OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 30 MAY 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1332 - Erection of building comprising eight flats
and one shop; 4 Market Street for MAZdev Ltd
Minor Development
- Target Date: 11 March 2013
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Primary Shopping Area
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Town Centre
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090917 PF - Extension and Conversion to Provide Six Flats, Three Retail
Units and Replacement Public Conveniences
Approved 30/11/2009
PLA/20090918 LA - Alterations and Extension to Provide Six Flats, Three Retail
Units and Replacement Toilets
Approved 30/11/2009
PLA/20060855 LA - Partial demolition and rebuilding conversion to three flats
Approved 09/11/2006
PLA/20060854 PF - Partial demolition and rebuilding to provide three flats
Approved 09/11/2006
THE APPLICATION
The proposal seeks to demolish the remaining structure on site and replace with a
three and four storey development comprising 8 flats and a ground floor shop, bin
storage and cycle parking areas. The site area measures approximately 282sq.m.
The scheme proposes brick and render elevations and red clay pantiled roofs and
timber windows and doors.
Amended plans have been submitted to introduce render to the elevations, to include
cycle parking, to address Building Control issues and to ensure compatibility between
the elevations and floor plans.
An associated application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the
existing structure on this site (LE/12/1333) will be determined under delegated
powers.
Development Committee
1
30 May 2013
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor A. Moore having regard to the following planning issues:
The design, height and impact of the development.
TOWN COUNCIL
Support
REPRESENTATIONS
10 representations have been received, comprising 8 objections and 2 comments.
Objections (summarised)
Height of proposed building and impact upon views gained from Market Street of
North Walsham landmark of St. Nicholas Church, one of the most significant
vistas;
Building far taller than surrounding buildings, not in keeping with general
architecture or existing adjacent (listed) buildings;
Mass of proposed building;
Not enough outdoor amenity space to provide basic amenities, no provision for
clothes drying, car parking. Assuming the two and three bed flats are designed
for families, there is no provision for outside secure play areas;
Would be better to have no building or a proportionate and sympathetic renewal
within Conservation Area;
Out of scale with other historic buildings close by. Would dwarf surrounding
buildings;
Proposals would dramatically change the street scene within Conservation Area.
The roofline has not changed since the construction of the existing building;
Gross overdevelopment of site;
Developer bought property knowing it was a Listed Building in a Conservation
Area. Must have known it was uneconomically viable to repair it in its original
form as are many Listed Buildings. After partially demolishing the building he has
managed to get it de-listed;
This latest proposal would seem to be a further attack on planning process and
whole purpose for Listed Building Consent and of Conservation Areas;
Loss of light to neighbouring properties;
Concern if development would be higher than existing;
Concerns regarding privacy of neighbours and occupiers of development;
Contravenes Policy EN8 which provides essential safeguards for Conservation
Areas;
Proposed development would deprive forever future generations of joy and
excitement as they enter the town from Cromer of an amazing and iconic vista of
roofs of varying heights, different pitches and textures that frame the broken
church tower behind;
Over the years, residents of North Walsham have not been blessed with good
long-term planning decisions that have become hallmark for development in Holt
and nearby Aylsham so effectively. Proposal has limited architectural merit and
would simply not just be tolerated by the residents of those more concerned
communities. Would further blight church precinct in ways not dissimilar to
ravages of 1960s schemes. Now commonly recognised that these earlier
schemes both in the church precinct and along Vicarage Street and the car park
beyond were disastrous steps taken in haste and without due consideration for
historic importance and context of the town. This application is in many ways little
different;
Design unimaginative, poor quality and lacks sensitivity in scale and materials;
Development Committee
2
30 May 2013
Scheme predicated on need to maximise financial return and arguments made in
Design and Access Statement to justify this are lame and not properly validated;
Development would have significant and degrading impact on overall historic and
architectural interest of Conservation Area and should not be permitted;
The Design and Access Statement makes little effort to justify retention of
buildings in the context of their significance to overall character and appearance
of Conservation Area;
Decisions to demolish purely on financial grounds- this is what Conservation Area
Status designed to prevent;
No attempt to indicate that a less intensive use of site has been considered
seriously; this would have reduced overall cost significantly and consequently the
need to over-develop site. Sheer size and scale and notably height; this is the
major issue with this application;
Little effort to research previous buildings on lavatory block site;
Some evidence that previous building may have been destabilised intentionally
as a way to reduce cost of any subsequent renovation. Decision to demolish
building under these circumstances serves only to vindicate bad practice and
sets a dire precedent for future development within what remains of Conservation
Area. Neither Town nor District Council should be seen to endorse such practice.
Not clear whether English Heritage were made aware of full circumstances in
reaching their decision;
Proposals of scale and design that are at variance with design and character of
other individual buildings within Conservation Area. Arguments made in Design
and Access Statement of enhancing setting of church following the manner of
buildings around Market place are profoundly misleading and inaccurate;
Design insensitive and lacks historical integrity. Proposals show a contempt for
the site and other buildings within Conservation Area;
Design and Access Statement states that 'the new building facing the church is
now four storeys high rather than three, the ridgeline is almost the same'misleading. Highest elevation of buildings to be demolished is lower than parapet
on adjacent 1830s building facing the Market Place. New building has a complete
extra storey added. Unnecessary had the development been less intensive and
planners had taken more seriously their obligations to protect buildings within
Conservation Area;
Design and Access Statement states that 'world economic recession has also
made it necessary to reassess the financial balance of the scheme'- simplistic
and misleading. There are unconsidered alternatives. Building would be overengineered and over-intensive use of site;
Development would be towering and intrusive presence as walk down Loke to
church;
Monotone brick features and pseudo Georgian windows and dormers would be
alien and unwelcome in setting of Historical Church Precinct and Grade I Listed
Building;
Despite ravages of 1960s scheme, elements of church precinct remain intact and
are unspoiled. Area still has atmosphere and charm. Insertion of building of this
size and crude design will further degrade what remains of an important historical
element of Conservation Area;
Poor planning decisions have served only to impoverish and degrade historic
townscape- long term impact on character of town and may explain lack of
customer footfall and struggle that specialist local retailers have to un-established
businesses in face of increasing competition from growth of supermarkets.
Examples given including demolition in Church precinct, Vicarage Street, area
where car park is situated to north of church, demolition of 18C/19th C Granary
buildings to north of church and beyond car park, Old Windmill site traditional
Development Committee
3
30 May 2013
cottages;
Suggests positive recent examples- sheltered housing on Hall Road, Church End
House end of Church Precinct.
Comments:
Requires assurance that new build would not impact on light coming into
neighbouring flat and no windows directly looking into flat. If there would be a loss
of light, would they receive compensation?
Where would neighbour refuse bins be stored (currently located in shopping
precinct due to the building site) be stored?
Listed Building and any redevelopment works must be carried out sympathetically
and in keeping with adjoining properties;
Height should not exceed existing roof line and certainly not as high that it
obstructs view from Market Street/Cromer Road of the Church tower.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Given the town centre location and the fact that there is
no likelihood of vehicular access to this development, the Highway Authority does not
consider the lack of dedicated vehicular parking to be of concern. Cycle parking,
however, would be of benefit and recommends that some provision for this is made
on the site.
Recommends conditions in relation to provision and retention of cycle parking to be
provided and that no part of the proposed structure is to overhang or encroach upon
highway land.
Building Control - Concerns raised:
It appears from the plans that the unprotected areas on the boundaries are
excessive;
A smoke vent will need to be provided to the top of the common stair;
It would appear that the current new build requirements for access have not been
met as no provision has been made for a lift. If no lift is to be provided then the
common stair would need to be suitable for ambulant access, and this may
require additional space.
English Heritage - No objection. Recommends conditions regarding materials,
detailing and workmanship of all elevations.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) Without rehearsing the difficult circumstances which surround the recent history of
this site, this scheme is essentially a reworked version of that previously approved.
This said, with the condition of the site having deteriorated through the passage of
time, the need for development has become even more acute. With the building
having also been recently delisted by English Heritage, Conservation & Design can
now concentrate purely on the impact of the proposals on the setting of the adjacent
listed buildings and upon the character and appearance of the wider conservation
area.
In this respect, the site is flanked on both sides by Grade II Listed Buildings when
viewed from Market Street. These helped create the characteristic rhythm of the
three diminishing gables which framed this important view within the designated
area. The submitted scheme simply looks to reinstate this historic street scene by
replacing the demolished structure on a like-for-like basis. Therefore, at its western
end, the impact upon the neighbouring heritage assets would be entirely neutral (if
Development Committee
4
30 May 2013
you consider the former position), and wholly positive (if you consider the current
situation).
Further back into the site, the new build elements stack up as the land rises towards
the east. Again this echoes the traditional building pattern and is considered
appropriate for the context. Where this scheme principally differs from its approved
predecessor is that it no longer provides for integral public toilets. Instead these have
been relocated in the interests of freeing up accommodation to make the scheme a
more viable proposition. Associated with this, the tallest three-storey block has been
jacked up slightly to provide a more workable layout. This would undoubtedly have
some impact upon the existing views of the Grade I Listed Church which currently
looms above the site when approaching from the west. However, as this revised
proposal would only be some 300mm taller than that approved, and with only the
very top of the Church tower currently visible, the level of harm would not be
sufficient to warrant an objection. Rather, it is considered that the overall gains to be
had in terms of reinstating the townscape far outweigh this concern.
On the east side, the proposals continue to address the Churchyard as before. With
the exception of the recent St Nicholas Court, this is unusual with all of the other
buildings historically turning their backs onto the space. As previously, however,
Conservation and Design believe that the gains to be had from presenting an
animated façade more than outweigh any form and character arguments.
Elsewhere, the design has been extensively discussed prior to the submission of this
application. As such, the elevations presented give no grounds for concern at this
stage – ultimately the devil will be in the detail. The only thing worth mentioning is
that the absence of a southern elevation makes it rather difficult to get a proper feel
for this forth side of the scheme. Whilst recognising the difficulty in accurately
depicting this façade, and acknowledging that most of it would not be readily visible
from public vantage points, there is clearly a degree of guesswork involved without it.
Closing comments - In summary, this is a site which has blighted the town centre for
several years and which is long overdue redevelopment. By approving this revised
scheme, it is hoped that things can finally move forward.
Recommends conditions relating to samples of bricks and tiles to be submitted,
areas of brickwork to be laid in a Flemish bond using a mortar which contains no grey
ordinary Portland Cement, sections through the joinery, shopfronts doorcases and
first floor bay window to be submitted, details of the verges, eaves, window cills and
arches to be submitted, rainwater goods to be black painted metal and colour finish
for the joinery to be submitted.
Environmental Health - recommends conditions requiring scheme for kitchen
extractor system for the new shop to be submitted and the addition of informative
notes in relation to extract/ventilation and demolition.
Sustainability Co-ordinator- recommends condition requiring the implementation of
measures to minimise energy use, minimise resource use and adapt the building to
withstand future climate change and requirement for dwellings to meet Code Level 3,
Code for Sustainable Homes.
Historic Environment Service - recommends conditions required in relation to written
scheme of investigation, including recording, prior to any demolition/development
taking place.
Development Committee
5
30 May 2013
Anglian Water - Comments awaited.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact 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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Design, height and scale of development
3. Impact on historic environment, including Conservation Area and setting of Listed
Buildings
4. Impact on neighbouring amenities
5. Highway/parking issues
APPRAISAL
Principle of development
The site is located within the development boundary of North Walsham and the Town
Centre and Primary Shopping Area, where there is no objection to the principle of
erecting a shop and flats, subject to satisfactory compliance with other relevant Core
Strategy policies.
Development Committee
6
30 May 2013
Permission was granted under reference PF/20060854 for the partial demolition and
rebuilding of 4 Market Street to provide three flats.
Permission was then granted under reference PF/20090917 to extend and convert
the building to provide six flats, three retail units and replacement public
conveniences.
Design, height and scale of development
The site holds a very prominent position within the Town Centre and the North
Walsham Conservation Area. The site currently detracts from the character and
appearance of this part of the town, with its poor condition and partly demolished
buildings. 4 Market Place itself has recently been formally de-listed.
The Committee will note that Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
commented that the site is flanked on both sides by Grade II Listed Buildings when
viewed from Market Street. These helped create the characteristic rhythm of the
three diminishing gables which framed this important view within the designated
area. The submitted scheme looks to reinstate this historic street scene by replacing
the demolished structure on a like-for-like basis.
Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions regarding materials and detailing, it
is considered that the erection of the building would help to reinforce the strong
sense of enclosure on Market Street and would broadly respect surrounding
buildings in terms of design.
Excluding the chimneys, at its highest point the proposed development would
measure approximately 12.5m in height, not significantly higher than the previously
approved scheme. Although the proposed building would be higher than the existing
structure, it is not considered that this is an overriding issue as there is a variety of
other building sizes within the town centre and given what has been previously
approved.
The flats would meet the Council's amenity criteria in terms of habitable floor space
and external bin areas would be provided. Whilst outdoor amenity areas would not be
provided, in this case, it is recognised that the site lies within a designated Town
Centre where many dwellings in the area do not have outside amenity space. As
such, lack of amenity space is not considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal in
this case.
Impact on historic environment, including Conservation Area and setting of Listed
Buildings
The partly demolished buildings currently detract from the Conservation Area.
Although taller than the existing building and previously approved scheme, it is
considered that, subject to careful consideration in terms of materials and detailing,
the proposed development would enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
In terms of potential impact on St. Nicholas Church, the Committee will note that the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has commented that, in a change to
the previously approved scheme, the tallest three-storey block would be jacked up
slightly to provide a more workable layout. This would undoubtedly have some
impact upon the existing views of the Grade I Listed Church which currently looms
above the site when approaching from the west. However, as this revised proposal
would only be some 300mm taller than that which has been approved, and with only
the very top of the Church tower currently visible, the level of harm would not be
Development Committee
7
30 May 2013
sufficient to warrant an objection. Rather, it is considered that the overall gains to be
had in terms of reinstating the townscape far outweigh this concern.
In the light of this advice, the scheme is considered to have acceptable impacts on
the historic environment.
Impact on neighbouring amenities
In respect of the potential for loss of amenity, overlooking and loss of daylight,
concern has been expressed by the owner of an adjacent flat. It is recognised that
the erection of the eight flats and one shop on this fairly narrow site would inevitably
result in a significant shortfall in the Basic Amenity Criteria recommendations.
The development would be very closely flanked by neighbouring buildings to the
north and south. Both of these buildings contain flats with living accommodation
windows which would face the proposed development.
The concerned neighbour's second floor flat to the south has facing windows serving
a hall and it would appear that these windows would face towards a hall window and
a blank section of wall/roof on the new development. In this case, the largest shortfall
in terms of the Basic Amenity Criteria would be between the hall window facing
towards a blank section of wall/roof, where the Basic Amenity Criteria recommends a
distance of 2.5m and the development would only provide circa 1.2m. Under the
previously approved scheme, these neighbouring windows appeared to face towards
a roof and towards/over a wall at a similar distance from the neighbouring building.
To the north, permission was granted under reference PF/12/0800 for alterations to
allow the conversion of the first floor to a self-contained flat. At the time of writing this
report, it did not appear that this development had been commenced. If implemented,
the flat would have four facing windows; two serving a kitchen and two serving a
bedroom. If converted, the largest shortfall in terms of the Basic Amenity Criteria
would be between one of the bedrooms and a bedroom on the new development,
where the distance would be circa 3.1m and the Basic Amenity Criteria recommend
15m, resulting in a shortfall of approximately 11.9m. Under the previously approved
scheme, these neighbouring windows would have faced walls and windows,
including a bedroom and living room window, again at a similar distance from the
neighbouring building.
Inevitably, the proposed development would result in some loss of amenity to these
neighbouring flats, but consideration should be given to what has previously been
approved on the site, the fact that the site is within a town centre where buildings are
generally close knit and the need to re-develop and enhance the current site.
In terms of privacy, at this stage it is difficult to be precise in terms of how the
proposed windows would relate to neighbouring windows. The Committee will note
that, should the development be approved, Condition number 11 would require a
scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
detailing which windows and rooflights would be fitted with obscure glazing. This
would require the submission of a plan from the applicant's agent detailing the
relationship between existing neighbouring windows and the proposed development.
Highway/parking issues
Given the town centre location and the fact that there is no likelihood of vehicular
access to the development, the Committee will note that County Council (Highways)
have no objection to the proposed development, subject to the provision of cycle
parking spaces.
Development Committee
8
30 May 2013
Furthermore, Policy CT 6 of the Development Plan allows for reduced parking
provision in order to facilitate development which would enhance the character of
Conservation Areas in town centres.
Summary
The principle of development is considered to be acceptable in this location and
although the proposed scheme does not strictly comply with Development Plan policy
in respect of the Basic Amenity Criteria in relation to neighbouring properties, in this
case, given the prominent position of this site and given previous approvals, it is
considered that the potential benefits of reinstating the townscape and bringing the
site back into beneficial use outweigh these concerns.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including as follows:
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the originally submitted Location
Plan (drawing number 01B) amended plans (drawing numbers 20C, 21D, 22G,
23D, 24E, 25F, 26D and 27C) received by the Local Planning Authority on 26
April 2013 and in accordance with the additional plan indicating the cycle
storage only on drawing number 28, received by the Local Planning Authority
on 21 March 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no enlargement of or other
alteration to the development hereby permitted (including the insertion or any
further window or rooflight) shall take place unless planning permission has
been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
The development of the site in the manner approved will necessarily result in a
close knit group of dwellings where the siting, design and extent of any
extensions/alterations must be controlled for the benefit of the residential and
the visual amenities of the locality, and in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4
Prior to their first use on site, samples of the bricks, tiles and render finish to
be used for the external walls and roof shall be submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority in writing. Details shall also be submitted to
indicate the junctions between the render and the adjacent areas of brickwork.
The development shall then be constructed in full accordance with the
approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
9
30 May 2013
5
All areas of brickwork shall be laid in a Flemish bond using a mortar which
contains no Grey Ordinary Portland Cement.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
6
Prior to the installation of any of the approved windows, detailed horizontal and
vertical sections through the new joinery at a scale of not less than 1:20 shall
be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
windows shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To ensure the windows are complementary to the appearance of the building,
in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design
Guide.
7
Prior to their installation, full details of the approved shopfronts, external
doorcases and first floor bay window, including detailed horizontal and vertical
sections through these features at a scale of not less than 1:20 shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The joinery
shall then be constructed in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To ensure the windows are complementary to the appearance of the building,
in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.4.20-3.4.25 of the North Norfolk Design
Guide.
8
Prior to their formation on site, precise details of all verges, eaves, window cills
and arches shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall then be constructed in full accordance with
the approved details.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
9
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority by the
Local Planning Authority, all rainwater goods shall be in black painted metal.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the materials to be
used will be visually appropriate for the approved development and its
surroundings, in accordance with Policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
10
30 May 2013
10
Prior to their application on site, a full schedule of colour finishes for the joinery
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall then be completed in full accordance with the approved
details.
Reason:
To enhance and protect the appearance of the building, in accordance with
Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Chapter 10 of the
North Norfolk Design Guide.
11
Prior to the installation of any of the windows or rooflights in the northern or
southern elevations, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority detailing which windows and rooflights would
be fitted with obscure glazing. This shall include a plan showing the precise
locations of neighbouring facing windows. The agreed windows and rooflights
shall then be installed with obscured glazing with a degree of obscurity
equivalent to Pilkington level 5. The glazing shall thereafter be retained in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to neighbouring properties, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
12
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed
cycle parking area shall be provided in accordance with the approved plan. It
shall be retained thereafter for that specific use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of cycle parking, in the interests of
highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
13
Each flat 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). No flat shall 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.
14
The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until measures have been
implemented to minimise energy use, minimise resource use and adapt the
building to withstand future change, as described in chapter 11 of the North
Norfolk Design Guide and in accordance with details that have first been
submitted to and secondly approved 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.
Development Committee
11
30 May 2013
15
Prior to the first occupation of any of the flats hereby permitted a scheme for
the kitchen extractor systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme submitted shall include measures
to control noise and odour from the extractor system. The scheme as
approved shall be installed prior to the commencement of use of the flats and
maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To control the noise dust or odour 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.
16
No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a Written Scheme
of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning
authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance
and research questions; and
1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
2. The programme for post investigation assessment
3. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
4. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and
records of the site investigation
5. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of
the site investigation
6. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the
works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation
Reason:
In the interests of recording and preserving items of archaeological interest, in
accordance with Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
17
No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the
Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition number 16.
Reason:
In the interests of recording and preserving items of archaeological interest, in
accordance with Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
18
The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post
investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the
programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under
condition 16 and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and
dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
The programme of works in this instance will comprise an archaeological
excavation of proposed areas of ground disturbance. The Historic Environment
Service will provide a brief for these works on request.
Reason:
In the interests of recording and preserving items of archaeological interest, in
accordance with Policy EN 8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
12
30 May 2013
19
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted full details of
external lighting to the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The lighting as approved shall be installed prior
to first occupation and use of the building.
Reason:
In the interests of public safety and the visual amenities of the area in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0417 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning
permission reference: 11/0212 (requirement for construction of attenuation
pond); Davenports Magic Kingdom, Cromer Road for Davenports Magic
Kingdom
Major Development
- Target Date: 03 June 2013
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Flood risk
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
11/0212 PF - External cladding and use of industrial unit for D2 (entertainment
centre) comprising theatre/cinema, museum, cafe, shop, research centre/archive and
ancillary workshop
Approved 30/10/2012
12/0871 PF - Formation of attenuation pond
Approved 14/9/2012
THE APPLICATION
Planning permission for the re-cladding and use of the former industrial unit for D2
(entertainment centre) granted in October 2012, included Condition 3 which required
the construction of a second attenuation pond on third party land at The Old Stables
(Bradmore Farm) Aylsham Road, North Walsham. This was required in order to
accept the discharge of surface water from the Cromer Road site and help prevent
potential flooding at Bradmore Farm. The condition also stated that the entertainment
centre should not be brought into use until the attenuation pond had been
constructed.
The current application seeks the removal of Condition 3, which would allow the
entertainment centre to open without the need for construction of the second
attenuation pond.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management, given the requirement to
balance the issues of off site surface water management and the economic benefits
of the entertainment centre.
Development Committee
13
30 May 2013
TOWN COUNCIL
Wish to see the business succeed but also recognised the concerns expressed by
local residents. They therefore suggest that a legally binding clause should be
approved to allow the Magic Kingdom to open on 25 May 2013, to allow for the
District Council to close the business down if the condition is not met within an
agreed length of time. The Town Council resolved that:(a) In view of the information received, the Town Council objects to the
removal of Condition 3 but suggests that the business is allowed to open.
(b) The District Council be asked to impose a legally binding clause that the
attenuation pond is completed within a specific period of time or the
District Council will have no alternative but to close the business down
until such time as the pond is completed.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection from residents of Bradmore Farm which raise the following
concerns (summarised).
1. The existing pond was never built to the original specifications to contain the
expected amount of water.
2. The amount of water coming into the pond has increased over the years and can
no longer cope with the current levels.
3. There have been a number of instances of flooding at Bradmore Farm as a result
of the attenuation pond overflowing, the most serious being in June 2001, which
caused extensive flooding to the dwellings. In addition, there have been more
recent instances the latest being in March 2013.
4. If the flow restrictor diverting water to the attenuation swale fails during heavy
rain, in excess of 121 cubic metres of water would be discharged into the existing
attenuation pond.
5. The Magic Kingdom should not open until there is proper investment in a storm
drainage system in the Cromer Road or the second attenuation reservoir is
constructed.
6. We are sceptical that the measures suggested by the Magic Kingdom would
adequately protect the dwellings around Bradmore Farm from flooding.
7. The District Council gave residents of Bradmore Farm assurances that if they
granted permission for the Magic Kingdom and any other development,
conditions would be imposed preventing them being brought into use until the
attenuation pond, approved under planning permission 12/0871, was constructed
and linked to the surface water drainage system.
8. If the lifting of the planning condition is approved we will hold the Council, Magic
Kingdom and Citygate Developments accountable, responsible and liable for any
damage caused by future flooding to our property.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency - Original comments - In the absence of an acceptable Flood
Risk Assessment (FRA) currently object to the removal of Condition 3 for the
following reasons:
The submitted FRA fails to consider the effect of a range of rainfall events including
extreme events on the existing surface water drainage system and whether it could
cause flooding to people and property.
The Surface Water Drainage Statement by Canham Consulting dated March 2013
shows that the rates of surface water (out)falling into the surface water system that
drains into the attenuation basin to the south has been reduced compared to the
situation that existed in 2001. This is due to half the former Crane Fruehauf Factory
Development Committee
14
30 May 2013
being demolished and a proportion of which left un-surfaced, which reduces the
impermeable area draining into the sewer from 5.13 hectares to 4.31 hectares.
It is also stated in the FRA that the rates and volumes of surface water draining to the
attenuation pond from the 0.67 hectare impermeable area of the Magic Kingdom
development would be reduced due to the installation of a flow control device limiting
the surface water to the current 1 in 1 year outfall rate of 59 l/s. The attenuated
surface water is to be stored upstream in an attenuation swale which has been sized
to contain the volume of surface water generated in the 1 in 30 year rainfall event
which is stated as being 121m³. The plans state that in the 1 in 100 year rainfall
event including climate change an additional 50m³ of surface water will be stored
above ground in the car park. The modelling of the attenuation swale should be
submitted to demonstrate that it has been correctly sized.
It is stated in the FRA that the proposed attenuation swale will reduce the volume of
water discharging from the site as it will allow the surface water to infiltrate into the
silty sandy stratum below until the surface water can discharge from the site via the
flow control device. However without infiltration testing to determine the infiltration
rate on the site it is not known what volume of water will be able to infiltrate through
the swale and therefore whether this will make much of reduction in the volumes of
the site and entering the attenuation pond. We understand that soil types in the area
are not conducive to infiltration so infiltration testing should be undertaken to
determine whether it will be possible to use infiltration. If infiltration is feasible on the
site then the water from the site should be drained using solely infiltration without a
positive outfall, in accordance with the priority given to infiltration drainage in Part H
of the Building Regulations.
Although the above measures may provide some surface water drainage
improvements, we are aware that historically the surface water drainage provision for
the site has always been inadequate. The attenuation basin to the south was
undersized for the original Crane Fruehauf development as it was built to a smaller
size than what was designed, and further developments have taken place on the site
over the years which have also drained into the undersized basin and so
exacerbated the situation. This has led to the attenuation basin flooding on numerous
occasions.
The condition on the Magic Kingdom planning permission (ref: 11/0212) requiring the
construction of a second attenuation basin to the south of the site was to ensure the
satisfactory drainage of the site and prevent off-site flooding. The construction of a
second basin would allow a much greater volume of surface water to be stored, and
so reduce the risk of the attenuation basin flooding.
The FRA has not detailed whether the capacity of the existing attenuation basin is
sufficient to accept the proposed reduced flows from the entire 4.31 hectare site, so
the resulting flood risk is not known. Rather than comparing the proposed surface
water drainage flows to the situation in 2001, the FRA should instead be assessing
the proposed surface water scheme in comparison to the benefits offered through the
construction of the second basin, as, although the proposed development may offer
some benefits compared to the situation in 2001, it is likely that it would provide
significantly less improvement than what could be achieved through the construction
of a second basin, which is what was requested and conditioned by the Local
Planning Authority, and what this application seeks to remove. The FRA should
address this issue.
Development Committee
15
30 May 2013
Also we understand that the Crane Fruehauf site was granted an 80 year long lease
to discharge the surface water to the attenuation pond. This was granted in 1969, so
only has 36 years left to run. The lifetime of the proposed Magic Kingdom
development is assumed to be longer than 36 years, so the FRA should consider
what will happen, and how the surface water will be managed, after this point in time.
The long-term viability of the drainage strategy for the whole site is questionable due
to this issue.
Further comments (following recent stakeholder meeting) - No objection to the
variation of Condition 3 which would allow the entertainment centre to open on a
temporary basis for twelve months without the need to provide the second
attenuation reservoir. However the condition should be varied to also ensure that the
second attenuation reservoir will be brought forward, as this has implication for the
development of the remainder of the site.
King's Lynn Internal Drainage Board – Original comments - Objection on the
grounds that the Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage Board (and its predecessors the
Upper Bure IDB) have always taken the view that the receiving watercourse, Skeyton
Beck, is at capacity due to the restriction of several culverts downstream. Hence the
requirement for attenuation as the site developed.
The history of the development of the drainage to this site is complex as it was
constructed and modified over several decades and its operation is still, to some
degree, uncertain.
Therefore, it is the view of IDB that the attenuation pond should be constructed as
originally proposed before any further work is carried out on the site to ensure
drainage integrity and reduce flood risk.
Further comments (following recent stakeholder meeting) - No objection to the
variation of Condition 3 which would allow the entertainment centre to open on a
temporary basis for twelve months without the need to provide the second
attenuation reservoir.
Norfolk County Council Flood & Water Management – Original comments Objection on the grounds that the existing surface water lagoon outfall for the site
has caused flooding of the downstream property due to a capacity problem. The
requirement for an additional lagoon to deal with the flows from the whole of the site
is necessary for the flood protection of the properties at The Old Stables, Aylsham
Road and to deal with the flood risk at the development site.
There is an additional concern that the lease for the existing outfall has only about 30
years remaining.
Further comments awaited following recent stakeholder meeting.
Environmental Health – The Environmental Protection Officer has made the
following comments:The condition was originally imposed in order to protect downstream properties from
the risk of flooding from an undersized attenuation pond.
From the information provided it is possible to ascertain that the surface water
discharge rate from the application site has been restricted to 59 l/s, with an overflow
storage swale to temporarily hold any flows greater than 59 l/s. This flow rate is
better than what was previously discharged when the site operated as a factory.
Development Committee
16
30 May 2013
Additionally, the site has also seen a reduction in the non-permeable area on site,
further reducing the flows downstream and subsequent flood risk.
I am aware that the Environment Agency has objected to the application on the
grounds that some of the information submitted is not up to current day standards,
although they have agreed that surface water flows have been reduced. In addition, I
am aware that other objections have also been received concerning flood risk to the
associated downstream attenuation pond.
At a meeting which took place between all relevant stakeholders on Friday 17 May,
clarification was provided on actual flood risk issues. Although there have been
instances of localised flooding to the downstream pond over a number of years, there
has only been one internal flooding of property in 2001 reported. At this point, as lead
drainage officer for Environmental Health, I am reminded that locally North Walsham
as a whole had a number of properties flooded in 2008 due to a significant downpour
causing flash flooding, but that there is no evidence to suggest that this caused any
significant effect on the downstream attenuation pond.
I am also aware that according to the Met Office, April 2012 was the wettest April
since records began in 1910, but again no evidence suggests that this had any
significant effect on the downstream attenuation pond serving the former General
Trailers site.
Although the information provided does potentially support the removal of Condition
3, given my localised flooding knowledge of North Walsham, I would be unhappy to
recommend removal of the condition at this stage, but instead suggest a formal
monitoring period of one year to ensure that the physical barriers installed actually
reduce downstream flood risk. This time period would also allow the parties involved
further time to finalise terms and formally agree the construction of the second
attenuation pond, which if not done is likely to prevent further development to the
application site and surrounding land. This deferred time period is also seen as
acceptable by the Environment Agency, Norfolk County Council flood team and the
IDB, whom were represented at the stakeholder meeting on 17 May 2013.
Anglian Water – Have indicated that this is outside their jurisdiction
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Development Committee
17
30 May 2013
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Risk of offsite flooding.
2. Economic benefits of the business.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Development Boundary for North Walsham, a Principal
Settlement, as defined by the North Norfolk Local Development Framework Core
Strategy and is designated as an Employment Area, whilst the site of the proposed
attenuation pond is within the Countryside Policy Area. Policy EN10 is relevant to the
consideration of this application and states that a site-specific Flood Risk
Assessment which takes account of future climate change must be submitted with
appropriate planning applications. In addition appropriate surface water drainage
arrangements for dealing with surface water run-off from new development will be
required. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems will be the preference unless,
following an adequate assessment, soil conditions and / or engineering feasibility
dictates otherwise.
Background
To give the application some historical context, when the former Crane Fruehauf
factory was built in the late 1960s, which consisted of one building and paint store,
surface water from the site was initially disposed of on site. However, as a result of
on-site flooding planning permission was granted for the construction of an
attenuation reservoir on land 330 metres to the south, immediately to the north of
The Old Stables (Bradmore Farm). It was intended that the attenuation reservoir
which was to be created by enlarging an existing drainage pond, would have an area
of approximately 1 acre (0.4ha) and be some 4.5 metres in depth, with surface water
discharge from the factory site being via a 450 millimetre diameter pipe. In turn, in
order to prevent the attenuation reservoir overflowing a 220 millimetres diameter pipe
fed into Skeyton Beck to the south side of the Aylsham Road. However indications
are that the final depth of the reservoir was only 2.5 metres.
Following the construction of the attenuation reservoir in 1969, the Crane Fruehauf
site saw significant development throughout the 1970s, with a number of new
buildings being constructed, and impermeable surfaces laid. In addition, the Wall
Engineering site was developed which involved the surfacing over of a football pitch.
As a result of this development the reservoir, which takes surface water from both the
former Crane Fruehauf and Wall Engineering sites, has flooded on a number of
occasions, the most serious being in 2001 when dwellings at Bradmore Farm
flooded. In March 2002 the then owners of the Crane Fruehauf site, the East of
England Development Agency, undertook works to clean out the attenuation pond in
order to increase capacity. However, this does not appear to have alleviated the
problem as further flooding has occurred, the most recent being in March of this year.
Furthermore, the King's Lynn Internal Drainage Board has taken the view that the
receiving watercourse, Skeyton Beck, is at capacity due to the restriction of several
culverts downstream, and they would not allow an increase in discharge rates from
the attenuation pond.
The current owners of the site, Citygate Developments, have permission to re-clad
70,000 sq. feet of buildings on the site without any conditions relating to the
discharge of surface water from the site. At the time when the application for the
entertainment centre was under consideration, ref 11/0212, concerns were raised by
the owners of properties at Bradmore Farm regarding potential flooding. Following
discussions with the applicant, Davenports Magic Kingdom, Citygate Developments
and the owner of The Old Stables, it was agreed that the long term solution would be
to construct a second attenuation reservoir adjacent to the first, on land within the
Development Committee
18
30 May 2013
ownership of The Old Stables. As a result, in order to facilitate the redevelopment of
the site and encourage economic growth and job creation, and at the same time
protect the interests of residents of the Bradmore Farm, the application for the
entertainment centre was approved subject to Condition 3. A subsequent planning
application for the attenuation reservoir was approved under delegated powers in
September 2012, ref 12/0871, before determination of the entertainment centre
application.
Since that time discussions have continued between Citygate Developments and the
owner of The Old Stables regarding the terms of the lease for the attenuation
reservoir, the construction of which is unlikely to commence until agreement is
reached. In the meantime, Citygate Developments have agreed the terms of the
lease in respect of the entertainment centre with Davenports Magic Kingdom and
works are well advanced on site, with a suggested opening date of 25 May 2013.
Given the delay in agreeing the terms of the lease for the attenuation pond,
Davenports Magic Kingdom have commissioned a civil engineering firm to design a
scheme which reduces surface water peak run-off from the development for all storm
events up to and including the 1:100 year probability storm, which includes a 30%
consideration for climate change. As a result, the scheme proposes that a flow
control device be installed in order to restrict flow to the 450 millimetres outfall pipe
and that surface water held back by the flow restriction would surcharge and be
contained within a rectangular attenuation swale, sized at 121.3m2 to the southern
boundary adjacent to the Cromer Road. This swale has been constructed on site.
Flood Risk Issues
In considering the removal of Condition 3 of planning approval 11/0212 the principal
consideration has to be whether the on-site surface water drainage strategy
measures suggested by the applicant's civil engineers are adequate to prevent on
and off-site flooding. In their original consultation response the Environment Agency
suggested that, although the proposed flood risk measures may offer some benefits
compared to the situation in 2001, it is likely that it would provide significantly less
improvement than what could be achieved through the construction of a second
basin.
The King's Lynn Internal Drainage Board and Norfolk County Council Flood & Water
Management originally suggested that the attenuation pond should be constructed as
originally proposed and that Skeyton Beck is at capacity due to the restriction of
several culverts downstream.
The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has indicated that from the
information provided it is possible to ascertain that the surface water discharge rate
from the application site has been restricted to 59 l/s, with an overflow storage swale
to temporarily hold any flows greater than 59 l/s. This flow rate is better than what
was previously discharged when the site operated as a factory. Additionally, the site
has also seen a reduction in the non-permeable area on site, further reducing the
flows downstream and subsequent flood risk. However, whilst the evidence available
would tend to support removal of the Condition 3 the Environmental Protection
Officer has indicated that due to his local knowledge of flooding in North Walsham,
he would not wish to see the condition removed at this stage. Instead he suggests
that the condition be varied so as to allow the entertainment centre to open on a
temporary basis for twelve months, without the need to provide the attenuation pond,
which would allow the situation to be monitored in order to assess if the physical
barriers installed reduce downstream flood risk. This time period it is suggested
would also allow the parties involved further time to finalise terms and formally agree
Development Committee
19
30 May 2013
the construction of the second attenuation pond, which if not done is likely to prevent
further development to the application site or surrounding land.
The proposition to vary rather than remove the condition at this stage was discussed
at the meeting of stakeholders on 17 May 2013. The King's Lynn Internal Drainage
Board and Environment Agency have since confirmed that they have no objection to
the variation of Condition 3 which would allow the entertainment centre to open on a
temporary basis for twelve months without the need to provide the second
attenuation reservoir. However the Environment Agency have suggested that varying
the condition should also seek to ensure that the second attenuation reservoir will be
brought forward, as this has implication for the development of the remainder of the
site. The comments from Norfolk County Council Flood & Water Management will be
reported orally to the Committee.
Economic Issues
The issues raised in respect of flood risk need to be balanced against the economic
benefits of the entertainment centre, which would result in job creation and would
contribute to the vitality and viability of the area and tourism. Refusal to remove or
alternately vary the condition at this stage would mean that if the entertainment
centre were to open as planned, the applicant would be in breach of the planning
permission. Alternatively, delaying the opening until such a time that satisfactory onsite attenuation proposals are agreed or the off-site attenuation pond constructed
could have significant financial implications for the applicant. This in turn may
jeopardise the employment opportunities associated with the development.
Other Issues
The Committee will also note that if the Condition 3 is removed, local residents have
indicated that they would hold the Council, Magic Kingdom and Citygate
Developments accountable, responsible and liable for any damage to their properties
caused by future flooding. The Committee will need to give due concern to the flood
risk issues as there is a duty of care on the Council to ensure that development
proposals do not result in increased on or of off-site flood risk.
Conclusion
In view of the recommendation of the Council's Environmental Protection Officer, and
the support of other consultees who attended the meeting of stakeholders on 17 May
2013, it is considered that the best solution would be to allow the entertainment
centre to open on a temporary basis for up to twelve months without the need to
provide the second attenuation reservoir. This time scale would allow the physical
barriers which have been installed on site to be monitored in order to ascertain if they
have reduced downstream flood risk. In addition, it would allow time for the various
parties to finalise the terms of the lease with a view to facilitating construction of the
second attenuation reservoir.
In the event that either the monitoring data gave rise to concerns or that the current
measures had not limited off-site flooding to an acceptable degree, it would be open
to the Committe to re-assess the position upon the submission of a further planning
application in twelve months' time.
Subject to receipt of the confirmation of the acceptability of a temporary permission
from Norfolk County Council Flood & Water Management it is considered that this
course of action would meet the objectives of Development Plan policy.
Development Committee
20
30 May 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to the further comments of the outstanding
consultee, that Condition 3 of planning approval 11/0212 be varied to allow the
entertainment centre to open on a temporary basis for twelve months without
the need to provide the second attenuation reservoir. Also, that during this
period the on-site flood risk reduction measures be monitored, including the
installation of a flow rate metre on the outfall pipe, to establish whether the
physical barriers which have been installed reduced downstream flood risk.
Development Committee
21
30 May 2013