - they should therefore:

(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust growth after the recent recession

(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing

(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)

(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date

(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.


41

29 June 2012

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably….and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions’.

The advice within „Planning for Growth‟ generally accords with the Framework at paragraph 18 which states: ‘The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and a low carbon future’.

National policy advice is a material consideration to which the Committee should afford appropriate weight when making its decision.

PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Support in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon the applicant demonstrating that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available, suitable or viable in North Walsham; on the basis that the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre; on the basis that there are no significant highway objections or other Development Plan policy conflicts or unless there are other material considerations that would warrant a departure from Development Plan policies.

RETAIL MATTERS

The retail store would, according to the applicant‟s retail report, have a net sales area of approximately 1,830sqm. It is not clear from the applicant‟s submission whether this is using the net sales area definition from the National Retail Planning Forum

(NRPF) or the Competition Commission (CC). However, Officers are of the view that the plans accompanying the applications would suggest that the NRPF definition has been used in this instance to define net sales area (See Appendix 4 for definition of net sales area).

The applicant indicated in the retail report that the net sales area of 1,830 sqm would consist of 90% convenience goods and 10% comparison goods. However the applicant has more recently indicated that they may seek to vary the convenience/comparison mix to an 87/13 split to allow, in their words, a little more flexibility. This proposed revision would provide convenience floor space of approximately 1,592sqm and comparison floor space of 238sqm.

Having regard to the requirements of local and national policy, the applicant has submitted a retail report which, amongst other things, seeks to set out the development proposed and address the sequential test and impact test requirements. The submission of the retail report pre-dated the release of the

Framework and therefore the applicant supplemented the report by way of letter dated 23 April 2012 which sought to address compliance with the Framework.

The Council has sought independent retail advice from Mark Wood Associates in order to assess the information supplied by the applicant in support of the proposal.

A copy of the retail consultant‟s report is attached at Appendix 4 .

In respect of the sequential test , at pre-application stage the applicant sought to agree with the Council a number of possible sites to assess as to their availability,


42

29 June 2012

suitability and viability for retail development. The Council agreed the following sites with the applicant (in no order of preference):

Site A – Vicarage Street Car Park;

Site B – Former HL Foods site, Norwich Road;

Site C – St Nicholas Precinct; and

Site D – Community Centre/Library/Fire Station, New Road

The applicant concluded for various reasons in the retail report that none of the above sites was either available, suitable or viable for retail development of the type proposed.

Whilst there was agreement that Site C was not likely to be available, suitable or viable, the Council‟s appointed retail consultant is not convinced that there was sufficient evidence provided to demonstrate that the applicant had seriously considered and rejected sites A-D before choosing the application site. In particular he considered there is insufficient evidence to come to a judgment that the two edge of centre sites (A and D) were not available, suitable or viable for some form of retail development, albeit that a degree of land assemblage may be necessary. Officers support the view expressed by the Council‟s retail consultant regarding sites A, C and D.

In respect of site B, the Council‟s appointed retail consultant is of the view that the retail report does not adequately explain why the former HL Foods site should not be preferred given that this could arguably be judged to be better connected with the town centre than the former Focus DIY building on Cromer Road. This is significant, particularly given the guidance at paragraph 24 of the Framework which states that in respect of out of centre proposals (which include the former HL Foods (site B) and the former Focus DIY building subject of this application) preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to existing centres. The benefit of accessible sites that are well connected to existing centres is the possibility of linkedtrips between the supermarket and town centre and the resultant increase in footfall within the town centre. This can result in positive impacts and so help to maintain and improve town centre vitality and viability, a core principle within the Framework and

Core Strategy policy. The Council‟s retail consultant therefore considers that the applicant should provide further evidence in respect of site B to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test and this is a view supported by Officers.

The applicant has been made aware of the retail consultant‟s concerns regarding the sequential test and a response providing further information/justification for dismissing sites A, B and D in preference to the former Focus DIY building has been received from the applicant and is attached at Appendix 4 . In addition, in view of representations received regarding alternative sites, comments were sought from the applicant in respect of the Marrick‟s Wire Rope site on Cromer Road and the application of the sequential test and these have been included in the response.

Further advice is being sought from the Council‟s retail consultant in the light of the response and the Committee will be updated orally regarding compliance with the sequential test.

In respect of the impact test, the applicants have set out an assessment of impact in the retail report. The report considers, amongst other things, the catchment area of the store (based on the 20 minute drivetime isochrone), population and expenditure, capacity for additional floorspace, existing patterns of trade and the impact and


43

29 June 2012

potential trade diversion in respect of both convenience and comparison goods expenditure.

The Council‟s appointed retail consultant, using his extensive knowledge and experience, has sought to assess critically the methodology and conclusions contained within the applicant‟s retail report. A copy of his report in respect of impact

(Section 6) is attached at Appendix 4 .

Having considered the available evidence, in respect of impact the Council‟s appointed retail consultant is of the view that:

‘It is inevitable that the introduction of a large food store would have an impact on the town centre and the trading levels within the main stores, particularly Sainsbury’s and

Lidl. The test is whether this would be significantly adverse. From our analysis while the impact is likely to be greater than that predicted by the Applicants we conclude overall that it would not be significantly adverse given the relatively robust trading l evels within the Sainsbury’s and Lidl stores. There would clearly be some diminution in their trading levels with concomitant reductions in the number of linked trips which on the basis of the evidence submitted cannot be quantified. However neither store would close and they would continue albeit to a lesser degree, to support the health and vitality of the town centre. One of two smaller convenience shops in the centre could potentially be at risk in the medium term and this would diminish the quality and choice within the Primary Shopping Area. However overall we do not believe that this would constitute a significant adverse impact’.

Whilst Officers would support the conclusions of the Council‟s appointed retail consultant in respect of overall retail impact on the vitality and viability of North

Walsham town centre, nonetheless a note of caution is sounded in view of the element of doubt as to the actual impact on the town centre referred to by the retail consultant. This is because, from the evidence a vailable, the Council‟s appointed retail consultant was unable to quantify the actual likely reduction in linked trips associated with a reduction in trading from the Sainsbury‟s and Lidl stores in the town centre following the opening of a retail store on Cromer Road. In coming to his conclusion regarding impact and in the absence of firm evidence from the applicant quantifying impact, the retail consultant has, in effect, had to rely on his experience and judgment. The Committee is therefore advised to have regard to this element of doubt relating to impact when apportioning weight to other material considerations in favour or against the scheme and whether such material considerations would outweigh any identified conflicts with Development Plan policy.

SUMMARY OF RETAIL MATTERS

Whilst concluding that a store of the size proposed would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre, in the absence of sufficient evidence from the applicant to confirm that the scheme complies with the sequential test, as set out within CS Policy EC 5 and paragraphs

24 and 27 of the Framework, the Council‟s appointed retail consultant was unable to provide a positive recommendation on retail grounds. His further views are awaited.

Nonetheless and without prejudice, if the applicant is able to demonstrate sufficient compliance with the sequential test, it is likely that the Council‟s appointed retail consultant would be able to support a positive recommendation solely in relation to retail matters. Further oral advice on this matter will be given to the Committee.


44

29 June 2012

HIGHWAY SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY

In respect of accessibility, it is acknowledged by the applicants that the former Focus

DIY building is not readily accessible by modes other than the private car. This is evidenced by the site‟s physical location on the western edge of the North Walsham development boundary and the fact that the site is approximately 1 mile (1.6km) „as the crow flies‟ from Market Place. The location of the store is considered to be a significant factor which would reduce the attractiveness of the store for those wishing to arrive on foot, as would the number of main roads required to be crossed in order to reach the store from the town centre and vice versa. This is a view which is supported by the Highway Authority. The location of the store almost certainly precludes the likelihood of significant numbers of associated linked trips on foot between the proposed store and the town centre, which will therefore be unlikely to derive significant quantifiable benefit from linked-trips from the proposed store.

The applicant proposes 10 cycle hoops to cater those wishing to arrive by bicycle

(together with covered cycle spaces for staff) and, in respect of public transport, the applicant is proposing to provide bus stops either side of Cromer Road adjacent to the store with an associated pedestrian refuge to allow safer crossing of the A149. It is anticipated that existing services (Routes 4 and 33 currently operated by Sanders

Coaches) would use the new bus stops. No bus shelters are proposed.

The applicant, in combination with proposals to extend/alter physically the existing building under planning ref: PF/12/0309 (also on this agenda) has indicated that vehicle parking provision on site would increase from 128 to 154 spaces. The applicant indicates that the existing building would be extended by 207sqm giving a total gross internal floor area of approximately 2,885sqm. Based on the adopted CS parking requirements, the parking requirement for the site would be approximately

206 spaces, thus representing a parking shortfall of 52 spaces. The Highway

Authority has raised concern that the under-provision of parking spaces would be likely to result in parked vehicles overflowing onto the adjacent estate road, or even onto the adjacent A149 Principal Route. Notwithstanding these concerns, representations received from the adjacent Victory Housing Trust indicates a willingness on behalf of neighbouring users to work with the applicant and local planning authority should any future parking issues arise.

Nonetheless the holding objection received from the Highway Authority raising concerns, amongst other things, on the grounds of general inaccessibility of the site for people without access to a car and the impact as a result of a lack of parking provision indicates that the scheme currently conflicts with Development Plan policy in respect of CS Policies CT 5 and CT 6.

The Highway Authority is continuing its discussions with the applicant to establish whether the identified highway concerns can be satisfactorily overcome. Committee will be updated orally regarding progress.

S106 OBLIGATIONS

The legislation providing local planning authorities with the powers to enter into legal

(Section 106) agreements, often referred to as planning obligations, with applicants for planning permission so as to regulate the use and development of land which might involve payment of a financial contribution for off-site works, is set out in the

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (para. 122) and restated in the National Planning Policy Framework published on 27 March 2012. The guidance indicates that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:-


45

29 June 2012

necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

In respect of the proposed development and the possible requirement to enter into a

S106 Obligation, notwithstanding the current failure of the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test, the Council‟s appointed retail consultant has

‘concluded on the basis of the submitted information that the proposal is not likely to have a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre or any other centre. Consequently in the circumstances of this particular case,

[the Council‟s appointed retail consultant does]

not believe that a planning obligation to mitigate the trading effects is necessary in order to make it acceptable in planning terms’.

Officers therefore conclude that a request for a commuted sum for mitigation in relation to retail matters could not be justified as it would be unlikely to accord with the CIL Regulations and guidance within the Framework.

In relation to transport mitigation, the Council has been made aware that the applicant has submitted a proposal for a package of transport improvements which is currently with the Highway Authority for consideration. Officers consider that such a package could be considered to be directly related to the application proposals and could be secured through a S106 Obligation in accordance with the CIL Regulations and guidance within the Framework, but this would nonetheless first need to be subject to agreement from the Highway Authority.

Committee will be updated once the final details of the proposed package of transport improvements emerge and once the further views of the Highway Authority are known.

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN FAVOUR AND AGAINST

It is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether or not there are material considerations either in favour or against the proposal which would justify a departure from adopted Development Plan policies.

In this instance, the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration to which the Committee should afford appropriate weight.

In addition to the retail guidance set out within the Framework at paragraphs 24, 26 and 27 and the ministerial advice issued by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP concerning

Planning for Growth, as highlighted above, the Committee is entitled to give weight to the economic benefits of the proposal with reference in particular to paragraph 18 of the Framework which states: ‘The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity…’.

In this regard the applicant has indicated that the proposal would directly create 150 new full-time/part-time jobs equating to 90 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). The applicant has indicated that employees will be recruited primarily from North

Walsham and surrounding area which would aid local prosperity, particularly as the applicant has indicated the store could be opened relatively quickly if planning permission were granted. In addition the proposal would create a number of indirect jobs resulting from the contract to renovate, extend and refurbish the former Focus

DIY building. The applicant has also indicated that the Company would seek to establish and develop local supply chains to support the store. Taken as a whole the employment and prosperity prospects associated with the proposal could be


46

29 June 2012

considered to be a material consideration to which considerable weight can be attached.

In respect of highway safety considerations, the guidance at paragraphs 29-41 within

Section 4 of the Framework (promoting sustainable transport) provides encouragement for sustainable patterns of development which minimise the need to travel. Even though the proposal does not comply with the provisions of the

Development Plan relating to transport/accessibility, it is relevant to take into account the fact that paragrap h 32 of the Framework advises that „Development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe‟.

Dependent upon the oral updates provided by Officers following receipt of further information from the applicant, consultees and any further representations, the

Committee may want to consider whether there are any other material considerations in addition to those identified, either in favour or against the proposal, which are germane to the determination of the application and which would justify a departure from Development Plan policies.

SUMMARY

Both local and national polices support appropriate economic growth including the reuse of existing buildings on brown-field land which help secure jobs and prosperity. In this case, both local and national policies require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with both the sequential and general impact tests before out-of centre sites for retail development may be considered acceptable in principle. In this case, whilst the impact of the store is considered to be acceptable (albeit with some caveats regarding an element of doubt as to the actual impact on the town centre), a further assessment of the latest response from the applicant is being carried out by the Council‟s retail consultant and Officers as to whether sequentially preferable sites closer to the town centre or sites better connected to the town centre are available, suitable and viable for retail purposes. Meanwhile, the Highway Authority has raised concerns, amongst other things, on the grounds of general inaccessibility of the site for people without access to a car and the impact as a result of a lack of parking provision.

Pending further advice on the retail issues, on the basis of the information as it currently stands the proposed development is not in accordance with the

Development Plan on highway-related grounds and there would therefore need to be other material considerations in favour of the proposal if the Committee were minded to approve the application.

It is understood that the outstanding matters of conformity with the Development Plan are being addressed by the applicants and the Committee will be able to be updated once the latest position is known.

In the event that Development Plan policy conflicts remain, it is ultimately a matter of planning judgment for the Committee to determine whether there are material considerations in favour or against the proposal which would justify a departure from

Development Plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Committee will be updated orally on outstanding matters and an oral recommendation will be made.


47

29 June 2012

9.

NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0309 - External alterations including erection of two single-storey extensions to provide additional storage and provision of additional car parking; Former Focus D I Y, Cromer Road for Waitrose Ltd and the London and Capital Group



Case Officer: Mr G Lyon


See also PF/12/0310 above

CONSTRAINTS

Development within 60m of Class A road

Controlled Water Risk - High (Ground Water Pollution)


Employment Area


PLA/20011523 PO - Use of land for offices, diy/garden centre (plus ancillary office and storage accommodation), plots for commerical, light industrial and storage and distribution uses and coach park

Approved 13/08/2002

PLA/20030694 PM - Erection of retail store with access and internal estate road

Approved 24/07/2003

THE APPLICATION

Seeks permission to make internal and external alterations and extensions to the existing former Focus DIY building in order to facilitate creation of A1 (retail) supermarket.

In conjunction with this application to extend the existing building the applicant is also seeking to remove and vary conditions attached to planning permission ref:

PO/01/1523. This element is considered separately under application ref:

PF/12/0310, also on this agenda.

Applications PF/12/0309 & PF/12/0310 taken together would result in the creation of a retail store with a gross internal floor area of 2,885sqm (currently 2,678.5sqm) and a net sales area of 1,830sqm.

In addition the applicant proposes a café area at ground floor with capacity for 40 covers occupying approximately 120sqm.

154 vehicle parking spaces and 10 stainless steel cycle hoops are proposed to cater those wishing to arrive by bicycle (together with covered cycle spaces for staff)


Required by the Head of Planning & Building Control given the direct link with application ref: PF/12/0310 also on this agenda.

TOWN COUNCIL

Supports the application.


48

29 June 2012

REPRESENTATIONS

Seven representations have been received in relation to the application, but none comment directly in relation to the detail of this application. See PF/12/0310 for comments in relation to principle of A1 (retail) use.

CONSULTATIONS

County Council (Highway) – Holding Objection – The application is supported by a

Transport Assessment, which was subsequently amended to include data gathered from comparable stores in Norfolk. The traffic information as amended is robust and it is considered that the proposal has no implications for the vehicular operation of the highway network.

There are transport sustainability issues attaching to the proposal. The application site is remote from the centre of North Walsham at a distance of approximately

1.5km, and even further removed from most residential areas of the town. Clearly, the store will be almost totally car-dependent and whilst it is proposed to increase parking provision at the site, there will be an under-provision of some 50 spaces.

Given the lack of parking there is every likelihood of it overflowing onto the adjacent estate road, or even onto the adjacent A149 Principal Route. No plug-in points are proposed for electric cars.

The proposal to provide 12 cycle parking spaces for customers, and a further 12 for staff, fails to satisfy the requirements of the Core Strategy.

Turning to the transport mitigation package, presented to the Highway Authority on

13 June without prior discussion, other than for the bus stops, there is a lack of substance such that this Authority is unable to provide you with definitive comments upon the offer at this time. There has been no opportunity to allow interested parties to comment on the impacts of the package offered through the consultation process.

Whilst the proposal to provide bus stops and a pedestrian refuge on Cromer Road is supported by a safety audit, concerns remain given that a speed survey recorded

85%ile speed of traffic of 51mph at a point just 120m to the north-west of the site.

The legal limit for the road is 40mph and it is considered inappropriate for shoppingladen pedestrians to cross the road. No proposals for enforcing driver compliance with the speed limit have been tabled The Highway Authority has pressed for buses to enter the estate and considers that the applicant should negotiate with the site owner for sufficient land to be made available for the construction of a turning area; such a facility would benefit users of the complex at large when redeveloped. The picking-up and setting-down of passengers away from Cromer Road is considered highly desirable.

The offer to provide a shared surface footway/cycleway lacks scheme drawings, land plans and a signed off safety audit.

Agreement on the Travel Plan has yet to be reached.

There is a holding highway objection to the application, pending resolution of the transportation mitigation package.

Environmental Health - No objection subject to the imposition of conditions/notes regarding contaminated land, noise and lighting.

In respect of surface water drainage, a drainage survey undertaken with the

Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed that all surface water sewers appear


49

29 June 2012

to discharge on site, compatible with submitted drainage plans. The Environmental

Protection Officer no longer has any specific concerns regarding drainage.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – An arboricultural implications assessment (AIA) was requested by the Landscape Officer in relation to the northern extension which would be less than 0.5m from a belt of mature tress.

In relation to the AIA received on 14 June 2012, the Landscape Officer has commented:

‘it has been confirmed that the development will result in the partial loss

(approximately 25m) of the tree belt on the north-western boundary in order to facilitate the small extension to the store at the rear.

This is regrettable and will result in some of the north-western elevation of the store being visible from Norstead Kennels and along the Cromer Road. Mitigation planting would be possible however this would take time to mature, therefore there would be a temporary visual impact as a result of the loss of the tree belt. However, given the extent of the remaining tree belt and the temporary nature of the impact, it is not considered that the loss of the trees would warrant an objection to the proposals.

I would however recommend that a condition is placed on any permission given requiring suitable replacement planting which would form part of a formal landscaping scheme’.








POLICIES



Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).

Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character

(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape

Character Assessment).


Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature conservation sites).

Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).



Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies appropriate location according to size).


50

29 June 2012

Regional Policy

POLICY SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development

POLICY SS2: Overall Spatial Strategy

POLICY SS4: Towns other than Key Centres and Rural Areas

POLICY SS6: City and Town Centres

POLICY E1: Job Growth

POLICY E2: Provision of Land for Employment

POLICY T4: Urban Transport


1. Planning Policy Context

2. Impact on Surrounding Residential and Commercial Users

3. Landscape Impacts

4. Highway Considerations

5. Environmental Protection

APPRAISAL

PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

See PF/12/0310 above.

Application PF/12/0309 relates purely to physical works on the site, as described above.

PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Both Development Plan and National Policy advice would support the principle of extending the former Focus DIY building on Cromer Road to provide an A1 retail store. However this support in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon the applicant first demonstrating that the principle of an A1 retail store would be acceptable in this location. The use of the land for A1 retail purposes is being considered separately under planning ref: PF/12/0310. This application therefore is concerned only with the physical works required to bring about the extended A1 retail store.

Extensions to existing commercial premises are acceptable in principle provided compliance with relevant Development Plan Policies including Core Strategy Policies

EN 4, EN 9 and EN 10 or unless there are material considerations which justify a departure from the Development Plan

IMPACT ON SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USERS

The closest neighbours are located to the north-west of the site at Norstead Kennels,

Cromer Road which comprises both a residential dwelling and commercial kennels.

The only element of extension that would be visible from Norstead Kennels would be the proposed extension to the north-east corner of the former DIY building which would result in an extension measuring approximately 5.4 x 18.6m long. This would bring the building closer to the boundary with Norstead Kennels and the applicant has indicated that, as a result, a section of existing Cypress and under storey Lime trees (approximately 25m long) would need to be removed to allow for the extension.

These would be replaced by additional planting.

Single means of escape doors would be replaced with double means of escape doors along the northern elevation Whilst the northern extension would be visible from the adjacent residential property/kennels until the replacement planting reaches semi-maturity, given the absence of windows in the extension on the northern boundary and the likely limited access for staff and customers along this boundary it


51

29 June 2012

is considered that the extension with a height to eaves of 4m would not give rise to significant adverse impacts for the adjacent residents or commercial kennels.

On the southern elevation, the most significant changes involve the removal of the former external garden centre and replacement with 27 no. parking spaces and trolley bay. The existing service yard would remain but would be reduced in size due to extensions to the main building and because of the addition of a number of chiller units and air handling units on the ground. Staff cycle racks and a smoking shelter would also be included within the service yard. It is not considered that the proposed alterations and extensions along the southern part of the site would have any significant adverse impact on adjoining commercial premises.

Taken as a whole, it is considered that the proposed extensions and alterations would not have a significant adverse impact on existing surrounding residential and commercial users.

LANDSCAPE IMPACTS

As indicated above, the proposed extension along the north-east corner of the former

DIY building would require a section of existing Cypress and under storey Lime trees

(approximately 25m long) to be removed to allow for the extension. Whilst the

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has indicated that the loss of trees is regrettable and would result in some of the north-western elevation of the store being visible from Norstead Kennels and along the Cromer Road, the applicant has indicated that these trees would be replaced with additional planting. This would take time to mature, but given the extent of the remaining tree belt and the temporary nature of the impact, it is not considered that the loss of the trees would warrant an objection to the proposals or constitute substantive grounds for refusal.

HIGHWAY CONSIDERATIONS

Whilst the comments of the Highway Authority are noted, the submitted holding objection is primarily in relation to the scheme as a whole (PF/12/0310) and not specifically in relation to the extensions and alterations to the building to enable it to be used as an A1 retail unit. It is considered that refusal on highway grounds in relation to the specific extensions/alterations to the building would be difficult to substantiate.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure that appropriate contamination mitigation is carried out (if necessary) and subject to conditions to control noise and lighting, the proposal would not give rise to concerns about environmental protection issues.

Surface water management is known to be an issue in the area. However, the applicant has successfully demonstrated to the Environmental Protection Officer that all surface water sewers appear to discharge on site, compatible with submitted drainage plans. The Environmental Protection Officer therefore no longer has any specific concerns regarding drainage at this site.

SUMMARY

Subject to the satisfactory establishment of the A1 retail use of the site separately under planning application reference PF/12/0310, taken as a whole it is considered that the proposed extensions and alterations to facilitate the retail use of the site would be in conformity with Development Plan policy.


52

29 June 2012

Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposals would not give rise to any substantive objections.

RECOMMENDATION:

Delegated authority to approve subject to no further objections from the

Highway Authority and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

10.

APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/11/1147 - Erection of single-storey and part first floor/two-storey extensions; Home Farm House, Middle Hill for Mr & Mrs

McNamara

(Full Planning Permission)

ALBY WITH THWAITE - NP/12/0482 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to agricultural building; Land at Church Farm for Alby Farming Co

(Prior Notification (Agricultural))

ALDBOROUGH - PF/12/0483 - Erection of two-storey side extension and installation of dormer windows; 13 Ringbank Lane, Thurgarton for Mr D Postle &

Ms H Stevenson

(Householder application)

BACONSTHORPE - PF/12/0408 - Erection of garden shed/open store; Lokeside,

Hall Lane for Mr B Dowman


BACTON - PF/12/0133 - Erection of first floor front extension; 18 Bromholme

Close for Mr & Mrs Starling


BACTON - PF/12/0473 - Erection of rear conservatory; Laburnums, Priory Road, for Mr Booth


BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0457 - Erection of single-storey side extension.; Fox

Hill, Sheringwood for Mr and Mrs Denny


BEESTON REGIS - NP/12/0569 - Prior notification of intention to erect forestry equipment store; Land off Sheringwood, Britons Lane for Mr C Hoy


BINHAM - PF/12/0344 - Construction of children's play area; Binham Village Hall,

Warham Road for Mr A Cuthbert


BLAKENEY - PF/12/0127 - Erection of first floor rear extension; Astley House, 27

The Pastures for Mr P Seaman



53

29 June 2012

BLAKENEY - PF/12/0336 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 8 of planning permission reference: 11/0933 to permit installation of solar panels, reduction in sustainability points and installation of air source heat pump.; Land adjacent to

Sedges, Back Lane for Mr & Mrs R Jones


BLAKENEY - PF/12/0349 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension and front porch, raising height of roof and construction of front dormer windows to provide first floor living accommodation; Leylandii, Morston Road for Miss

Sydenham


BLAKENEY - PF/12/0428 - Erection of front open porch and installation of cladding to parts of rear, side and front elevations; 6 Kingsway for Mr C Albany


BLAKENEY - NMA1/12/0222 - Non-material amendment request for replacement of balcony with Juliette balcony and installation of rooflight; Southfield, 10

Wilsons Way for Mr T Green

(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)

BODHAM - PF/12/0389 - Partial demolition of single-storey side extension and erection of two-storey extension; Stone Lodge, Kelling Road, Lower Bodham for

Mr & Mrs I V A Barron


BODHAM - PF/12/0451 - Retention of storage shed and part retention and part erection of summer house; One Glaven River Barn, Kelling Road, Lower

Bodham for Mr D Aldbridge


BRISTON - PF/12/0430 - Erection of detached, two-storey dwelling and garage

(extension of period for commencement of permission reference: 09/0667);

Land adjacent 104 Hall Street for Exors. Mrs A R Southgate


BRUMSTEAD - PF/12/0244 - Change of use from C3 (residential dwelling) to C2

(children's care home); The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Road for Mr D Knight


CATFIELD - PF/12/0401 - Retention of shed; Swallowtails, The Street for Mr &

Mrs Wraight


CROMER - PF/12/0192 - Erection of single-storey extension to provide sunroom; 42A Cabbell Road for Ms Miller


CROMER - PF/12/0235 - Re-alignment of shop front; 23 New Street for Novedene

Limited



54

29 June 2012

CROMER - PF/12/0333 - Erection of two-storey side extension, first floor side extension, and front porch (extension of period for commencement of planning permission reference: 08/1442); Woodfalls, 25 The Warren for Mr N Jones


CROMER - PF/12/0388 - Siting of timber summerhouse; 8 Heartwell Road for Mr

R Webdale


CROMER - PF/12/0444 - Erection of replacement front porch; 12 The Warren for

Mr T Bateman


EDGEFIELD - NMA1/11/1195 - Non material amendment request to insert bay in ground floor side elevation; 10 Rectory Road for Victory Housing Trust


FAKENHAM - PF/12/0403 - Extension and conversion of garage to provide habitable accommodation; 1 Peckover Road for Mr Baker


FAKENHAM - PF/12/0466 - Retention of timber/steel mesh fencing & door and external garden centre; Morrisons, Clipbush Lane for Wm Morrison

Supermarkets Plc


FAKENHAM - AN/12/0467 - Continued display of non-illuminated advertisements; Morrisons, Clipbush Lane for Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc

(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)

FELBRIGG - PF/12/0285 - Erection of building to house biomass boiler and chip store, relocation of agricultural building and installation of underground service pipes; Felbrigg Hall, Felbrigg Park for The National Trust


HAPPISBURGH - PF/12/0425 - Conversion of storage building to one unit of holiday accommodation; Boundary Stables, Grub Street for Mr & Mrs Burns


HEMPTON - NMA1/10/0329 - Non material amendment request to increase window depth on front elevation of plot 7, install re-constituted stone cills and splayed headers to all windows of Plots 1, 5 & 6, install cant brick cills to all windows of plots 2, 3, 4 & 7 & install dummy window to side of Plot 4; Land adjacent 21 Dereham Road for Victory Housing Trust

(Non-Material Amendment Request)

HEMPTON - NMA2/10/0329 - Non-material amendment request for re-alignment of northern boundary; Land adjacent 21 Dereham Road for Victory Housing

Trust


HICKLING - PF/11/1228 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Plummer's

Farm Barn, Pockthorpe Loke, Stubb Road for Mrs L Hallan



55

29 June 2012

HICKLING - PF/12/0304 - Erection of single-storey front extension and conservatory; Sunset, Stubb Road for Mr D Terrett


HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0437 - Alterations to outbuilding including raising of roof height to provide storage loft; 62 The Street for Mrs R A Thomas


HINDRINGHAM - PF/12/0432 - Erection of single-storey extensions and alterations to existing bungalow including cladding and removal of roof; Great

Crow Farmhouse, Blakeney Road for Mr P Hooper


HOLT - LA/12/0082 - Installation of advertisements (retrospective); 8 White Lion

Street for Adnams PLC

(Listed Building Alterations)

HOLT - PF/12/0380 - Alterations to shop front and installation of two first floor front windows; 12 High Street for Starlings


HOLT - PF/12/0383 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 68 Hempstead

Road for Mr & Mrs Clare


HOLT - LA/12/0395 - Internal alterations and installation of hanging sign; 18-20

Albert Street for Mr B Lawrence


HOLT - AN/12/0426 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; Holt Railway

Station, Cromer Road for North Norfolk Railway

(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)

HOLT - PF/12/0470 - Erection of side extension and raising of ridge to allow for conversion of loft space to habitable accommodation; 15 Rowan Way for Mr S

Mulley


LUDHAM - PF/12/0508 - Removal of Condition 4 of planning permission reference: 02/1375 to permit full residential occupation; Pond Barn, Fritton Road for Mr M Monk


MORSTON - NMA1/11/0146 - Non-material amendment request for installation of gable window; 2 The Street for Mr & Mrs P Tibbetts


MORSTON - NMA1/11/0975 - Non-material amendment request for revised rear windows and omission of door; 2 The Street for Mr & Mrs P Tibbetts


MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0405 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 48 Sea View

Road for Mr Arlette



56

29 June 2012

NEATISHEAD - LA/12/0491 - Alterations to barns and outbuildings to facilitate conversion to holiday accommodation (amended scheme following previous consent LA/2005/0995); Neatishead Hall, Common Road for Mr L Baugh


NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1098 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 47 Bacton

Road for Mrs Sanders


NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1483 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference: 07/0080 to permit revised site layout, design and elevations; Howards Garage Site, Mundesley Road for Dace Homes Ltd


NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0346 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 31

Spenser Avenue for Mr G Williams


NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0377 - Change of use from B8 (storage) to D1 (day care centre); Unit 12b, Folgate Road for Mr P Scott


NORTH WALSHAM - NMA2/11/0078 - Non-material amendment request for installation of emergency access gate; North Walsham Cottage Hospital, 62

Yarmouth Road for Norlife Limited


NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0399 - Erection of side extension; 41 Happisburgh

Road for Mr & Mrs Dunk


NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0456 - Conversion of second floor flat into two flats;

Flat 25, Linford Court, 42 Yarmouth Road for Mr M Day


NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0464 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission reference 01/1018 to permit sale of motorcycle clothing, helmets and motorcycle accessories; Roadkill Customs, Norwich Road for Mrs R Verlander


POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/0291 - Retention of replacement dwelling

(amendment planing ref: 03/1774 to include one and one and a half storey side additions); Decoy Farm, Decoy Road for Mr Thain


RAYNHAM - NP/12/0533 - Prior notification of intention to extend livestock building; Stableyard Farm, Raynham Park, East Raynham for Raynham Farming

Company


RUNTON - PF/12/0371 - Erection of replacement garage and lean-to extension;

Wicklow Cottage, Sandy Lane, West Runton for Mr Hutcheson



57

29 June 2012

RUNTON - PF/12/0439 - Construction of rear dormer window; 10 Renwick Park

East, West Runton for Mr & Mrs N Barrett


RUNTON - PF/12/0441 - Erection of first floor side extension, single-storey rear extension, side conservatory and detached garage; Foxgloves, Lower Common,

East Runton for Mr & Mrs R Hardy


SCOTTOW - PF/12/0421 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference: 10/0569 to permit re-siting of proposed accommodation block; HMP

Bure, Jaguar Drive for Ministry of Justice Estate Directorate


SEA PALLING - PF/12/0322 - Erection of two-storey rear extension; Mimi

Cottage, Church Road for Mr M Harris


SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0211 - Change of use from C1 (hotel) to C2 (residential care home); Southlands Hotel, 3 South Street for Hatfield Investments Limited


SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0269 - Continued use of residential dwelling as bed and breakfast accommodation; Myrtle House, 27-29 Nelson Road for Mrs Evans


SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0367 - Conversion of outbuilding to habitable accommodation with link extension, replacement side conservatory, alterations to storage building and erection of fence and gate; 2 Morris Street for Mr Watts


SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0374 - Installation of replacement first floor windows and alterations to shop front; 31-33 High Street for Starlings


SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0454 - Change of use from dwelling to bed and breakfast establishment and erection of retaining wall (extension of period for commencement of permission reference: 09/0533); The Heights, 1 Vicarage

Road for Mr & Mrs Moss


SHERINGHAM - NMA1/11/0625 - Non material amendment request to omit high level windows and insert first floor windows and alteration to flue; Land adjacent 42 St Austins Grove for Mr A Burrows


SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0565 - Erection of two-store/first floor side extension; 11

Uplands Park for Mr Riordan


SIDESTRAND - PF/12/0381 - Construction of replacement dormer windows and erection of detached garage; The Lodge, Sidestrand Hall, Cromer Road for Mr N

Mason



58

29 June 2012

SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/0323 - Demolition of garages and erection of two-storey side and rear extensions; Stile House, Chapel Road for Mr & Mrs G Spencer


SOUTHREPPS - PF/12/0392 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 15 Sandy

Lane for Mr Strudwick


STALHAM - PF/12/0332 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Peveril Keep,

Brumstead Road for Mr Gotts


STALHAM - PF/12/0365 - Conversion of shop to residential flat; Broadside

Chalet Stores, Broadside Chalet Park for Stalham Chalets Ltd


STALHAM - PF/12/0442 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 49 Rivermead for Mr P Adderley


STALHAM - PF/12/0462 - Change of use of the first floor offices (A2) to create two flats; 110 High Street for Mr J Dace


STALHAM - PF/12/0476 - Erection of first floor side extension; 83 Rivermead for

Mr & Mrs Beales


STIFFKEY - PF/12/0396 - Re-furbishment and conversion of A1 (retail shop) and dwelling to single residential dwelling; Townshend Arms, 14 Wells Road for Mr

M Kippen


SUFFIELD - PF/12/0419 - Erection of storage shed; Allotment Land, The Street for Mr E C & Mrs A Seaman


SWAFIELD - PF/12/0433 - Erection of replacement two-storey side extension, two-storey/single-storey rear extensions with balcony and replacement front porch; Lodge Cottage, The Street for Mrs J Buckingham


SWANTON NOVERS - PF/12/0534 - Change of use of outbuilding to provide ancillary residential accommodation with erection of link extension; North

House, The Street for Mr Darby


TATTERSETT - PF/11/1506 - Erection of 15m wind turbine; Highfield House,

Docking Road for Mr & Mrs Odell


TATTERSETT - PF/12/0465 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 1

Wicken Lodge, Tattersett Road, Syderstone for Mr & Mrs D Wroth



59

29 June 2012

THORNAGE - PF/12/0424 - Erection of single-storey extension to Day Centre facilities; Thornage Hall, The Street for Camphill Communities East Anglia


THORPE MARKET - PF/12/0152 - Erection of pig rearing building; Land at

Church Farm, Church Road for Mr B Laws


THORPE MARKET - PF/12/0163 - Erection of pig rearing building; Land at

Church Farm, Church Road for Mr B Laws


THORPE MARKET - PF/12/0397 - Installation of two artworks; Land at Gunton

Park, Cromer Road for Mr I Braka


TRIMINGHAM - PF/12/0305 - Installation of photovoltaic arrays and inverter cabinet; Hall Farm, Church Street for EG Harrison & Co


TRUNCH - PF/12/0363 - Erection of single-storey front/side extension; 3 Blooms

Turn for Mr A Evans


TRUNCH - PF/12/0431 - Erection of single-storey front extension; The Pines,

Trunch Road for Mr G Bensley


TUNSTEAD - PF/12/0375 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and twostorey side extension; Cottage Farmhouse, Market Street for Mr Whelan


TUNSTEAD - NP/12/0555 - Prior notification of intention to erect infill agricultural building; Church Farm for Place UK


UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0487 - Increase in height of borehole cover;

Borehole No 5, Holway Road for Anglian Water Services


UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0537 - Increase in height of bore hole cover; Mace

Hill Booster Station, Mace Hill for Anglian Water Services Ltd


WALSINGHAM - PF/12/0417 - Retention of air source heat pump and screening;

Windmill Hill, 18 Hindringham Road for Mr Napier


WALSINGHAM - PF/12/0446 - Alterations to front porch; 6 Egmere Road for Mr D

Smethurst


WALSINGHAM - LA/12/0447 - Alterations to front porch; 6 Egmere Road for Mr D

Smethurst



60

29 June 2012

WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0183 - Formation of vehicular access; Uplands,

23 Mill Road for Almeda


WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/0213 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate conversion to residential annexe; The Crown Hotel, The Buttlands for Mr P

Parker


WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/0252 - Reduction in height of rear lean-to extension, re-instatement of windows and bricking-up of window, removal of paint finish, and spotlights and retention of roof light; Crugmeer, Croft Yard for

Mrs L Watson


WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0469 - Change of use from a mixed use of office space, Youth Group and storage to a mixed use of ten Starter Business Units & community space, including external alterations; The Sackhouse, Jicklings

Yard for Wells Maltings Project


WITTON - NMA2/11/0442 - Non-material amendment request for rendered finish to gable wall; Heath Cottage, Stonebridge Road for Mr & Mrs Gilman


WOOD NORTON - PF/12/0522 - Increase in height of borehole cover; Pumping

Station, Hindolveston Road for Anglian Water Services


WORSTEAD - PF/12/0411 - Erection of tack room and storage building; Land at

Meeting Hill for Mr and Mrs K Brett


11.

APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

CATFIELD - PF/11/1345 - Retention of replacement windows; Crown Inn, The

Street for Mr N Sappia


HICKLING - PF/12/0001 - Siting of timber lodge to provide bed and breakfast accommodation and formation of vehicular access; Heath Farmhouse, Sutton

Road for Mr & Mrs K Elliot


NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/12/0012 - Non-material amendment request for increase in length of garden room extension; 111 Mundesley Road for Mr T

Frosdick



61

29 June 2012

PUDDING NORTON - PO/12/0224 - Erection of seven garages with four apartments above; Land off Dereham Road for Mr R Gidney

(Outline Planning Permission)

WITTON - PF/12/0434 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission reference

05/0820 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Barn, Happisburgh

Road, Ridlington for Mr R Ward


APPEALS SECTION

12.

NEW APPEALS

CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church

Street for Iceland Foods Ltd

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

13.

PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS

WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in connection with off-shore wind farm; Site at route between Weybourne Hope

(TG104,436) and Little Dunham (TF868,118) for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd

PUBLIC INQUIRY 24 May 2012

SUSTEAD - ENF/11/0235 - Building of an unauthorised dwellinghouse; Manor

House Farm, New Road, Bessingham INFORMAL HEARING 23 May 2012

14.

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND

BACTON - PF/11/1000 - Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for

Castaways Holiday Park

BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village

Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk

BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1070 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr Barnes

SITE VISIT:- 17 May 2012

BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive

CROMER - PF/11/0460 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Land at Cadogan

Road, Cromer for Mr Roberts


62

29 June 2012

CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church

Street, Cromer, NR27 9HH for Iceland Foods Ltd

LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow

Lane, Langham for Isis Builders Ltd

SITE VISIT:- 17 May 2012

LITTLE SNORING - PO/11/0826 - Erection of 2 detached two-storey dwellings;

Land at The Old Dairy, The Pastures, Little Snoring for Mrs R Fittall

SITE VISIT:- 04 July 2012

SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, Waxham, Norwich, NR12 0EG for

ES Renewables Ltd

SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1238 - Construction of new roof to provide habitable accommodation in roofspace; 15 St Austins Grove, Sheringham, NR26 8DF for

Welch

WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash

Tree Farm, Well Street, Witton, North Walsham, NR28 9TR for Mrs C Leggett

15.

APPEAL DECISIONS

CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 10 Park Road, Cromer for Mr T Merchant

APPEAL DECISION: DISMISSED

STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road, Stiffkey, NR23 1QH for Mr & Mrs Baker

APPEAL DECISION: MIXED

STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing single-storey wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells Road,

Stiffkey, NR23 1QH for Mr & Mrs Baker

APPEAL DECISION: MIXED


63

29 June 2012

Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer... of the Head of Planning ... OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO – 29 JUNE 2012

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib