OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 30 OCTOBER 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A
to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports
have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BLAKENEY - PF/14/0954 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions
to link dwelling and annexe , single storey extension to annexe and erection of
boat store to front elevation of annexe; 50 High Street for Mr & Mrs M Archer
Target Date: 19 September 2014
Case Officer: Mrs G Lipinski
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
Residential Area
Settlement Boundary
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19791387 HR - Conversion of stable forming additional accommodation
Approved 12/11/1979
PLA/19791386 HR - Conversion of stable forming additional accommodation
Approved 12/11/1979
PLA/19800720 PF - Reconstruction of porch
Approved 02/05/1980
PLA/19800739 LA - Reconstruction of porch
Approved 02/05/1980
PLA/19830535 LA - Insertion of windows and door
Refused 06/06/1983
PLA/19881644 LD - Repairs to porch
Approved 29/09/1988
PLA/19881643 PF - Repairs to porch
Approved 29/09/1988
THE APPLICATION
Permission is sought to erect a two-storey and a single-storey extension to link the
dwelling to the detached residential annexe, a single-storey extension to the annexe
and a boat store to the front elevation of the annexe. Permission is sought for the boat
store as the annexe is a listed building. The site is located at the end of a loke running
off Blakeney High Street. The site includes a two-storey end of terrace dwelling with
attached single-storey garage and a detached one-and-a-half-storey residential
annexe. The site has parking and manoeuvring facilities for several vehicles. Listed
building consent has also been sought.
Development Committee
1
30 October 2014
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. L. Brettle, noting the number of objections from the residents of
the neighbouring loke, (Leatherdale Yard).
PARISH COUNCIL
Blakeney Parish Council has no objection to the proposal
REPRESENTATIONS
The Local Planning authority has received one letter of objection from five signatories.
The objectors live in the adjacent Loke (Leatherdale Yard), which is north of the
proposed development site. The objectors raise the following issues:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed development will result in further over-development of the High
Street area and this property specifically.
With the increase in size of the property it is anticipated there will be an increase in
the number of occupants and therefore an increase in the number of vehicles
requiring parking facilities.
There is restricted visibility for vehicles exiting the Loke in which the development
is proposed
The proposed development will reduce or possibly prevent parking in the Loke.
The height of the proposed two-storey development will restrict sunlight particularly
during the winter months to some properties within Leatherdale Yard.
The height of the two-storey extension will result also result in some of the
properties within Leatherdale Yard being overlooked which will create an
infringement of privacy.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design C&D):
Given the confines of the site C&D had concerns regarding what appeared to be a
substantial amount of development. However, when the individual elements of the
scheme were analysed it appears that cumulatively the proposal should not actually
result in any real harm being caused to heritage assets. Negotiations are on-going
between the applicant/agent and C&D, but on balance C&D believe the development
would have very little impact on the built environment visually.
County Council Highway Authority: Awaiting report
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 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and their
setting).
Development Committee
2
30 October 2014
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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
• Impact of the development in terms of vehicle parking
• Impact of the development on the residents of the neighbouring properties
• Scale of the development in relation to the size of the site
APPRAISAL
Policy SS1 No.50 High Street lies within a designated Coastal Service Village. In
principle, development is considered to be acceptable within Coastal Service Villages
providing the development is of a high design standard, reflects local distinctiveness
and compliance to other relevant policies within the adopted Core Strategy.
Policy EN1 AONB designation does not prevent development. Development, however,
is limited to that which benefits the social, economic and environmental needs of the
community whilst not detracting from its special qualities. Given the development’s
domestic nature and relative small scale it is considered to comply with the aims of
Policy EN1 of the adopted core Strategy.
Policies EN2 & EN8 Given the areas status as a designated Conservation Area and
that part to the development relates to a Grade ll Listed Building the District Council’s
Conservation and Design team were consulted. Negotiations are on-going between
the applicant/agent and C&D. These negotiations relate to design details and the
impact the boat house would have on the boundary wall (north elevation). These
negotiations do not relate to the overall scale or mass of the development. C&D
believe that as the proposed development would not be readily visible from any public
vantage points. It would therefore have a relatively neutral impact upon this part of the
Blakeney Conservation Area.
Policy EN4 In terms of design: the development, whilst substantial, would for the
most part be single-storey with only a relatively small proportion 32 sq. m.
(approximately the footprint of the existing garage) housing the two-storey extension.
By virtue of its lower ridge and narrower footprint the two-storey extension would be
subservient to the existing dwelling and would appear as a natural addition to the
existing range of buildings within the loke. With the exception of the single-storey
glazed link between the dwelling and the annexe and the sedum roof to the
kitchen/family room extension all other construction would feature traditional materials
including timber windows and doors.
In terms of Basic Amenity Criteria (BAC):
South elevation: The rear garden of 54 The High Street lies directly behind the
proposed development site. The existing boundary treatment would screen the
single-storey elements of the development from view. Furthermore, the existing
first-floor fenestration of the host dwelling directly overlooks the neighbouring garden.
It is considered that the proposed two-storey extension, with no additional fenestration,
Development Committee
3
30 October 2014
would not significantly exacerbate the overlooking. Given the garden lies to the south
of the two-story extension suggests the proposed would not overshadow the
neighbouring garden.
East & west elevations: The neighbouring property to the west would be unaffected by
the proposed development. The neighbouring property to the east is screened via
mature shrubs and a two metre high brick and flint wall. Furthermore, the distance
between the properties exceeds the Supplementary Planning Document: Design
Guide BAC recommendations.
North elevation: Immediately to the north of the host property lies Leatherdale Yard.
Leatherdale Yard has dwellings to its west and north boundaries with their associate
outbuilding to the south elevation. The rear wall of the outbuilding forms the northern
boundary of the development site. The single-storey element of the proposed
development would be screened from Leatherdale Yard by the existing annexe and
the northern boundary wall. As the existing dwelling directly overlooks Leatherdale
Yard it is considered that the proposed two-storey extension would not exacerbate any
overlooking. The Supplementary Planning Document: Design Guide suggests a
distance of 18 metres between primary (living room) and secondary (bedroom)
windows. The distance between the primary fenestration in Leatherdale Yard and the
proposed two-storey extension's bedroom window ranges from 17 to 22 metres. Given
the historic pattern of close-knit development within Blakeney suggest these distances
are acceptable and are unlikely to result in an infringement of privacy or an intrusion to
residential/garden amenity.
In addition, it is considered that the modest size of the two storey extension even when
coupled with the existing two-storey host property is unlikely to cause any further loss
of light to the properties in Leatherdale Yard. It is felt the above comments address
the issues raised by the objectors.
Policy CT6 The County Council Highway Authority’s report is awaited.
In response to the objector’s comments: It is acknowledged that the existing lack of
residential parking in the centre of Blakeney results in indiscriminate on-road parking,
a situation made worse by the increase in vehicle numbers during the summer months.
Whilst it is regrettable that a number of parking spaces and a turning area would be
lost, it is, however, only the vehicles associated with No 50 that have the ability to turn
around and enter the highway in a forward gear. Vehicles associated with other
properties in the loke must either reverse into or out of the loke. Given that numerous
properties in Blakeney do not have access to off-road car parking and/or turning
facilities it would be difficult, in this instance, to sustain an refusal on parking and
turning grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated to the Head of Planning, subject to no new material issues being made
during the re-consultation period which expires on the 4th November 2014, to approve
subject to conditions relating to the following issues are to be added to the decision
notice:
(i) The development shall be constructed in accordance with the amended plans
drawing number 2367-09g received by the Local Planning Authority on 6 October
2014.
(ii) The external materials to be used on the development shall be in full accordance
with the details submitted in the planning application. No enlargement or alteration
including the insertion of rooflights shall take place without first notifying the Local
Planning Authority.
Development Committee
4
30 October 2014
2.
BODHAM - PF/14/0859 - Erection of sixteen dwellings; Land at Hall Close for
Broadland Housing Association
Major Development
- Target Date: 10 October 2014
Case Officer: Mrs M Moore
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9)
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
Countryside
Development within 60m of Class A road
Principal Routes
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19872029 PO - Housing layout
Refused 17/12/1987 A 15/06/1988
PLA/19951039 PF - Roads and associated works to facilitate residential
development (renewal of application reference 910690)
Refused 07/03/1996
PLA/19940066 PF - Erection of terrace of three two-storey houses
Approved 24/06/1994
PLA/19910690 PF - Roads and other works
Approved 22/07/1991
PLA/20061250 PF - Erection of eight two-storey dwellings and two flats
Approved 22/02/2007
PF/13/1278 PF - Erection of sixteen dwellings
Withdrawn - Invalid 11/07/2014
PF/14/0859 PF - Erection of sixteen dwellings
THE APPLICATION
The application proposes road access serving the site, 16 dwellings and open space
areas. The application comprises the following principal details:
• A single vehicular access point from Hall Close to the east;
• Seven affordable rent dwellings (comprising three one-bed, two two-bed and two
three-bed with a mixture of houses, bungalows and flats).
• Three shared ownership properties (comprising a two-bed and two three-bed);
• Six market dwellings (all three-bed);
• Three areas of open space.
The application plans are supported by the following documents:
Design and Access Statement (Amended)
Ecological Survey
Reptile Survey
Soil Investigation Report
Viability Assessment (confidential)
The application is also accompanied by a draft S.106 Agreement, which allows for ten
of the 16 dwellings to be used for the provision of affordable housing.
Amended plans have been submitted to revise the site layout, open space areas and
the design of the dwellings. The tenure of the properties has also been amended, but it
was not considered necessary to re-advertise this element.
Development Committee
5
30 October 2014
Further amended plans have been submitted to change the roof coverings to red clay
tiles, provide flint to the eastern gable wall of Plot 1 and increase the flint to the whole
front wall of Plot 6. Also that the installation of solar panels will only be required if the
developer is unable to reduce energy demand by 10%.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr Perry-Warnes for the following reason:
The inclusion of shared ownership properties in the scheme and the difficulty of getting
mortgages for such properties, meaning that there is a risk of the properties standing
empty.
PARISH COUNCIL
Response to original plans: While Bodham Parish Council are in favour of this land
being developed they feel that a new ecological survey needs to be done and that the
proportion of houses to rent is not enough. They would expect to see ten affordable
properties for rent and six for market value sale. We would also expect community
benefit in the form of two bus shelters for the A148 which were promised to us when
this development was first proposed.
Further response received following the revised dwelling tenure proposals: The Parish
Council would like to re-iterate their request that ten of the dwellings be affordable for
rent, without any part/rent - part/buy. The previous ratio of rentable with part/rent part/buy was not successful in the original buildings and the result is empty houses.
REPRESENTATIONS
Comments received from one person raising the following issues (summarised):
• Layout supported;
• Scheme heavily dependent on homes for open market sale, which is not what the
village needs;
• Proposes ten homes for affordable rent and six for open market;
• Part rent/part buy homes should be deleted;
• Stipulation that all home built together proposed;
• Concerns about having bungalows on site;
• Development outside boundary so this amount of homes for sale is unacceptable;
• Parish Council position pretty much the same;
• Reported at last Parish Council meeting/on Twitter that the application would be
called into Development Committee.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - Confirm that the landscaped area in the north west
corner is acceptable subject to it remaining open and unfenced, so unhindered access
from the adopted highway is available at all times. As such the visitor parking area
should also remain in the ownership of either Broadland Housing or be adopted
highway. The exact location of the pipe on the western boundary will also need to be
determined before any houses are built to ensure the easement zone is maintained
clear of buildings.
The limit of highway will need adjusting adjacent to the ramp from a type 3 road to a
type 6 and the width of parking spaces serving plots 10 & 11 needs to be marginally
increased.
Notwithstanding the above, no objection to the District Council granting planning
permission subject to imposing conditions in respect of roads, footways, foul and
surface water drainage, road and footway construction, on-site parking of construction
workers and the requirement for a Stopping Up Order.
Development Committee
6
30 October 2014
Strategic Housing - Whilst the planning application proposes sixteen dwellings, the
application originally proposed that eight dwellings would be affordable with the
remaining eight dwellings being open market dwellings. The open market dwellings
were included in order to fund the delivery of the affordable housing. During the
consideration of the planning application the number of affordable dwellings has been
increased to ten, with seven to be made available for rent and the remaining three for
sale on a shared ownership basis.
There is a proven housing need in Bodham and analysis of those households on the
housing list who have a local connection through residence, employment, family
residence or former residence has shown that on 8 October, 104 households have a
local connection to Bodham or one of the adjoining parishes of Baconsthorpe,
Gresham, Hempstead, High Kelling, Kelling, Upper Sheringham, West Beckham and
Weybourne. The size and type of affordable dwellings proposed reflects the local
housing need and was agreed with the Housing Strategy team. The following sizes
and types of affordable housing are proposed:
Affordable Rented Housing:
2 x 1 Bedroom Flats
1 x 1 Bedroom Bungalow
1 x 2 Bedroom Bungalow
1 x 2 Bedroom House
2 x 3 Bedroom Houses
Shared Ownership
1 x 2 Bedroom House
2 x 3 Bedroom Houses
It is noted that the proposed scheme is not compliant with Policy H01 as only 4
dwellings (25%) of the proposed dwellings will have two bedrooms or fewer and have
an internal floor area of 70m2 or less. The plans show that the two x two bedroom
houses will have an internal floor area of 77m2 and will accommodate four people.
The Housing Strategy Team has specifically requested that the two bedroom houses
accommodate four persons in order that they provide the most flexible accommodation
to meet the local housing need for small family houses.
The Homes and
Communities Agency have identified a benchmark size for a two bedroom four person
two storey house of 77m2 and would use this size to judge whether affordable
dwellings are small or large in relation to the benchmark size. On this basis, the
Housing Strategy team would support the provision of two bedroom houses which are
larger than 70m2 even though this does mean the scheme does not comply with Policy
H01.
It is noted that this application is not in full compliance with Policy H03, as sixteen
dwellings are proposed in Bodham which is not a Principal or Secondary Settlement or
a Service Village or Coastal Service Village. The site does however, relate well to the
village of Bodham and is in fact a second phase to the existing Exception Housing
Scheme at Hall Close. Ten of the proposed dwellings are affordable, with the
remaining six market dwellings funding the delivery of the affordable dwellings. On
this basis, the Housing Strategy Team are supportive of the increase in the number of
dwellings proposed above the ten permitted by H03 in this location. The inclusion of
market dwellings, whose sole purpose is to fund the delivery of the affordable
dwellings is in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework which was
introduced following the adoption of the Core Strategy. If sixteen dwellings were not
considered to be appropriate because of the conflict with H03 and the number to be
provided on the site was limited to ten, this would impact on the ability of the scheme to
Development Committee
7
30 October 2014
effectively meet the local housing need, because of the requirement to include market
dwellings to fund the delivery of the affordable dwellings.
The applicant has submitted viability information for the proposed development which
shows that six market dwellings do not provide quite enough surplus to fully provide
the subsidy needed to deliver the ten affordable dwellings proposed. In order to
deliver ten affordable dwellings, the applicant is providing some additional subsidy
from its own internal resources. The viability information has been modelled to
identify how many affordable dwellings could be provided without the need for any
additional subsidy, this shows that eight market dwellings can fund the delivery of eight
affordable dwellings based on the specific circumstances of this site. On this basis, it
is clear that the extra subsidy being provided by the applicant does provide
additionality, in that it enables a further two dwellings to be provided as affordable
housing than would otherwise be the case. On this basis, the Housing Strategy
Team supports the inclusion of the additional subsidy in order to increase the number
of affordable dwellings to best meet the proven local housing need.
If this application is approved, a Section 106 Agreement will be required in order to
secure the delivery of the ten affordable dwellings and ensure that any increase in
profitability from the sale of the market dwellings is ring fenced to provide affordable
housing elsewhere through the provision of a financial contribution to the Council.
The Section 106 Agreement will also ensure that the affordable dwellings are
protected as affordable housing in perpetuity and that they are occupied in accordance
with the Council’s Local Allocations Agreement.
To conclude, the Housing Strategy Team supports this application which will provide
an Exceptions Housing Scheme of ten affordable dwellings to meet the proven local
housing need of Bodham and the adjoining parishes of Baconsthorpe, Gresham,
Hempstead, High Kelling, Kelling, Upper Sheringham, West Beckham and
Weybourne. The inclusion of six market dwellings and some extra internal subsidy
from the applicant will provide the subsidy needed to fund the delivery of the ten
affordable dwellings. The extra subsidy being provided by the applicant has enabled
the number of affordable dwellings to be increased from eight to ten and the number of
market dwellings as a result has reduced to six. A Section 106 Agreement will be
required to secure the provision of the affordable dwellings and their occupation in
accordance with the Council’s Local Allocations Agreement.
Conservation and Design Manager (Conservation and Design) - The proposed
sixteen new dwellings will be sited on land to the west of Bodham village. The
development is a second phase extension to the ten dwellings approved in 2007 off
Hall Close.
The existing Phase 1 dwellings are pastiche and constructed in brick and flint with clay
pantile roofs. This Phase 2 development will therefore follow and pick up upon the
precedent set and continue with the same palette of materials and general design
approach.
The land in question borders open fields to the south and west, with this in mind the
key to the schemes success must be effective boundary treatment, landscaping and
the relationship to the surrounding architecture. The School House which lies directly
to the north of the site whilst not being ‘listed’ does make a significant contribution to
the prevailing character of the area and is one of Bodham's pre-eminent buildings.
In terms of general principles, the density, plot size and interrelationship between
dwellings fits relatively comfortably and is in keeping with the nature of the surrounding
development. The layout links nicely from Phase 1 and adds a swan neck to the
Development Committee
8
30 October 2014
development pattern which will help in creating glimpse views and vistas of the
different plots as you travel along the site.
Leading on from the original submission, the main issue which needed to be resolved
was the elevational treatments and design detailing which failed to match the quality of
the neighbouring Phase 1 development. The revised plans have to some extent
addressed these concerns with the introduction of flint panels, chimneys and quoin
detailing.
In terms of the individual plots, the revised scheme shows there has been a clear
attempt to inject some added detailing and visual interest to the most prominent
buildings on the site - that said, there are still a number of areas which would benefit
from added design quality.
In terms of materials, the use of concrete tiles is wholly unacceptable, Conservation
and Design fear their use in this instance will result in the properties appearing stark
and featureless, lacking the required depth of colour and texture expected to be seen
with a handmade tile.
Overall, whilst Conservation and Design would like to see a more innovative approach
to layout, building design and landscaping, on the whole, the scheme does pick up on
the scale, form and proportions which are locally distinctive to the area. The pastiche
design approach is the safe option and will help in knitting the buildings into their
context and reducing the impact of the development on the built environment and
landscape setting.
By virtue that the proposal will not harm the character or appearance of the area or
surrounding historic environment, Conservation and Design raise no objection to the
application.
Conditions required in respect of materials.
Conservation and Design Manager (Landscape) - The application was supported
by a Protected Species Survey and a further Reptile Survey, prepared by Norfolk
Wildlife Services Ltd dated June 2011 and September 2011 respectively. The main
ecological constraints identified from the surveys were the potential for the site to have
nesting birds and the potential to have low numbers of common lizard and a significant
population of common toads (a local BAP species) present. Mitigation will be required
to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed as part of the construction process, and
to avoid killing any reptiles/amphibians that may be present.
Furthermore, the site is on the edge of Bodham village and the countryside, two
mature vegetated boundaries surround the site on the southern and western
sides. These are important features within the landscape and should be protected
and retained as part of the development.
The housing scheme contains very little information on the landscape treatment. The
plans indicate that there will be public areas maintained by Broadland Housing
Association.
Conditions required in respect of a landscaping scheme, protected species, timings of
removal of hedgerow/trees/shrubs or the demolition of buildings or structures,
retention of the existing boundary hedge on the southern boundary and their protection
for ten years.
Development Committee
9
30 October 2014
Environmental Health - Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the
disposal of sewage and the disposal of surface water.
In respect of contaminated land, although a report has been provided in respect to this
application, further investigation and assessment is required in respect of possible
contaminants.
Conditions requested in respect of disposal of sewage, disposal of surface water and
contaminated land.
Anglian Water - Confirms that there is at present capacity in the foul sewerage
network to cater for the development. Requests that a surface water strategy is
conditioned in any planning approval.
Environment Agency - No comments in relation to flood risk. Recommend
contaminated land conditions be imposed on any approval to include the protection of
controlled waters.
Norfolk Fire Service - Fire hydrant condition required.
Countryside and Parks Manager
On- site provision
Type of open space
Parks
Play
Green space
Allotments
Off- site contribution
Type of open space
Parks
Play
Green space
Allotments
m2
459
104
353
226
Contribution £
16062
5200
6001
7907
(based on population increase of 22 adults and 13 children)
The proposals indicate that 380m2 of parks will be provided together with some green
space in the form of a tree belt. The amount of open space is therefore about one
third of the policy requirement.
They have spoken to the Parish Clerk who has indicated that the village is already well
provided for in terms of public open space, play facilities and allotments. There is a
large playing field with play equipment near the proposed development. There is also
adequate land for additional allotment space when required. There is also a simple but
rather good quality open space bounded by metal railings on an adjacent earlier
scheme
The Parish Clerk also has informed me that the developer may be agreeable to provide
two bus shelters on the main road at a cost of about £10,000.
They would suggest that in this case the quantity of open space proposed is
satisfactory and that for the sake of consistency and unity, the open space should be
enclosed with railings of similar design to the earlier scheme.
Development Committee
10
30 October 2014
The proposals show two footways rather than one but I have no preference in this
respect.
As there is already adequate provision for amenity space and allotments no
contribution should be sought.
They would also advise that North Norfolk District Council would not be minded to
adopt the open space in this instance as it has no wider community use and is intended
mainly for the benefit of the residents of the development.
Architectural Liaison Officer/Safety Officer - No response to date
Planning Legal - No specific comments
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the district).
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 3: Affordable housing in the Countryside (specifies the exceptional
circumstances under which affordable housing developments will be allowed in the
Countryside policy area).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (specifies housing
densities).
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 9: Biodiversity & geology (requires no adverse impact on designated nature
conservation sites).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
Development Committee
11
30 October 2014
of open space).
Policy CT 2: Developer contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
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
Principle of the development
• Housing density
• Housing mix
• Layout and Design
• Landscaping and biodiversity
• Highways issues
• Drainage
• Other issues
• S.106 requirements
APPRAISAL
The application site measures circa 0.58 hectares and adjoins a group of ten
affordable housing units on Hall Close. This adjacent scheme was granted planning
permission in 2007 under the superseded Local Plan.
To the north, a footpath separates the site from residential dwellings fronting the Holt
Road, whilst the west and south of the site is delineated by mature vegetated
boundaries, separating the site from a track and playground to the west and an
agricultural field to the south.
Principle of the development
Under Policy SS2 of the adopted Core Strategy, the principle of erecting affordable
housing in designated Countryside land is acceptable, subject to compliance with the
Council's rural exception site policy (HO3).
Policy HO3 includes a number of criteria which control the location, scale and tenure
mix of affordable housing schemes. In summary, these require:
• The demonstration of a local housing need;
• Proposals for ten or more dwellings to be situated within 100m of a development
boundary;
• Proposals for less dwellings to adjoin an existing group of ten or more dwellings
and not to lie within a 1km radius of any other scheme permitted under the policy;
• Occupation limited to local people within the Parish and adjacent Parishes.
However, given changes in the availability of public funding and the publication of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Council has an amended, more
flexible approach to affordable housing provision. This flexibility is principally in respect
of the scale of the development and the inclusion of some market housing, where their
provision would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to
meet local needs.
In respect of scale, the scheme would be of a size considered appropriate for the
location, would continue the pattern of the existing affordable housing scheme on Hall
Close and would be well-connected to the village and facilities of Bodham.
Significantly, the main purpose of the development would be to provide affordable
Development Committee
12
30 October 2014
housing, with a level of market housing that would facilitate the affordable housing. It is
not considered that there would be any significant harm as a result of the development.
Further, whilst the site is not in a selected village and the sustainability of the location
therefore needs to be questioned, Bodham is not without certain facilities, including a
public house and a village hall, and development of this site would help to support
these facilities. The village appears to be served by fairly frequent bus services.
The Committee will note that the Strategic Housing team have confirmed that there is a
local affordable housing need in the Parish/adjacent Parishes and that this proposal
has been designed to specifically address that local need.
Furthermore, the applicant has put forward the following case for the approval of the
scheme:
• The previous development of the land for ten units has left an awkward area of
land, which has a history of being used as a dumping ground for builder's waste;
• The village can accommodate and support the additional 16 dwellings;
• The aim of Policy H03 is to ensure that exception sites are distributed across the
district and that given the level of support for this 'second phase' and the continued
need for more housing, a variation from policy is acceptable;
• The variation from policy is supported by the NPPF;
• Level of support for this second phase and continued need for more housing;
• Broadland Housing Association have a proven track record of delivering high
quality affordable homes;
• The sale of the open market dwellings would generate the surplus to subsidise the
affordable dwellings;
• Given the current funding situation, opportunities for affordable housing to be
delivered are becoming fewer so that when opportunities such as this arise they
should be encouraged;
• It is recognised that villages need to be kept vibrant and sustainable and the main
way that this can be achieved is through the provision of new homes to allow
people to stay living in the village.
In summary, it is considered that there are sufficient material considerations in this
instance to permit a departure from adopted Policy HO3 in respect of the location of
the dwellings and the provision of market housing to subsidise additional affordable
housing.
Housing density
Policy HO7 (density) indicates that proposals for residential development will be
permitted provided that the development optimises the density of the site in a manner
that protects or enhances the character of the area. Whilst Policy generally
encourages housing to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per
hectare, it is accepted that a more flexible approach to density is appropriate for
exception sites in the Countryside.
In this instance, the scheme would represent a housing density of approximately 28
dwellings per hectare. With consideration given to the context of the site and
surrounding densities, it is considered that the density proposed would be acceptable.
Housing Mix
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise at
least 40% of dwellings (7 units) with no more than two bedrooms and with a floorspace
not more than 70 sqm. The reason for this policy is to attempt to redress an existing
imbalance of larger detached dwellings in the district.
Development Committee
13
30 October 2014
Analysis of the proposal against Policy HO1 shows that only 25% (4 units) of the
development is to comprise properties of 2 bedrooms or less and 70sqm or less. The
figure rises to 37.5% (6 units) if 2 bedroom properties of 77 sqm are included. The
remaining units would all have three bedrooms and floor areas of circa 90 sqm.
Given that the scheme does not propose any significantly large units, it is not
considered that the slight non-compliance with Policy HO1 warrants a refusal.
The Committee will note the comments from the Council's Strategic Housing team,
concluding that the size and type of affordable dwellings proposed under this scheme
(including the three units proposed for shared ownership) reflects the local housing
need and was agreed with the Housing Strategy team.
Layout and design
The layout has been heavily led by the access point from the existing affordable
housing scheme on Hall Close. Whilst the layout lacks an innovative approach, it is
considered that the dwellings would sit comfortably within the site and that the layout
would be appropriate for the setting. New footpaths would link with the existing
footpaths running to the north of the site and open space areas would provide areas of
accessible amenity land to residents.
There is a mix of building types, heights, styles and designs within the vicinity and,
against this backdrop, the proportions and design of the proposed units are not
considered to be out of context. The Committee will note that the Conservation and
Design Manager has no overriding objection to the scheme, subject to conditions
regarding materials.
Whilst it is recognised that there would be some shortfalls in the Basic Amenity Criteria
(BAC) recommendations for window-to-window distances between proposed
dwellings and existing dwellings to the east, it is considered that most of these issues
could be overcome by boundary screening and that remaining shortfalls do not warrant
a refusal in this instance.
Landscaping and biodiversity
Given the mature vegetated boundaries delineating the site to the west and south, the
site is not overly prominent within the wider landscape. Subject to the retention and
protection of these boundaries, it is not considered that the proposed development
would harm the surrounding Countryside. The Committee will note that the Landscape
Officer has no objection subject to conditions.
In respect of biodiversity, ecology and biodiversity reports have been submitted and
the Committee will note no objection has been raised by the Landscape Officer subject
to conditions in this respect.
Highways issues
The application proposes a single point of access from the east, through the existing
affordable housing scheme. It is proposed that the road and shared surface parking
court would be of tarmac construction.
The Council's parking standards require a minimum of 19 spaces for this development.
As amended, the scheme proposes a total of 36 car parking spaces, although it is
recognised that some of these spaces fall short of the parking space sizes.
Development Committee
14
30 October 2014
The Committee will note that Bodham Parish Council have requested that two bus
shelters are provided on the A148 by the developer as part of this application. This is
not something that the Highway Authority have requested and, as their provision would
not meet the legal tests of being:
• 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,
it is not considered that the application could be refused on these grounds.
The Committee will note that the Highway Authority have not raised any objection to
the scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Drainage
The application indicates that surface water will be discharged on the site with the use
of soakaways, although no precise system has been submitted. Environmental Health
have considered the information submitted and have commented that subject to a
condition to agree the surface water drainage scheme prior to the commencement of
development there are no objections.
In respect of foul water, the application indicates connection to the mains sewer.
Anglian Water has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity for the development.
Other issues
The applicant has indicated that the dwellings would be constructed in accordance
with Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, in accordance with Policy EN6.
Policy EN6 also requires 10% of the predicted total energy usage of the development
to be provided by on-site renewable energy technology. Instead, the applicant is
proposing that dwellings would be constructed to reduce the sites energy demand by
10% instead, by super insulating the walls.
This is considered to be acceptable subject to a condition.
In respect of land contamination, Environmental Health and the Environment Agency
have advised that further investigation and assessment into the presence of possible
contaminants affecting the site is required. This will form part of a condition.
A fire hydrant would be required as part of the development.
S.106 requirements
If planning permission is to be granted for this development, a S.106 Agreement will
need to be completed to secure the following:
- The provision of affordable housing
A draft version of the S.106 has been prepared and negotiations are continuing in
order to reach final agreement.
Summary
Whilst the proposed scheme does not strictly comply with Development Plan policies
in respect of the provision of affordable housing and dwelling type and mix, in this
case, given the proposed delivery of ten affordable dwellings, the close proximity of the
site to the village and given that there would not be any significant harm as a result of
the development, it is considered that the potential benefits outweigh the concerns.
Development Committee
15
30 October 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning to APPROVE subject to:
(i) Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms set out in
the report.
(ii) To include the specific conditions listed below and any other conditions considered
to be appropriate by the Head of Planning
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section
51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
This permission is granted in accordance with the submitted and approved
plans, drawings and specifications.
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 details submitted with the application and prior to their first
use on site, brick and tile samples to be used for the development hereby
approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in
writing. 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 Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy and Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all rainwater
good shall be finished in black.
Reason:
In order for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the colour finish will
be visually appropriate for the approved development and its surroundings, in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
5
Other than site clearance, no works shall commence on the site until such time
as detailed plans of the roads, footways foul and surface water drainage have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with the Highway Authority and Environmental Health. All
construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site and a satisfactory standard of
highway design and construction, in accordance with Policies CT 5 and EN 13
Development Committee
16
30 October 2014
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6
No works shall be carried out on roads, footways foul and surface water
sewers otherwise than in accordance with the specifications of the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority and Environmental
Health.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure estate roads are
constructed to a standard suitable for adoption as public highway, in accordance
with Policies CT 5 and EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
7
Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, the roads
and footways shall be constructed to binder course surfacing level from the
dwelling to the adjoining County road in accordance with details that have first
been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the
Highway Authority.
Reason:
To ensure satisfactory development of the site, in accordance with Policy CT 5 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
8
Other than site clearance, development shall not commence until a scheme
detailing provision for on site parking for construction workers for the duration of
the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented throughout the
construction period.
Reason:
To ensure adequate off street parking during construction in the interests of
highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
9
No works shall commence to the area of the turning head coloured yellow on the
attached plan until such time as a Stopping Up Order to remove all highway rights
subsisting in the highway land coloured yellow on the plan has been granted and
all Highway rights over the yellow land have been successfully removed.
Reason:
To ensure that development does not take place within Highway land, in
accordance with Policy CT 5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
10
Other than site clearance, development shall not commence until a scheme
detailing provision of car parking for the dwellings has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of the associated dwelling.
Reason:
To ensure adequate parking, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
11
Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, no means
of enclosure shall be erected around the areas of open space, landscaped areas
or the visitor parking area as indicated on the approved plan.
Development Committee
17
30 October 2014
Reason:
To enable unhindered Highway access to the land, in accordance with Policy
CT5 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
12
Within three months of the commencement of development, a scheme shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority which provides for a fire hydrant on the
development in a location agreed with the Council in consultation with Norfolk
Fire and Rescue Service. The scheme as approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority shall prior to the first occupation of the buildings and retained
thereafter (see Note 3).
Reason:
In order to ensure adequate water infrastructure provision is made on site for the
local fire service to tackle any property fire in accordance with Policy CT 2 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
13
With the exception of site clearance, no development shall take place until an
investigation and assessment into the presence of possible contaminants
affecting the site has been carried out in accordance with details which have first
been approved in consultation with the Local Planning Authority. The findings of
the assessment shall then be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in
writing. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority,
no development shall take place on those areas of the site which have been
identified as potentially containing contaminants until a scheme to protect the
exposure of future users of the site and the environment from hazards
associated with the contaminants has firstly been approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, and secondly implemented in full.
Reason:
In the interests of public health and safety, and in accordance with Policy EN 13
of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by paragraphs
3.3.71-3.3.72 of the explanatory text.
14
Prior to their installation, full details of any proposed Air Source Heat Pumps to
be installed as part of the approved development, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall
specify measures to control noise from the equipment. The equipment shall be
installed and maintained thereafter in full accordance with the approved details.
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.
15
Unless otherwise approved in writing, the development hereby approved shall be
carried out in strict accordance with the protected species mitigation measures
outlined in the Reptile Survey prepared by Norfolk Wildlife Services dated
September 2011.
Reason:
To ensure that the impact of the development on protected species is
appropriately mitigated in accordance with Policy EN 9 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
16
No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs or works to or the demolition of
Development Committee
18
30 October 2014
buildings or structures that may be used by breeding birds shall take place
between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has
undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation or structures for active birds’
nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared or structure modified or
demolished and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or
that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on
site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority and approved in writing.
Reason:
To ensure that the impact of the development on protected species is
appropriately mitigated in accordance with Policy EN 9 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
17
Within three months of the commencement of development, a hard and soft
landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
The scheme shall indicate the species, number and size of new trees and shrubs
at the time of their planting.
The scheme shall also include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on
the land, with details of those to be retained (which shall include details of
species and canopy spread), together with measures for their protection during
the course of development.
The scheme shall also include the retention and maintenance of the existing
hedgerow along the southern boundary, at a minimum height of 2 metres from
ground level, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a
period of not less than ten years from the date of this permission.
The scheme shall also include surface treatments of all car parking and
manoeuvring areas, pedestrian access routes and courtyards and all means of
enclosure, including boundary treatments.
The scheme shall also incorporate a maintenance scheme for a period of at least
ten years.
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 and to retain control over
this aspect of the development in the interests of the relationship to nearby
properties in accordance with the requirements of Policy EN 4 of the adopted
North Norfolk Core Strategy.
18
None of the existing trees or hedgerows, which are indicated in the approved
scheme to be retained (including those trees on the western boundary), shall be
lopped, topped, uprooted, felled or in any other way destroyed, within ten years of
the date of this permission, without prior consent of the Local Planning Authority
in writing.
Reason:
Development Committee
19
30 October 2014
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.
19
The dwellings 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 dwelling 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.
20
With the exception of site clearance, no development shall commence until full
details of how dwellings shall be constructed to reduce the energy demand of the
site by at least 10 percent have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall then be implemented in full
accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
In the interests of achieving the required level of renewable energy supply in
accordance with Policy EN 6 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/1085 - Conversion of stables to
dwelling; The Stables, Home Farm House, Blakeney Road for Mr R Garnett
Minor Development
- Target Date: 22 October 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
PLANNING HISTORY
77/1100 PF – Renewal of planning permission reference E8884 – Conversion of stable
into dwelling - Approved 5/8/1977.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a former stable building of brick and flint construction under a
clay pantile roof to a two bedroom unit of residential accommodation.
The dwelling would have a ground floor area of some 75 sq. metres with a spiral
staircase leading to a gallery landing, which would provide an informal sleeping space
and bathroom, partially within the roof space, which combined would have a floor area
of 48 sq. metres.
The ground floor would be lit by glazing within the existing openings to the north
elevation whilst the upper floor would be served by two roof lights to the north elevation
and a further roof light to the southern roof slope.
Development Committee
20
30 October 2014
Access to the site would be via an existing gravel driveway to the east of No. 6 Home
Farm with parking within the curtilage of the proposed dwelling for two vehicles, which
would involve the demolition of a section of courtyard wall.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting in order to allow Members to visit
the site.
PARISH COUNCIL - Objects on the following grounds:1. The applicant does state if the accommodation is for permanent or for holiday use.
2. The applicant has omitted to answer the Flood Zone question. It is quite clearly in
the flood zone.
3. Concerns over the extra vehicles using the Home Farm entrance. This
development could possibly mean six extra vehicles in this vicinity.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection have been received from residents of Home Farm which raise the
following concerns (summarised):• The proposed development whether by itself or in conjunction with the related
applications in respect of the Dairy and Coach House would result in a significant
increase in the use of the single point of access with the consequent increase in
noise, disturbance and traffic congestion within the complex.
• The entrance off the Blakeney Road is only a single carriageway width.
• The proposed development would result in a 33% increase and the gravel
driveway is not robust enough to sustain this increase.
• Cramped form of development in a Conservation Area.
• Dwellings would have no appreciable outside space.
• Loss of privacy.
• Would involve the removal of trees.
CONSULTATIONS
Adjacent Parish - Field Dalling and Saxlingham Parish Council offers no objection or
comment.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer – No objection - The Highways Authority has
indicated that the existing private driveway currently serves 9 dwellings in addition to
an unconverted building 'The Coach House' which was granted consent in 1977 as
part of the larger scale redevelopment on the adjacent site, this consent remains
extant, taking the number to 10. The maintenance of the driveway is managed by the
'Home Farm Residents Association' and is already over the 8 usually permissible from
a private driveway, for this reason, they raise no object to the additional unit.
In terms of the access onto the Blakeney Road, the Highways Authority indicate that
whilst an awkward shape it manages to meet the required width and depth criteria for a
shared access, allowing adequate space for two-way vehicle movements, but is
unmade, with evidence of water ingress into the site from the adjacent public highway.
As such in order to address this issue and provide an improved alignment with the
adopted highway, the Highways Authority would seek conditions on any approval
requiring to re-align the outbound kerbline, install frontage kerbing to prevent water
ingress and a channel drain to the rear, connected to the existing drainage system. In
addition, they would require the access to provide a bound surfacing to assist access
and egress manoeuvres at the site.
Development Committee
21
30 October 2014
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No objection. - Considers that the proposal would not have
an adverse impact on the AONB, and providing the scheme of conversion is
undertaken in a sensitive would contribute to conserving the built heritage of the area.
Environmental Health - No objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection, subject to
the satisfactory receipt of information which demonstrates that as part of this
authority's statutory duties whether a licence is likely to be granted by Natural England
in respect of bats. The applicant therefore needs to demonstrate by way of the three
‘derogation tests’: that there is no satisfactory alternative to the development, that the
development is in the overriding public interest, and that the favourable conservation
status of the local bat populations will be maintained.
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 HO9: Conversion and re-use of rural Buildings as Dwellings (The site lies
within an area where the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may
be permitted).
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 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 on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
4. Principle of development
5. Impact on the Conservation Area
6. Impact on neighbouring properties
7. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Development Committee on 2
October 2014 in order to allow Members to visit the site.
Development Committee
22
30 October 2014
There are related planning applications within the Home Farm complex PF/14/1086 The Dairy, Home Farm and PF 14/1087 - The Coach House, Home Farm which are
also for consideration as part of this agenda. Whilst each application needs to be
considered on its individual merits, their cumulatively impact is a material
consideration in the determination of this application.
The site is situated in the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy and is also with the Norfolk Coast Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where Core
Strategy Policies HO9, EN1, EN4, EN8, CT5 and CT6 are applicable.
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
countryside for permanent residential purposes where the building is within an area
identified on the Proposal Map for that purpose or is worthy of retention due to its
appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value. In addition, the development
should accord with the criteria contained in 3 of the Policy which requires that the
building is structurally sound and capable of conversion to residential use without
substantial rebuilding and or extension and that the alterations protect or enhance the
character of the building and its setting.
Policy EN1 states that the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect,
on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed.
Development will be permitted where it does not detract from the special qualities of
the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads. In addition opportunities for remediation and
improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set; ensure that the scale and massing
of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area; and retain existing
important landscaping and natural features. In addition, proposals should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new
dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Policy EN8 Development proposals, including alterations and extensions, should
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets, in this case
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area through high quality, sensitive design.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that the development is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the
locality. Whilst there should be adequate car parking facilities to serve the needs of the
development.
Forming part of the Home Farm House complex, which consists of the main farmhouse
and eight other residential dwellings, which were converted from the original barns and
outbuildings in the early 1970s, the stables which abuts the Blakeney Road is attached
to Nos. 5 and 4 Home Farm.
As far as the principle of development is concerned the stables form part of an
attractive range of buildings which front the highway, which are of historic, architectural
or landscape value and worthy of retention. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated
that they are capable of conversion to residential use without substantial rebuilding
and or extension.
Development Committee
23
30 October 2014
Whilst in terms of the actual physical alteration, with the exception of a conservation
roof light to the roof slope fronting the highway there would be no other alterations to
the roadside elevation. Whilst within the site the alterations would be kept to a
minimum with the existing openings being utilised to lit the ground floor of the building
and two new conservation roof lights introduced to lit the upper gallery landing. As a
result it is considered that the alterations would protect the character and appearance
of the building and its setting within the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. However, in
order to provide car parking within the site the scheme would involve the demolition of
a section of the courtyard wall, which is somewhat regrettable, as it currently
contributes to the sense of enclosure.
Turning to the impact on neighbouring properties given the position of the proposed
dwelling relative to the main farmhouse and No. 3 Home Farm there would be no
amenity issues in terms of overlooking from the proposed ground floor windows. Whilst
given the position of the proposed roof lights in the northern roof slope and their fairly
oblique angle relative to the neighbouring properties it is not considered that there
would be any significant issues of overlooking or loss of privacy. In terms of the
relationship to the Old Dairy immediately to the north, (14/1086 - which is also under
consideration as part of this agenda), given the proposed boundary treatment it is not
considered that there would be any amenity issues.
In terms of the amenity space available for the proposed dwelling, the North Norfolk
Design Guide suggests that the area given over to private amenity space should be no
less than the footprint of the dwelling. In this particular case the amenity space would
be in the region of 67 sq. metres which is considered to be inadequate to serve the
needs of the dwelling.
Another area of concern which needs to be addressed is the relationship of the
proposed driveway serving the stables to Home Farm House, in terms of potential
issues of noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the farmhouse and also car parking
within the site. As proposed the driveway, which would also be used by the Old Dairy,
abuts a single storey element of the farmhouse, whilst car parking and manoeuvring
within the site would be extremely tight and not practical. Further consideration
therefore needs to be given both to the position of the driveway and car parking
arrangement in order to improve the relationship with Home Farm House. This might
involve incorporating the Old Dairy into the scheme of conversion for the stables,
possibly as ancillary accommodation. This would have the added benefits of
increasing the level of amenity area for the stables, alleviating the need to demolish the
section of courtyard wall and reducing the vehicular usage of the driveway through the
Home Farm complex, which is an issue raised by residents of Home Farm.
The access to Home Farm currently serves 9 dwellings, however given that there is an
extant planning permission relating to the coach house, dating back to 1977, this could
bring the total number of dwellings to 10. The private driveway serving the whole
development is managed by the Home Farm Residents Association and is of a gravel
finish and although primarily single track widens out to serve a garage court just within
the site and again further into the complex where there is residents parking. As such,
given the relatively low key use of the site it is not considered that there would be
issues of traffic congestion. However, given the surface finish to the driveway it is
accepted that there could be some increase in noise and disturbance particularly to the
occupiers of Nos. 2 and 3 Home Farm who’s properties abut the driveway which would
serve the stables.
The Highways Authority has indicated that as the driveway already serves more
dwellings than are usual permissible off a private driveway it could not object to an
Development Committee
24
30 October 2014
additional dwelling. Whilst in terms of the access itself subject to the realignment of the
outbound kerb, the introduction of a drainage channel and the provision of a bound
surface to the access it has no objection to the proposal.
Although one of the representations makes reference to the loss of trees there are
none within the curtilage of the stable building.
The site is not within a Flood Risk Zone as identified by the Environment Agency.
In summary, overall it is considered that the principle of converting the stables is
acceptable and the design and appearance of the scheme of conversion would
preserve the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
Furthermore, it would not result in any significant amenity issues in terms of potential
loss of privacy to neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking. However, due to the
current position of the driveway the occupiers of Home Farm House could experience
noise and disturbance in terms of traffic movement relative to their property.
Furthermore, whilst there is adequate parking to serve the needs of the development,
this is extremely tight and the manoeuvring area within the site is not practical. In
addition, there is inadequate private amenity space to serve the needs of the
development. It is therefore considered that in order to accord with Development
Plan policies improvement are required to the layout of the driveway, parking and
amenity area. In addition, the Council's Landscape Officer requires further information
relating to the three 'derogation tests' in respect of bats.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Authority to the Head of Planning to approve
subject to improvement to the layout of the driveway, parking and amenity area,
information relating to the three 'derogation tests' in respect of bats and the
imposition of appropriate conditions, including the removal of Permitted
Development Rights and the improvements to the access required by the
Highways Authority.
4.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/1086 - Conversion of former dairy
building to dwelling; The Dairy, Home Farm House, Blakeney Road for Mr R
Garnett
Minor Development
- Target Date: 22 October 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
PLANNING HISTORY
77/1100 PF – Renewal of planning permission reference E8884 – Conversion of stable
into dwelling - Approved 5/8/1977.
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a former dairy, garage and store building, which is of brick and
flint construction under a mix of clay pantile and corrugated asbestos roofing to a two
bedroom unit of residential accommodation, having a total floor area of 90 sq. metres
and a footprint of 103 sq. metres.
Development Committee
25
30 October 2014
It is proposed that dwelling would be lit by glazing within the existing openings, whilst
the asbestos roof covering to the north elevation would be replaced with clay pantiles
and a roof light inserted in order to light a lobby area. Two further roof lights would be
inserted into the tiled roof to the south elevation, thereby providing high level lighting to
the living and kitchen area.
Access to the site would be via an existing gravel driveway to the east of No. 6 Home
Farm with parking within the curtilage of the proposed dwelling for two vehicles.
Part of the scheme would also involve the removal of two semi mature eucalyptus tree
within the southern courtyard and a mature larch tree which abuts the northern wall of
the building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting in order to allow Members to visit
the site.
PARISH COUNCIL - Objects on the following grounds:1. The applicant does state if the accommodation is for permanent or for holiday use.
2. The applicant has omitted to answer the Flood Zone question. It is quite clearly in
the flood zone.
Concerns over the extra vehicles using the Home Farm entrance. This development
could possibly mean six extra vehicles in this vicinity.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection have been received from residents of Home Farm which raise the
following concerns (summarised):1. The proposed development whether by itself or in conjunction with the related
applications in respect of the Dairy and Coach House would result in a significant
increase in the use of the single point of access with the consequent increase in
noise, disturbance and traffic congestion within the complex.
2. The entrance off the Blakeney Road is only a single carriageway width.
3. The proposed development would result in a 33% increase and the gravel
driveway is not robust enough to sustain this increase.
4. Cramped form of development in a Conservation Area.
5. Dwellings would have no appreciable outside space.
6. Loss of privacy.
7. Would involve the removal of trees.
CONSULTATIONS
Adjacent Parish - Field Dalling and Saxlingham Parish Council offers no objection or
comment.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer – No objection - The Highways Authority has
indicated that the existing private driveway currently serves 9 dwellings in addition to
an unconverted building 'The Coach House' which was granted consent in 1977 as
part of the larger scale redevelopment on the adjacent site, this consent remains
extant, taking the number to 10. The maintenance of the driveway is managed by the
'Home Farm Residents Association' and is already over the 8 usually permissible from
a private driveway, for this reason, they raise no object to the additional unit.
In terms of the access onto the Blakeney Road, the Highways Authority indicate that
whilst an awkward shape it manages to meet the required width and depth criteria for a
shared access, allowing adequate space for two-way vehicle movements, but is
Development Committee
26
30 October 2014
unmade, with evidence of water ingress into the site from the adjacent public highway.
As such in order to address this issue and provide an improved alignment with the
adopted highway, the Highways Authority would seek conditions on any approval
requiring to re-align the outbound kerbline, install frontage kerbing to prevent water
ingress and a channel drain to the rear, connected to the existing drainage system. In
addition, they would require the access to provide a bound surfacing to assist access
and egress manoeuvres at the site.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No objection. - Considers that the proposal would not have
an adverse impact on the AONB, and providing the scheme of conversion is
undertaken in a sensitive would contribute to conserving the built heritage of the area.
Environmental Health - No objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection, subject to
the satisfactory receipt of information which demonstrates that as part of this
authority's statutory duties whether a licence is likely to be granted by Natural England
in respect of bats. The applicant therefore needs to demonstrate by way of the three
‘derogation tests’: that there is no satisfactory alternative to the development, that the
development is in the overriding public interest, and that the favourable conservation
status of the local bat populations will be maintained.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO9: Conversion and re-use of rural Buildings as Dwellings (The site lies
within an area where the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may
be permitted).
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 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 on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Committee
27
30 October 2014
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on the Conservation Area
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Development Committee on 2
October 2014 in order to allow Members to visit the site.
There are related planning application within the Home Farm complex PF/14/1085 The Stables, Home Farm and PF 14/1087 - The Coach House, Home Farm which are
also for consideration on this agenda. Whilst each application needs to be
considered on its individual merits, their cumulatively impact is a material
consideration in the determination of this application.
The site is situated in the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy and is also with the Norfolk Coast Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where Core
Strategy Policies HO9, EN1, EN4, EN8, CT5 and CT6 are applicable.
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
countryside for permanent residential purposes where the building is within an area
identified on the Proposal Map for that purpose or is worthy of retention due to its
appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value. In addition, the development
should accord with the criteria contained in 3 of the Policy which requires that the
building is structurally sound and capable of conversion to residential use without
substantial rebuilding and or extension and that the alterations protect or enhance the
character of the building and its setting.
Policy EN1 states that the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect,
on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed.
Development will be permitted where it does not detract from the special qualities of
the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads. In addition opportunities for remediation and
improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set; ensure that the scale and massing
of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area; and retain existing
important landscaping and natural features. In addition, proposals should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new
dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Policy EN8 Development proposals, including alterations and extensions, should
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets, in this case
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area through high quality, sensitive design.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that the development is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the
locality. Whilst there should be adequate car parking facilities to serve the needs of the
development.
Forming part of the Home Farm House complex, which consists of the main farmhouse
and eight other residential dwellings, which were converted from the original barn and
outbuildings in the early 1970s, the old dairy, garage and store building joins No. 3
Development Committee
28
30 October 2014
Home Farm, a one and a half storey barn conversion to the east.
As far as the principle of development is concerned although forming part of the
historic group of buildings over time the Old Dairy has undergone some less than
sympathetic alterations with part of the roof being replaced with asbestos sheeting and
a garage door inserted in the north elevation. Whilst part of the scheme of conversion
would involve the replacement of the asbestos roof with clay pantiles it is not
considered that the building is of sufficient historic, architectural or landscape, to value
to warrant its retention as an independence residential dwelling, especially as due to
the enclosed nature of the site it does not contribute to the overall character and
appearance of Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
Turning to the impact on neighbouring properties given the position of the proposed
dwelling relative to Nos. 1 and 3 Home Farm there would be no amenity issues in
terms of overlooking or loss of privacy. Whilst in respect of the relationship to the main
farmhouse, there would be three small windows facing this property, two of which
would serve bedroom 2 and the other a glazed entrance door to the kitchen. Whilst the
farmhouse has its main entrance door and a secondary window facing the site given
the separation distance involved and the fact that any views would be fairly oblique it is
not considered that there would be any significant issues of overlooking or loss of
privacy. Whilst in terms of the relationship to the stables immediately to the south,
(14/1085 - which is also under consideration as part of this agenda), given the
proposed boundary treatment it is not considered that there would be any amenity
issues.
In terms of the amenity space available for the proposed dwelling the North Norfolk
Design Guide suggests that the area given over to private amenity space should be no
less than the footprint of the dwelling. In this particular case although the total amount
of external amenity space available would be approximately 140 sq. metres this would
be split into two areas, with the result that only 64 sq. metres would be enclosed private
amenity space, with the remaining area to the west being open to view from the Home
Farm House and the Coach House. It is therefore considered that this would be
inadequate to serve the needs of the dwelling.
Another area of concern is the relationship of the proposed driveway and car parking
serving the Old Dairy to Home Farm House. As proposed the driveway serving the old
dairy, which would also be used by the old stables, would be immediately to the west of
a single storey element of the farmhouse, which has a secondary window to its gable
end, with the car parking within the site being directly opposite this window.
Furthermore, although adequate parking has been provided this would be extremely
tight and would potentially result in vehicles manoeuvring over land outside the
ownership of the property. It is therefore considered that due to the position of the
driveway and car parking arrangements this would result in undue noise and
disturbance to the occupiers of Home Farm House.
A further issue raised by residents of Home Farm is that of access to the site and the
potential for increase in noise, disturbance and traffic congestion within the complex.
The access to Home Farm currently serves 9 dwellings, however given that there is an
extant planning permission relating to the coach house, dating back to 1977, this could
bring the total number of dwellings to 10. The private driveway serving the whole
development, which is managed by the Home Farm Residents Association, is a
gravel finish and although primarily single track widens out to serve a garage court just
within the site and again further into the complex where there is residents parking. As
such given the relatively low key use of the site it is not considered that there would be
issues of traffic congestion. However given the surface finish to the driveway it is
Development Committee
29
30 October 2014
accepted that there could be some increase in noise and disturbance particularly to the
occupiers of Nos. 2 and 3 Home Farm who’s properties abut the driveway which would
serve the old dairy building.
The Highways Authority has indicated that as the driveway already serves more
dwellings than are usual permissible off a private driveway it could not object to an
additional dwelling. Whilst in terms of the access itself subject to the realignment of the
outbound kerb, the introduction of a drainage channel and the provision of a bound
surface to the access it has no objection to the proposal. As far as car parking is
concerned this would comply with the requirements of the Core Strategy.
As far as the trees which are shown to be removed these have no particular landscape
or ecological value and their removal is considered to be acceptable.
The site is not within a Flood Risk Zone as identified by the Environment Agency.
In summary, it is considered that the building is not of sufficient historic, architectural or
landscape value to warrant is conversion to a permanent residential dwelling,
especially as due to its enclosed location within the site it does not contribute to the
overall character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. In addition,
although the proposal would not result in any significant amenity issues in terms of
potential overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties, the proposed
driveway and car parking area could result in potential noise and disturbance to the
occupiers of Home Farm House. Whilst the level of private amenity space is
considered to be inadequate to serve the needs of the development. It is therefore
considered that the proposed development would fail to accord with Development Plan
policy
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the ground that the building is not of sufficient
historic, architectural or landscape value to warrant its conversion to a
permanent residential dwelling. Furthermore, there would be inadequate private
amenity space to serve the needs of the development and that due to the
position of the driveway and car parking area this could give rise to potential
noise and disturbance to the occupiers of Home Farm House.
5.
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/1087 - Conversion of coach house
and stable to dwelling; The Coach House, Home Farm House, Blakeney Road
for Mr R Garnett
Minor Development
- Target Date: 13 October 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Conservation Area
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
PLANNING HISTORY
77/1100 PF – Renewal of planning permission reference E8884 – Conversion of stable
into dwelling - Approved 5/8/1977.
Development Committee
30
30 October 2014
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion of a former coach house, which is of brick and flint construction
under a clay pantile roof to a two storey, three bedroom unit of residential
accommodation, having a total floor area of some 200 sq. metres.
It is proposed that the dwelling would be lit by glazing within the existing openings,
whilst two roof lights would be introduced to the northern roof slope and a further three
to the southern elevation. Three of the roof lights would serve bedroom three whilst the
other two would provide secondary light to bedroom two and the gallery landing.
Access to the site would be via an existing gravel driveway to the east of No. 6 Home
Farm with parking within the curtilage of the proposed dwelling for two vehicles.
As part of the ecological mitigation measures a bat porch is proposed which abuts the
western boundary wall of the site between the coach house and main farmhouse.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting in order to allow Members to visit
the site.
PARISH COUNCIL - Objects on the following grounds:1. The applicant does state if the accommodation is for permanent or for holiday use.
2. The applicant has omitted to answer the Flood Zone question. It is quite clearly in
the flood zone.
3. Concerns over the extra vehicles using the Home Farm entrance. This
development could possibly mean six extra vehicles in this vicinity.
REPRESENTATIONS
8 letters of objection have been received from residents of Home Farm which raise the
following concerns (summarised):4. The proposed development whether by itself or in conjunction with the related
applications in respect of the Dairy and Coach House would result in a significant
increase in the use of the single point of access with the consequent increase in
noise, disturbance and traffic congestion within the complex.
5. The entrance off the Blakeney Road is only a single carriageway width.
6. The proposed development would result in a 33% increase and the gravel
driveway is not robust enough to sustain this increase.
7. Cramped form of development in a Conservation Area.
8. Dwellings would have no appreciable outside space.
9. Loss of privacy/overlooking of windows and private amenity area.
10. Would involve the removal of trees.
CONSULTATIONS
Adjacent Parish - Field Dalling and Saxlingham Parish Council offers no objection or
comment.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer – No objection - The Highways Authority has
indicated that the existing private driveway currently serves 9 dwellings in addition to
an unconverted building 'The Coach House' which was granted consent in 1977 as
part of the larger scale redevelopment on the adjacent site, this consent remains
extant, taking the number to 10. The maintenance of the driveway is managed by the
'Home Farm Residents Association' and is already over the 8 usually permissible from
a private driveway, for this reason, they raise no object to the additional unit.
Development Committee
31
30 October 2014
In terms of the access onto the Blakeney Road, the Highways Authority indicate that
whilst an awkward shape it manages to meet the required width and depth criteria for a
shared access, allowing adequate space for two-way vehicle movements, but is
unmade, with evidence of water ingress into the site from the adjacent public highway.
As such in order to address this issue and provide an improved alignment with the
adopted highway, the Highways Authority would seek conditions on any approval
requiring to re-align the outbound kerbline, install frontage kerbing to prevent water
ingress and a channel drain to the rear, connected to the existing drainage system. In
addition, they would require the access to provide a bound surfacing to assist access
and egress manoeuvres at the site.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - No objection. - Considers that the proposal would not have
an adverse impact on the AONB, and providing the scheme of conversion is
undertaken in a sensitive would contribute to conserving the built heritage of the area.
Environmental Health - No objection.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection, subject to
the satisfactory receipt of information which demonstrates that as part of this
authority's statutory duties whether a licence is likely to be granted by Natural England
in respect of bats. The applicant therefore needs to demonstrate by way of the three
‘derogation tests’: that there is no satisfactory alternative to the development, that the
development is in the overriding public interest, and that the favourable conservation
status of the local bat populations will be maintained.
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 HO9: Conversion and re-use of rural Buildings as Dwellings (The site lies
within an area where the re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may
be permitted).
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 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 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
Development Committee
32
30 October 2014
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Impact on the Conservation Area
3. Impact on neighbouring properties
4. Highway safety
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Development Committee on 2
October 2014 in order to allow Members to visit the site.
There are related planning application within the Home Farm complex PF/14/1085 The Stables, Home Farm and PF 14/1087 - The Coach House, Home Farm which are
also for consideration on this agenda. Whilst each application needs to be
considered on its individual merits, their cumulatively impact is a material
consideration in the determination of this application.
The site is situated in the Countryside Policy area as defined by the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework Core Strategy and is also with the Norfolk Coast Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Glaven Valley Conservation Area where Core
Strategy Policies HO9, EN1, EN4, EN8, CT5 and CT6 are applicable.
Policy HO9 allows the conversion and re-use of suitably constructed buildings in the
countryside for permanent residential purposes where the building is within an area
identified on the Proposal Map for that purpose or is worthy of retention due to its
appearance, historic, architectural or landscape value. In addition, the development
should accord with the criteria contained in 3 of the Policy which requires that the
building is structurally sound and capable of conversion to residential use without
substantial rebuilding and or extension and that the alterations protect or enhance the
character of the building and its setting.
Policy EN1 states that the impact of individual proposals, and their cumulative effect,
on the Norfolk Coast AONB, The Broads and their settings, will be carefully assessed.
Development will be permitted where it does not detract from the special qualities of
the Norfolk Coast AONB or The Broads. In addition opportunities for remediation and
improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise.
Policy EN4 requires that all development be designed to a high quality be suitably
designed for the context within which they are set; ensure that the scale and massing
of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area; and retain existing
important landscaping and natural features. In addition, proposals should not have a
significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers and new
dwellings should provide acceptable residential amenity.
Policy EN8 Development proposals, including alterations and extensions, should
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated assets, in this case
the Glaven Valley Conservation Area through high quality, sensitive design.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that the development is capable of being served by safe
access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character of the
locality. Whilst there should be adequate car parking facilities to serve the needs of the
development.
Forming part of the Home Farm House complex, which consists of the main farmhouse
Development Committee
33
30 October 2014
and eight other residential dwellings, which were converted from the original barn and
outbuildings in the early 1970s, there is an extant planning permission relating to the
Coach House which dates back to 1977. As such the principle of conversion of the
Coach House to a permanent residential dwelling has previously been established and
could be implemented at any time. In terms of the Policy HO9 the Coach House forms
part of an attractive range of buildings and is considered to be of historic,
architectural or landscape value and worthy of retention. Furthermore, it has been
demonstrated that it is capable of conversion to residential use without substantial
rebuilding and or extension. As such the principle of conversion to a permanent
residential is still acceptable.
As far as the physical alterations are concerned, with the exception of the conservation
roof lights to both roof slopes these would be kept to a minimum with the existing
openings being utilised to lit the building. As a result it is considered that the alterations
would protect the character and appearance of the building and its setting within the
Glaven Valley Conservation Area.
Turning to the impact of the proposed dwelling on the residential amenities Home
Farm House and No.1 Home Farm. The main farmhouse has north facing, primary and
secondary windows, whilst the south elevation of the proposed coach house
conversion would have patio doors, which would serve a living room. Given that the
separation between the two buildings is only be some 11 metres there would be a
potential shortfall of some 7 metres in window to window distance. However, given that
a new brick and flint wall is proposed between both buildings together with the car
parking for the Home Farm House, it is not considered that the potential loss of privacy
to the main farm house would constitute grounds to refuse the application. Whilst in
respect of No.1 Home Farm given that the western boundary of this property is formed
by fairly dense planting it is not considered that there would be any significant
overlooking or loss of privacy issues from the amenity area designated to the coach
house which would be in the region of some 900 sq. metres in area.
However an issue by raised by residents of Home Farm is that of access to the site and
the potential for increase in noise, disturbance and traffic congestion within the
complex. The access to Home Farm currently serves 9 dwellings, however given that
there is an extant planning permission relating to The Coach House, dating back to
1977, this could bring the total number of dwellings to 10. The private driveway which
serving the whole development which is managed by the Home Farm Residents
Association, is of a gravel finish and although primarily single track widens out to serve
a garage court just within the site and again further into the complex where there is
residents parking. As such given the relatively low key use of the site it is not
considered that there would be issues of traffic congestion. However given the
surface finish to the driveway it is accepted that there could be some increase in noise
and disturbance particular to the occupiers of Nos. 2 and 3 Home Farm who’s
properties abut the driveway which would serve the coach house. This said, given the
small scale of the proposed development and the likely traffic movements this in itself
would not it is considered provide justification to refuse the application.
The Highways Authority has indicated that as the driveway already serves more
dwellings than are usual permissible off a private driveway it could not object to an
additional dwelling. Whilst in terms of the access itself subject to the realignment of the
outbound kerb, the introduction of a drainage channel and the provision of a bound
surface to the access it has no objection to the proposal.
The site is not within a Flood Risk Zone as identified by the Environment Agency.
Development Committee
34
30 October 2014
In summary, it is considered that the proposed scheme would accord with Core
Strategy Policies HO9 and that overall its design and appearance would preserve the
character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Furthermore, it
would not result in any significant amenity issues in terms of potential loss of privacy to
neighbouring properties. However, it is accepted that in particular the occupiers of
Nos.2 and 3 Home Farm could experience some additional noise and disturbance in
terms of traffic movement relative to their properties. However, given the small scale
nature of the development this in itself would not it is considered to provide grounds to
refuse the application. It is therefore considered that on balance the scheme is
acceptable and that subject to the receipt of further information relating to the three
‘derogation tests’ in respect of bats the proposal would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Authority to the Head of Planning to approve
subject to receipt of further information relating to the three ‘derogation tests’ in
respect of bats and the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the
removal of Permitted Development Rights and the improvements to the access
required by the Highways Authority.
6.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0952 - Erection of subterranean dwelling; Land off
Field Lane, Scarborough Hill for Mr & Mrs R Bird
Minor Development
- Target Date: 24 September 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Contaminated Land
Landfill Gas Site
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
87/1601 PF - Disposal of dry inert commercial and industrial waste - Approved
19/01/1988
89/2474 PF - Amend existing permission to form new access road to waste disposal
site - Approved 26/04/1990
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a single storey linear form, contemporary design, four bedroom
dwelling having a floor area of some 220 sq. metres, with attached garage of 76 sq.
metres.
The dwelling would be located at the centre of a site which extends to some 7
hectares, which from the 1960s until the early 1990s was used for landfill waste, since
when it has been capped with inert material.
It is intended that the dwelling would be cut into the contours of the site resulting in the
majority of the property being subterranean, with only the south east, front elevation,
which would consist of continuous glazing and a small access turret being visible.
It is intended that the rest of the south east elevation and entrance lobby would be clad
in vertical photo voltaic panels and vertical steel sheeting.
Development Committee
35
30 October 2014
An amended plan shows the proposed route of a permissive footpath through the site
from Field Lane to Holgate Road and also possible highway visibility improvements to
the junction with Yarmouth Road.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting in order to allow Members to visit
the site.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to the application on highways grounds due to the access concerns expressed
by the Highways Authority.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
County Council (Highway) – Broadland – Objects to the application on the grounds that
Field Lane serving the site is considered to be inadequate, by reason of its poor
alignment, restricted width, lack of passing provision and restricted visibility at its
junction with Yarmouth Road where visibility is negligible in both directions due to third
party land, vegetation and high banks. As such if permitted, the development would be
likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety. Furthermore, whilst
supporting information indicates that this site has previously been used as a waste
disposal tip, this use ceased some considerable time ago (stated as 1974) with more
recent traffic being related to statutory site restoration only. Accordingly there are no
mitigating existing, or residual, traffic generation to take into account when considering
the acceptability of this proposal.
In addition, as the site is remote from local service centre the occupiers of the
proposed new dwelling would be highly reliant on the use of the car for everyday trips,
contrary to transport sustainability objectives which seek to minimise travel, and the
ability to encourage walking, cycling, use of public transport and reduce the reliance on
the private car as represented in national and local policy. Whilst there is a Public
Right of Way linking Field Lane to Thirlby Road, this path is unsurfaced and unlit and it
remains the case that the distance to the centre of North Walsham is approximately 2
Kilometres.
The applicant's agents also suggests that the dwelling could be restricted to
occupation by a worker at the waste disposal site located to the south of Yarmouth
Road (accessed from Sandy Hills) carries no weight in this case as the two sites are
not connected with vehicular transport being required to travel between the two.
As far as the amended plan is concerned the Highways Authority has indicated that
even if applicant is able to provide the stated improvements to northern visibility at
junction with Yarmouth Road they remain of the opinion that the proposal is
unacceptable.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions
Building Control - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - The
Conservation Officer has considered the application on the merits of paragraph 55 of
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and based on the criteria contained
in the NPPF makes the following comments:-
Development Committee
36
30 October 2014
•
Be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more
generally in rural areas.
Unlike the old Country House test under PPG7, this criterion now involves an
either/or test in which the applicant must demonstrate that their dwelling would
either be truly outstanding or innovative. Reading through the D&A statement, and
assessing the submitted elevations, it is clear that careful thought has gone into the
proposed dwelling. It is also apparent that its bespoke design potentially has more
to offer than most conventional equivalents. This of course is not the same as
saying that the design is truly outstanding or that the innovative content is sufficient
to carry the proposal as a whole.
•
Reflect the highest standards in architecture.
This criterion is a difficult one in the sense that it requires us to look objectively at
what is commonly perceived as a subjective judgment. From other similar
applications nationally, it is clear that buildings are expected to provide a genuine
architectural legacy which will define the age. Within this they should be beautiful
and impressive and provide a sense of drama which is commonly linked to size
(many of the approvals across the country are over 1000m2). Against this context,
the proposed dwelling is relatively small and not at all visible from any public
vantage points. With it also employing a relatively simple linear form, it is difficult to
see how the scheme would get over the high bar set.
•
Significantly enhance its immediate setting.
Key under this criterion is that the proposed development must extend beyond the
building to also include its landscape setting – in essence echoing back to the way
country houses were historically supported by their parkland. Within this the choice
of site is clearly important and will determine the opportunities for enhancement. In
this particular case, with the site having been rather denuded and defiled in recent
times, there are real opportunities for localised enhancement. Again, however, with
much of this tucked away from public gaze, it is questionable whether these
essentially private gains justify an exception to ordinary policy.
•
Be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
Lastly, it is not sufficient for new buildings to be outstanding standalone
compositions. They must also be locally distinctive and be well grounded in the
area to be considered a worthy exception. In this case, whilst the elevations do not
instantly identify themselves with North Norfolk, the building itself would clearly be
easily assimilated into its site and would therefore be well-grounded (in fact it would
be partly under the ground). Therefore, whilst not locally distinctive in the usual
sense, it would certainly be distinct to this particular locality.
On the basis of the above assessment the Conservation Officer concludes that, whilst
the dwelling would be of architectural merit and would employ recycled materials,
given that the proposals are relatively limited in scope and unlikely to impress in the
same way as most other examples nationally, it is difficult to see how the development
would be sufficiently exceptional or innovative to justify a departure from policy.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - Considers that by virtue
of the topography, design and existing mature vegetation the proposal would have a
minimal landscape and visual impact and that the soft landscape elements are
appropriate and would enhance this local landscape character.
However, the Landscape Officer does raise concerns regarding the external amenity
Development Committee
37
30 October 2014
features associated with a domestic dwelling and the increased visual impact that may
result. Whilst the dwelling may sit sympathetically into the landscape, it is features
such as sheds, children’s play equipment, laundry facilities, ornamental garden
features, patio furniture, rubbish provision which have the potential to make the
proposal substantially more visually intrusive. This could however be limited to some
extent by removal of Permitted Development Rights, but remains a concern.
In addition, the Landscape Officer highlights the works which have been undertaken to
the entrance to the site off Field Lane, and suggests they are arguably the most
prominent element of the proposal and which is currently marked by a gate, some
rather incongruous planting and a circular built structure. Design proposals have not
included this or the access track across the field to the main site. The Landscape
Officer therefore suggests that landscape proposals should be included which present
more appropriate planting such as native hedgerow species and trees around the
entrance and along the track in order that this aspect of the proposal accords with the
design principles of the rest of the site and compliments the naturalistic setting.
Whilst in terms of paragraph 55 of the NPPF the Landscape Officer suggests that
some of these tests could be met by this proposal such as ‘the design being sensitive
to the defining characteristics of the area’, but the quality of the built design needs
careful consideration in order to justify a departure from policy on these grounds.
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):
Rural Residential Conversion Area (HO9) (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
• Principle of development.
• Landscape impact.
• Design.
Development Committee
38
30 October 2014
•
Highways Safety.
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the meeting of the Development Committee on 2
October 2014 in order to allow Members to visit the site.
The site is situated in the Countryside policy area as defined by the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework Core Strategy where Policies SS2, EN2, EN4, CT5 and CT6
are applicable.
Policy SS2 states that in areas designated as Countryside development will be limited
to that which requires a rural location and is for one or more of the following, and
includes:• agriculture;
• forestry;
• new-build employment generating proposals where there is particular
environmental or operational justification;
• waste management facilities
Proposals which do not accord with the above will not be permitted.
Policy EN2 requires that development proposals be informed by, and be sympathetic
to, the distinctive character areas identified in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment and features identified in relevant settlement character studies.
Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and
materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance:
• the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area (including its historical,
biodiversity and cultural character).
• gaps between settlements, and their landscape setting
• distinctive settlement character
• the pattern of distinctive landscape features, such as watercourses, woodland,
trees and field boundaries, and their function as ecological corridors for dispersal of
wildlife
• visually sensitive skylines, hillsides, seascapes, valley sides and geological
features
• nocturnal character.
Policy EN4 requires that all development will be designed to a high quality, reinforcing
local distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly
encouraged. Design which fails to have regard to local context and does not preserve
or enhance the character and quality of an area will not be acceptable.
Development proposals, extensions and alterations to existing buildings and
structures will be expected to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Have regard to the North Norfolk Design Guide;
Incorporate sustainable construction principles contained in policy EN6;
Make efficient use of land while respecting the density, character, landscape and
biodiversity of the surrounding area;
Be suitably designed for the context within which they are set;
Retain existing important landscaping and natural features and include landscape
enhancement schemes that are compatible with the Landscape Character
Assessment and ecological network mapping;
Ensure that the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the
surrounding area;
Development Committee
39
30 October 2014
•
•
•
•
Make a clear distinction between public and private spaces and enhance the public
realm;
Incorporate footpaths, green links and networks to the surrounding area;
Ensure that any car parking is discreet and accessible; and
Where appropriate, contain a variety and mix of uses, buildings and landscaping.
Policies CT5 and CT6 require that:• the proposal provides for safe and convenient access on foot, cycle, public and
private transport addressing the needs of all, including those with a disability;
• the proposal is capable of being served by safe access to the highway network
without detriment to the amenity or character of the locality.
Policy CT6 also requires that there should be adequate vehicle parking facilities to
serve the needs of the proposed development.
In addition, the following paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework,
(March 2012) are considered to be relevant.
Paragraph 49 - Housing applications should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of
housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
Paragraph 55 - To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example,
where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may
support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new
isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
• the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of
work in the countryside; or
• where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage
asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of
heritage assets; or
• where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to
an enhancement to the immediate setting; or
• the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a
design should:
•
be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more
generally in rural areas;
• reflect the highest standards in architecture;
• significantly enhance its immediate setting; and
• be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
In terms of its use although from 1960 until 1974 part of the site was used for landfill,
the Design and Access Statement accompanying the application indicates that since
that time the only activity has been the capping of the site with inert material, which
finished in 2006. Since that time the site has been monitored four times a year in order
to establish the levels of contamination. As such given that the site has been
decommissioned, and is only the subject of monitoring on an occasional basis it is not
considered that there is any environmental or operational justification for a dwelling in
this location and as such the proposal would fail to comply with the requirement of
Policy SS2 and does not form part of a waste management facility.
Whilst in terms of the landscape impact of the proposed dwelling given the secluded
Development Committee
40
30 October 2014
nature of the site and surrounding landscape features, which include a number of trees
it is considered that development would conserve the special qualities and local
distinctiveness of the area. The Council’s Landscape Officer has confirmed that by
virtue of the topography, design and existing mature vegetation the proposal would
have a minimal landscape and visual impact and that the soft landscape elements are
appropriate and would enhance this local landscape character. However, the
Landscape Officer does raise concerns that external amenity features associated with
a domestic dwelling could potential make the proposal substantially more visually
intrusive. Furthermore, if considered to be acceptable landscape proposals should
include the area around the entrance and access track to the site.
Turning to the design of the proposed dwelling, the fact that the majority of it would be
subterranean in form means that very little would be visible to view. Furthermore, it is
considered that this is a location which would be suitable for a contemporary design of
dwelling and that the proposal would assimilate successfully into the landscape. The
only feature of the design which would be somewhat discordant would be the turret
which would provide access from the interior of the building to the grassed area above.
This structure, which would have a flat roof with glazed sides, would have a somewhat
alien appearance given that there would be no other surrounding features of the
dwelling. This said, given the distances from public vantage points together with
surrounding landscape feature this in itself would not be a major concern. Whilst the
choice of materials to the south east elevation of glazing, photo voltaic panels and
steel cladding is also considered to be acceptable.
As far as Paragraph 55, reference to which has been made in the submission, it not
considered that it has been demonstrated that the dwelling would enhance or maintain
the vitality of rural communities or that there is an essential need for a rural worker to
live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. Furthermore,
although the dwelling would be contemporary in its design and would be sensitive to
the defining characteristics of the local area it is not considered to be of exceptional
quality or innovative in its design and would not contribute to raising standards of
design more generally in rural areas. As such it is difficult to see how the development
would be sufficiently exceptional or innovative to justify a departure from policy.
As far as the access to the site this would be via a surfaced track some 400 metres in
length which joins Field Lane, a single track road to the north west of the site. Field
Lane joins the Yarmouth Road some 330 metres to the south west where visibility is
restricted due to a high bank and vegetation. Alternatively Field Lane joins the
Happisburgh Road some 900 metres to the north east which has restricted visibility
particularly in the traffic direction.
The Highways Authority has indicated that it objects to the application on the grounds
that Field Lane is inadequate, due to its poor alignment, restricted width and lack of
passing provision. In addition there is restricted visibility at the adjacent road junction
with Yarmouth Road due to vegetation and high banks. Furthermore they do not
considered that the previous use of the site as a landfill site which ceased in 1974
with more recent traffic being related to statutory site restoration provides any
mitigation. They further suggest that due to the remote nature of the site and the heavy
reliance occupiers would have on car usage that the site is not sustainable. Whilst in
respect of the amended plan showing possible improvements to the visibility at the
junction with the Yarmouth Road and the provision of a lay by in Field Lane, as the
these works would be on their party land over which the applicant has no control the
Highways Authority has sustained its objection. It is therefore considered that the
proposed development could give rise to issues of highway safety and would not
accord with the requirements of Policy CT5. Whilst in respect of car parking there
Development Committee
41
30 October 2014
would be adequate space within the site to serve the needs of the development.
As far as other material consideration are concerned although reference has been
made in the submission to Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework
and five year land supply this is not considered to be relevant as the Local Planning
Authority is satisfied that it has 5.4 years of residential land supply which takes into
account a 5% buffer. Furthermore, given the remote nature of the site from local
service centres and the fact that occupiers would be highly reliant on the use of the car
for everyday trips, the site is not considered to be a sustainable location.
Whilst in terms of proposed permissive footpath link from Field Lane to Holgate Road,
which it is suggested would help improve public access to the site, from the submitted
drawings it would appear that a section of the proposed path, some 460 metres in
length, is on third party land outside the applicant’s control. As such, there it would not
be possible to ensure that this footpath link was provided as part of the application.
Furthermore, whilst improve public access to this part of north Norfolk is to be
welcomed, the incentive to provide this should not be based on the provision of a new
dwelling in the countryside.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development would result in the creation of
a new market dwelling in the countryside, where there is a general presumption
against such development without clear justification. Furthermore, the site is remote
from local services and is not considered to be a sustainable location and there are no
material considerations which would outweigh this conflict with adopted policy.
In addition, due to the restricted visibility at the adjacent road junction with Yarmouth
Road and the poor alignment and restricted width and lack of passing provision in Field
Lane it is considered that the proposed access arrangements would pose an
unacceptable risk to users of the highway network.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse, on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to
development plan policy and there are no material considerations which
outweigh this conflict. In addition the development could give rise to issues of
highway safety.
7.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1003 - Removal of Condition 1 of planning
permission ref. 13/0417 requiring the construction of attenuation pond;
Davenports Magic Kingdom, Cromer Road for Davenports Magic Kingdom
Major Development
- Target Date: 05 November 2014
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Flood risk
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
06/1867 PF - Refurbishment of offices and warehouse and erection of two storey office
block - Approved 4/09/07
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
Development Committee
42
30 October 2014
13/0417 PF - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission reference: 11/0212
(requirement for construction of attenuation pond) - Approved 31/05/2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the removal Condition 1 of planning permission 13/0417 which requires the
entertainments centre to cease to operate on 31 May 2014, unless the attenuation
pond approved under planning permission 12/0871 has been constructed and linked to
the surface water drainage system from the Cromer Road site to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Or it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency, Norfolk County
Council Water Management Team and Internal Drainage Board that the risk of surface
water flooding has been alleviated through on-site measures.
An e-mail has been received from the applicant which indicates that he would be
agreeable to a further temporary permission for a period of two years, which he
considers should be sufficient in order to resolve the situation.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning, given the requirement to balance the issues of
off site surface water management and the economic benefits of the entertainment
centre.
TOWN COUNCIL
Fully supports the objections from neighbours to this application and objects to the
removal of Condition 1 and instead wish to see a 12 month extension in the period for
the construction of the attenuation pond.
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection from residents of Bradmore Farm which raise the following
concerns (summarised).
1. 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.
2. Nothing has changed to prevent any flooding.
3. With each additional development the surface water run-off will be increased and
therefore the second reservoir needs to be constructed before any more
developments are approved.
4. We believe that this condition was put in place by the Internal Drainage Board,
Environment Agency and NCC Flood Management Team for a very good reason
as they have the knowledge and expertise in these matters.
5. Average rainfall figures cannot be treated as a serious measure as this is
constantly changing and becoming more unpredictable and extreme with each
year.
6. The application is factually incorrect as during 2014 the local rainfall has in fact
been very close to the average taken over the last six years.
7. It is wrong to consider the application site in isolation from the considerations
affecting drainage from the greater site, of which this forms part. It is the
inadequate drainage provision of the greater site over a period of many years
which has led to the severe risk of flooding and the application site is a contributor
to that risk.
8. The surface water run-off from the greater site which includes the application site,
since the creation of the swale into the reservoir on our land has already caused
repeated overflowing and we perceive a substantial risk that further overflows will
Development Committee
43
30 October 2014
occur.
9. We have since April 2014 communicated with individual Councillors and Officers
concerning the need to enforce the condition imposed under 13/0417.
10. Nothing has changed in terms of the facts or reasons which led to the condition
being imposed and in the circumstances it would be wrong and risky to remove this
condition.
11. If the condition is removed and our property is affected by flooding we will hold the
Council fully responsible and seek full compensation as we feel this could be
avoided with the construction of the second reservoir
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – Object for the following reasons:The surface water drainage system comprising the hydrobrake and attenuation swale
has reduced the runoff rates from the 0.56 hectares of Magic Kingdom development by
about 25% in all rainfall events; in the 1 in 1 year event the rate has been reduced by
14 l/s from 59 l/s to 45 l/s, in the 1 in 30 year the rate has been reduced by 18 l/s from
72 l/s to 54 l/s, and in the 1 in 100 year event the rate has been reduced by 17 l/s from
73 l/s to 56 l/s.
However the previous FRA detailed that the total runoff rates from the entire 5.13
hectares of development that originally drained to the offsite pond was modelled as
330 l/s in the 1 in 1 year, 362 l/s in the 1 in 30 year and 370 l/s in the 1 in 100 year
events. The demolition of 0.8 hectares of Crane Fruehauf development may have
slightly reduced these rates, by approximately 16%, but they would still be significantly
more than the rate of water leaving the Magic Kingdom Development.
Therefore the slight reduction in runoff rates of up to 17 l/s achieved by the Magic
Kingdom development would not have a significant impact on the overall runoff rates
and volumes into the pond. Therefore we do not consider that it has been
demonstrated that the risk of surface water flooding has been alleviated through
on-site measures as required in Condition 1.
The risk of surface water flooding of the offsite pond is still present due to the large
runoff rates and volumes from the remainder of the area draining to the pond.
Therefore we consider that the previously proposed second pond is the only option
that would provide additional storage to reduce the volumes needing to be contained
by the existing pond and therefore reduce the chance of the pond flooding.
Therefore we object as, while the constructed surface water drainage scheme is
sufficient to prevent the Magic Kingdom site from flooding and to slightly reduce the
runoff rates into the offsite pond, the runoff rates from the entire area of over 4
hectares that drains into the offsite pond are still very significant and liable to cause the
offsite pond to flood, and therefore we consider that the attenuation pond should be
constructed to prevent potential off site flooding as required in the reason to Condition
1.
King's Lynn Internal Drainage Board - Object for the following reasons:From the Internal Drainage Board perspective, the control of surface water into
Skeyton Beck is governed by the piped system that discharges into the Beck by the
B1145 Aylsham Road. The IDB interests are thus satisfied.
However, it is clear that to date there has not been a satisfactory analysis of the
drainage characteristics of the site, it past history nor allowance for increased
discharges due to climate change. These items may have been dealt with piecemeal
Development Committee
44
30 October 2014
but have not taken into account their accumulative effects. There is a history of
drainage issues with the site, and allowance for present or future development has not
been understood sufficiently by the site owners or developers, hence the downstream
attenuation pond that would, in effect, err on the side of caution.
It is essential, therefore, that a full re-assessment of all the drainage issues is
undertaken by competent consultants, and in the interim the need for either on-site or
off-site attenuation is recognised.
Norfolk County Council Flood & Water Management - Object for the following
reasons:Norfolk County Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority has a role to determine local
flood risk and to work with other Risk Management Authorities to mitigate flooding.
The County Council does not agree to the removal of Condition 1 as there is a clear
need for increased attenuation capacity. This need stems from there being inadequate
capacity within the existing surface water sewer pipe that serves the former Crane
Fruehauf site and existing attenuation pond. Under existing conditions the attenuation
pond is surcharging and in the past this has internally flooded at least one downstream
property. As such the requirement for an additional lagoon is necessary to provide
flood protection for the properties at Bradmore Farm and The Old Stables, Aylsham
Road and to deal with the flood risk caused by flows from the development site. In the
event of flooding to these properties occurring in the future Norfolk County Council
would have a statutory duty to investigate the causes of flooding. This will include
reviewing amendments made to the drainage systems through the planning process.
There is an additional concern that the lease for the existing outfall has only about 30
years remaining.
Environmental Health – The Environmental Protection Officer has made the following
comments:As lead drainage officer for Environmental Health, I have previously raised a concern
about the potential risk of flooding if the additional reservoir were not to be constructed
and further mitigation measures not provided. As such, the applicant previously agreed
to instigate measures to further reduce and restrict surface water flows downstream by
way of condition on 13/0417/PF.
To support this application, I would confirm that I have visited Davenport’s site on a
number of occasions over the last year and have not seen any evidence of rain water
backing up from the recently installed flow restrictor and entering the on site swale.
I would also point out that the approved drainage scheme submitted as part of the
planning application specifies that the “side branch [surface water] from old factory to
be disconnected and capped” as per drawing number 310 revision B. From this, it can
be suggested that surface water flows from the application site and surrounding areas
have been reduced through the disconnection of surface drainage from the hard
standing areas.
Furthermore, although planning permission 06/1867 PF has been partially
implemented, condition 11 of that approval states that “any change to the existing
surface water drainage arrangements which would increase the amount or alter the
method of surface water discharge shall be first submitted to and agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority”. I would suggest that 13/0417 PF has now removed the
original surface water disposal route for the refurbishment of offices and warehouse,
as the approved flow restrictor is only sized to take flows from Davenport’s site only.
Development Committee
45
30 October 2014
This further enhances the need for any alteration to the surrounding land to require
consultation with the Local Planning Authority.
Should any further planning applications be received for the application site or
adjoining land and require surface water disposal, Environmental Health would object
on the grounds of downstream flood risk if the additional reservoir is not built.
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).
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.
Development Committee
46
30 October 2014
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 further flooding occurred in March 2013. 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, ref 06/1867. Condition 11 of that approval
stated that “any change to the existing surface water drainage arrangements which
would increase the amount or alter the method of surface water discharge shall be first
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority”. This permission
has been partially implemented with the erection of the two storey office block to the
frontage of the site.
At the time of the application for the re-cladding and use of the former industrial unit for
D2 (entertainment centre), ref 11/0212, concerns were raised by the owners of
properties at Bradmore Farm regarding potential flooding. As a result Condition 3
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 and provide a long term solution to the problem.
The condition also stated that the entertainment centre should not be brought into use
until the attenuation pond had been constructed.
Following discussions with the applicant, Davenports Magic Kingdom, Citygate
Developments and the owner of The Old Stables, a subsequent planning application
for the second attenuation reservoir, on third party land at The Old Stables (Bradmore
Farm) Aylsham Road, North Walsham was approved under delegated powers in
September 2012, ref 12/0871.
This was followed by a further planning application in May 2013, ref 13/0417 which
sought the removal of Condition 3 in order to allow the entertainment centre to open
without the need for the construction of the second attenuation pond. The justification
for this being the on-site management of surface water through the provision of a
swale (drainage ditch) within the site and a flow limiter on the drainage pipe between
the former Crane Fruehauf site and the existing attenuation reservoir. In addition, the
submitted drawing indicated that the side branch, which channelled surface water from
the rest of the factory site, the subject of the 2006 permission, would be disconnected
and capped. However, due to ongoing concerns regarding potential off site flooding
at the meeting of the Development Committee on 30 May 2013 Members resolved to
vary Condition 3. This required the entertainments centre to cease operation on 31
May 2014, unless the attenuation pond approved under planning permission 12/0871
had been constructed and linked to the surface water drainage system from the
Cromer Road site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Or alternatively
that it had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority,
through a period of monitoring for a period of a year, in consultation with the
Environment Agency, Norfolk County Council Water Management team and Internal
Development Committee
47
30 October 2014
Drainage Board that the risk of surface water flooding has been alleviated through
on-site measures. During which time it was anticipated that the additional reservoir
would be provided.
Unfortunately, since that time the necessary finances to fund the provision of the
reservoir has not been made available to the owner of The Old Stables by Citygate
Developments and/or the Homes and Communities Agency, and as such the second
attenuation reservoir has not been constructed. This leaves the owner of the
entertainment centre with a problem in the continued operation of the business under
the terms of the 2013 planning consent. As a result the owner has applied to have the
condition relating to the provision of the attenuation reservoir lifted.
Flood Risk Issues
In considering the removal of Condition 1 of planning approval 13/0417 the principal
consideration has to be whether the on-site surface water drainage measures have
been adequate to prevent on and off-site flooding. In their response the Environment
Agency suggests that, the surface water drainage system comprising the hydrobrake
and attenuation swale has reduced the runoff rates from the 0.56 hectares site by
about 25% in all rainfall events. In the 1 in 1 year event the rate has been reduced by
14 l/s from 59 l/s to 45 l/s, in the 1 in 30 year the rate has been reduced by 18 l/s from
72 l/s to 54 l/s, and in the 1 in 100 year event the rate has been reduced by 17 l/s from
73 l/s to 56 l/s.
However they suggest that this slight reduction in runoff rates of up to 17 l/s achieved
by the entertainment centre would not have a significant impact on the overall runoff
rates and volumes into the pond from the wider site. Therefore they do not consider
that it has been demonstrated ‘that the risk of surface water flooding has been
alleviated through on-site measures as required in Condition 1. As such they consider
that the construction of the second attenuation pond is the only option that would
provide additional storage to reduce the volumes needing to be contained by the
existing pond and therefore reduce the chance of the pond flooding.
The King's Lynn Internal Drainage Board and Norfolk County Council Flood & Water
Management suggest that whilst the drainage issues may have been dealt with
piecemeal they have not taken into account the accumulative effects. As such the
additional reservoir is necessary to provide flood protection for the properties at
Bradmore Farm and The Old Stables, Aylsham Road and to deal with the flood risk
caused by flows from the development site.
The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has indicated that during the past
twelve months he has visited the entertainments centre site on a number of occasions
and has not seen any evidence of rain water backing up from the recently installed flow
restrictor and entering the on site swale. Furthermore, he points to the fact that as part
of the 2013 permission the side branch from the rest of the old factory has been
disconnected and capped, which he suggests has reduced that surface water flows
from the hard standing areas.
The Environmental Protection Officer has also pointed to the fact that given that the
2013 permission changed the existing surface water drainage arrangements for the
remainder of the site, although there is an extant permission to re-clad the rest of the
factory buildings, this could not be implemented as it would be in breach of Condition
11 of planning approval 06/1867. As a result, should a request be received to vary
condition 11, which would increase the amount or alter the method of surface water
discharge shall from the site or adjoining land, Environmental Health would object on
the grounds of downstream flood risk if the additional reservoir had not been built.
Development Committee
48
30 October 2014
Economic Issues
The issues raised in respect of flood risk need to be balanced against the economic
benefits of the entertainment centre, which contributes to the vitality and viability of the
area and tourism. Refusal to remove the condition would mean that the applicant
would be in breach of the planning permission, and in the event of the entertainment
centre ceases trading would have significant financial implications for the applicant
and in turn could jeopardise the jobs of employees.
Other Issues
The Committee will also note that if the Condition 1 is removed, local residents have
indicated that they would hold the Council, 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
Although the Environment Agency, King's Lynn Internal Drainage Board and Norfolk
County Council Flood & Water Management objects to application this appears to be
primarily on the basis that an additional lagoon is necessary to deal with the flood risk
caused by flows from the greater site as a whole. Whilst the Council’s Environmental
Protection Team has indicated that it would not disagree with this conclusion, over the
last year, as a result of the works which have been undertaken on the application site
they have seen no evidence of rain water backing up and consider that the risk of
off-site flooding has been reduced. Furthermore, although there is an extant
permission on the remainder of the site to re-clad the other buildings given that the
existing surface water drainage system has been altered any further works would
require the agreement of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with other
stakeholders. The Environmental Protection Team has indicated that it would be
opposed to any further works without the provision of the second attenuation reservoir.
It is considered that whilst a second attenuation reservoir is essential to the long term
development of the site, it has been demonstrated in the past twelve months that the
risk of surface water flooding from the entertainment centre site has been reduced
through the on-site measures. Therefore, given the fact that the development of the
additional attention reservoir is reliant on third party agreement, over which the
applicant has no control it is considered that it would be unreasonable to require the
entertainment centre to cease operation. Furthermore, the closure of the centre would
have significant implications for its employees and an adverse impact on the economic
vitality of the area and the contribution it makes to the mix of tourism/recreation on offer
within the District.
However given the ongoing concerns of stakeholders and local residents it is
suggested that the entertainment centre is allowed to trade for a further two years
without the need to provide the second attenuation reservoir so that the situation can
continue to be monitored.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve on the grounds that the entertainment centre is
allowed to trade for a further two years without the need to provide a second
attenuation reservoir and that during this period monitoring of the site
continues to ensure that there are no issues of off-site flooding.
Development Committee
49
30 October 2014
8.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following applications.
The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
SHERINGHAM – PF/14/0887 – Partial demolition of hotel and erection of six
residential apartments and single storey rear extension to hotel; Burlington
Hotel, The Esplanade for Mr McDermott.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Richard Smith to allow the Committee to see the site in
context due to the design of the proposal to this prominent building in the Conservation
Area, in order to expedite the processing of the application.
FULMODESTON – PF/14/0956 – Erection of three duck rearing units to house
36,000 birds; Clipstone Farm House, Clipstone for Ralph Harrison and Partners.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning to allow the Committee to see the site in context
in order to expedite the processing of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/14/0715 - Removal of pantiles from nave and porch
and installation of lead roof to nave and zinc roof to porch; St Ethelbert Church,
Church Road, Alby for PCC of the Church of St Ethelbert, Alby
(Full Planning Permission)
ANTINGHAM - PF/14/0173 - Conversion and extension of barn to provide
residential dwelling; Barn at White Lodge Farm, Southrepps Road for Mr & Mrs
D J Blaxell
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - LA/14/0156 - Alterations to facilitate conversion of residential/holiday
cottages to hotel accommodation and erection of extension; The Pilgrims House,
Walcott Road for Mr & Mrs McCartney
(Listed Building Alterations)
BACTON - PF/14/0157 - Change of use from residential/holiday cottages to hotel
accommodation and erection of side extension to swimming pool building; The
Pilgrims House, Walcott Road for Mr & Mrs McCartney
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
50
30 October 2014
BACTON - PF/14/1102 - Installation of over-cladding to existing administration
building; Interconnector Compressor Site, Paston Road for Canham Consulting
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - PF/14/0995 - Erection of detached garage/store and formation of
revised vehicular access and associated alterations to the boundary wall.; The
Piggeries, Church Road for Mr B Skinner
(Householder application)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/1000 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling with
amendments to design to provide single-storey dwelling with basement; Heath
Barn, Britons Lane for Mr Field
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/14/0617 - Conversion and extension of barn to provide habitable
accommodation, erection of extension to 'privy', re-instatement of boundary wall
and installation of side rooflights in main dwelling; The Hyde, 66 Warham Road,
Binham, Fakenham for Ms J Martin Wright
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/14/1024 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference 13/1529 to permit amendment to layout to allow erection of electricity
sub-station and removal of Condition 17 regarding fascia details to be replaced
with dentil bricks; Land at Church Street, Briston for Victory Housing Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0909 - Conversion of outbuilding to habitable
accommodation; Cley Hall, The Fairstead for Mrs C Maizels
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0910 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate
conversion to habitable accommodation; Cley Hall, The Fairstead for Mrs C
Maizels
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1088 - Raise height of lean-to roof and replace
render finish with brick and flint (retrospective); Riverside House, High Street for
Mr A Livsey
(Householder application)
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/14/1160 - Erection of single-storey rear
extension and replacement front porch; 13 Mountains Road, Corpusty for Mr J
Harvey
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0966 - Erection of detached garden room; 4 Bittern Rise for Mr
& Mrs Cole
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/14/0802 - Construction of replacement roof and conversion of
hotel to four residential flats; 27 Cabbell Road for Mr R Smart
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/1253 - Retention of three air conditioning units; Regency Fish
and Chip Shop at, Melbourne Hotel, New Street for Norfolk Farm Produce Ltd
Development Committee
51
30 October 2014
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/14/0879 - Retention of summerhouse/sheds and greenhouse; 15
Norman Trollor Court for Mr T M Frost
(Householder application)
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/1007 - Erection of cattle shed/agricultural store;
Sunnyside, Chapel Road for Mr M Fraser
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/0791 - Conversion of barns to five residential dwellings;
Silcocks Farm Barns, Drabbs Lane for Mr J McLeod
(Full Planning Permission)
EAST RUSTON - PF/14/1021 - Creation of vehicular access and erection of
double cart shed style garage and store; The Old Forge, Church Road for Mr M
Blackburn
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/0919 - Erection of single-storey extension; Lower Barn,
Ramsgate Street for Mr & Mrs Davis
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - PF/14/1060 - Demolition of section of boundary wall, widening of
existing access and installation of gate; The Mount, Hunworth Road for Mr
Buckman
(Householder application)
EDGEFIELD - LA/14/1061 - Demolition of section of boundary wall, widening of
existing access and installation of gate; The Mount, Hunworth Road for Mr
Buckman
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0834 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A5 (hot food
take-away) and installation of extraction duct; 12-14 Norwich Street for Mr M
Setrekli
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/0532 - Conversion of former workshops to two residential
dwellings (amended proposal); Former Workshops, Star Meadow, Oak Street for
Harvey Jacks Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1040 - Demolition of Existing Buildings and Erection of A1
(retail) Food Store and Two Residential Dwellings, Car Park and Associated
Development.; 16-18 Norwich Road, Fakenham, NR21 8AZ for ALDI Stores Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - DP/14/1244 - Prior notification of intention to demolish disused
garage block; Garages between 15 and 17 Waterfield Avenue for Victory Housing
Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
FULMODESTON - PF/14/1011 - Erection of part first floor and two-storey side/rear
extension; 1 Council Houses, Croxton Road, Croxton for Mr and Mrs P Cousins
(Householder application)
Development Committee
52
30 October 2014
GIMINGHAM - NP/14/1098 - Prior notification of intention to erect a lean-to
extension to agricultural storage building; Church Farm, Church Street for P W &
G E Hinton
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
HANWORTH - PF/14/1078 - Relocation of existing oil tank; 1 Stable Yard, Gunton
Hall, Gunton Park for Mr Gedge
(Full Planning Permission)
HEMPTON - NMA1/14/0458 - Non material amendment request to permit the
omission of door to front elevation and re-locate window arrangement; 17 King
George Road for Mr L Cooke
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HIGH KELLING - PF/14/0953 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; White
Thorns, Bernard Road for Mr G Stolworthy
(Householder application)
HINDRINGHAM - AN/14/0979 - Continued display of non-illuminated sign;
Hindringham County Primary School, Wells Road for Hindringham C of E
Primary School
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/0869 - Change of use of agricultural buildings to
residential dwelling; Agricultural buildings at County Farm, Walsingham Road
for Mr & Mrs Chaplin
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - NMA1/14/0344 - Non material amendment request to permit change to
white windows; The Old Telephone Exchange, 37 New Street for Mr C Manders
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
HOLT - PF/14/1089 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Beeches, 20 Barrett
Road for Ms Waters
(Householder application)
HOLT - NP/14/1191 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural building;
Glaven View Farm, Thornage Road, Holt, NR25 6TA for Mr Sadler
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
INGWORTH - PF/14/1145 - Erection of replacement side conservatory; Bure Dale,
The Street for Mr Ducker
(Householder application)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/14/0948 - Erection of single-storey
rear extension; 31 Blakeney Road, Letheringsett for Mr G Gowing
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0980 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: E1579/8 to permit occupation of holiday chalets between 1 March and
31 October and 16 December to the following 14 January; 1-15 The Dell, Paston
Road for Mr I Gray
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
53
30 October 2014
MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0795 - Erection of nine detached single-storey dwellings
and associated garages; Land off Trunch Road, Mundesley for Mr D Payne
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0963 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 32
Happisburgh Road for Mr & Mrs C Rush
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/13/1440 - Non material amendment request to permit
change of roof materials to natural grey slate; 108 Mundesley Road for Mr & Miss
Dyke & Inch
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1093 - Erection of single-storey side extension to
form attached annexe; 20 Fairview Road for Mrs P Brotherston
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/14/0985 - Excavation of ponds to form wetland habitat;
Templewood, Frogshall, Northrepps for Mr E Anderson
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - PF/14/0974 - Erection of replacement single-storey/two-storey
rear extension; The Gardens, 5 Arden Close for Mr and Mrs M Storer
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/14/0895 - Raising height of part roof with front dormer window and
roof lights; 3 Farm Cottages, Beach Road, East Runton for Mr J Pickard
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/14/0775 - Erection of first floor and two-storey extensions to
provide additional bedroom, spa and treatment facilities; The Links Hotel, Sandy
Lane, West Runton for Mackenzie Hotels
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - DP/14/1242 - Prior notification of intention to demolish disused
garage block; Garage block off Sculthorpe Eastgate, Fakenham, NR21 9EU for
Victory Housing Trust
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
SEA PALLING - PF/14/0967 - Change of use from C1 (guest house/public house)
to C3 (residential dwelling); The Old Hall, Church Road for Mr N True
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - DP/14/1200 - Prior notification of intention to demolish former
school building and classroom block; Hilbre, Holway Road for Cornerstone
Planning Ltd
(Prior Notification (Demolition))
SLOLEY - PF/14/1036 - Erection of rear and side extension, raising the height of
roof and insertion of dormer windows; Rongene, Station Road, Worstead for Mr
D Barnes
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/14/0905 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 14/0073 to permit construction of additional section of pitched roof;
Development Committee
54
30 October 2014
Wedgewood House, Gimingham Road for Mr D Cushing
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - PF/14/0965 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
construction of pitched roof; St. Anns, Brumstead Road for Mr & Mrs P Kerrison
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - PF/14/0805 - Restoration of fen including removal of silt and
installation of sluices; Stiffkey North Fen, Morston Road, Stiffkey for Buxton
Conservation Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
SWAFIELD - PF/14/1165 - Continued siting of storage containers, portacabin
office, portable fridge and freezer units; Farm Shop, The Street for Tavern Tasty
Meats Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
THURNING - LA/14/0902 - Internal alterations, installation of replacement
entrance door and erection of single-storey extension and porch; Thurning Hall,
Wood Dalling Road for Mrs P Harrold
(Listed Building Alterations)
TRUNCH - PF/14/0960 - Raise the roof of the bungalow and erection of one and a
half storey side extension with rear balcony and detached cart shed/garage; 1
Wrights Loke for Ms L Philips
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - PF/14/0878 - Erection of first floor side extension; Tee Farm House,
Trunch Road for Mr B Pearce
(Householder application)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PU/14/0987 - Notification of intention to change the use
of agricultural buildings to B8 (storage and distribution); Farm building and
associated land at Lodge Farm, Sheringham Road, West Beckham for Mrs L
Blaxell
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0969 - Erection of two borehole kiosks and
formation of vehicular access (part retrospective); Land at Mace Hill, Weybourne
Road, Upper Sheringham for Anglian Water Services Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/14/1065 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 26
Church Lane, Upper Sheringham for Mr N Smith
(Householder application)
WALCOTT - PF/14/0776 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and use of land for
siting park home; Pasadena, St Helens Road, Walcott for Mr & Mrs D Butterfield
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/14/1079 - Erection of first floor extension to form manager's
flat, installation of external staircase, conversion of attic to additional guest
bedrooms and internal alterations to flat 2; Black Lion Hotel, Friday Market Place
for The Black Lion Hotel Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
55
30 October 2014
WALSINGHAM - LA/14/1080 - Internal and external alterations and first floor
extension to facilitate formation of manager's flat, conversion of attic to
additional guest bedrooms and internal alterations to flat 2; Black Lion Hotel,
Friday Market Place for The Black Lion Hotel Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0973 - Erection of side porch; 57 Waveney Close
for Ms T Ingle
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0907 - Erection of storage building; Wells
Harbour Commission, East End for Wells Harbour Commissioners
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0839 - Formation of 116 touring pitches and
erection of two amenity blocks; Pinewoods Holiday Park, Beach Road,
Wells-next-the-Sea for Holiday Park
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0981 - Installation of French doors with Juliette
balcony; 7 Quayside Court, The Quay for Mr & Mrs W Pearce
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/0982 - Removal of window and installation of
French doors with Juliette balcony; 7 Quayside Court, The Quay for Mr & Mrs W
Pearce
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/14/1010 - Removal of french doors to replace with
window, insertion of french doors to garden room/porch extension and internal
alterations; Hawthorn, 19 Station Road, Wells-next-the-Sea for Ms L Reynolds
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - NMA1/14/0493 - Non-material amendment request to
permit alteration to dormer window to front elevation; Shipwrights, East End,
Wells-next-the-Sea for Mr R Laucht
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WEYBOURNE - NMA1/14/0673 - Non-material amendment request to reduce size
of extension including lowering of ridge height and omission of roof light; 7
Church Farm Close for Mrs A Tebbutt
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
WICKMERE - PF/14/0933 - Installation of replacement gates; 1 Park Farm Barns,
Wolterton Park, Wolterton for Mrs P Seligman
(Householder application)
WIGHTON - PF/14/1032 - Replace the existing slates on the nave, south aisle
roofs with new lead and replace the existing slates on the south porch with new
slates and fit new cast iron gutters and down pipes to nave, both aisles and
porch; All Saints Church, Kirkgate Lane for PCC of All Saints Church, Wighton
(Full Planning Permission)
WITTON - PF/14/0998 - Erection of two two-storey/single-storey side extensions,
change of use agricultural land to garden area and erection of greenhouse;
Meadow View, Mill Common Road, Ridlington for Mr & Mrs Ashmore
Development Committee
56
30 October 2014
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - PF/14/1009 - Demolition of bungalow and erection of replacement
two-storey dwelling and detached double garage; Windy Ridge, Meeting Hill
Road, Meeting Hill for Mr and Mrs Nash
(Full Planning Permission)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - PF/14/1015 - Change of use of domestic shed to commercial
gymnasium with new access track and retention of two caravans for holiday use;
The Whins, The Downs for Mrs L Massingham
(Full Planning Permission)
BRINTON - PF/14/1001 - Installation of 13 Solar Panels; Old Hall Farm House, Old
Hall Lane for Mr N Holmes
(Householder application)
BRINTON - LA/14/1002 - Installation of 13 Solar Panels; Old Hall Farm House, Old
Hall Lane for Mr N Holmes
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1046 - Erection of Dwelling (revised design following
Planning Permission PF/13/0349); The Old Vegetable Garden, 4 Knoll Gardens,
Sculthorpe Road, Fakenham for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/14/1055 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land rear of 18
Wells Road for Mr C Cunningham
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/14/1139 - Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached and 1 detached
two-storey dwellings; Land Adjacent to 8 and 9 The Fairstead for Primrose
Developments (Anglia) Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
LESSINGHAM - PF/14/0964 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 75/1417 to permit full residential occupation; Kayotic, Bush Drive,
Bush Estate, Eccles-on-sea, Norwich, NR12 0SF for Mr G Greatbanks
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/1008 - Erection of front porch; Stables, Burgh
Parva Barns, Holt Road for Mrs K Paterson
(Householder application)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/1051 - Erection of pair of semi-detached
two-storey dwellings; 12 Astley Terrace for Melbobby Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0976 - Formation of vehicular access; Clewer House,
27 Aylsham Road for Mr D Woods
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1025 - Erection of two-storey semi-detached dwelling;
Land at 17 Hazell Road for Mr D West
Development Committee
57
30 October 2014
(Full Planning Permission)
SUSTEAD - PF/14/0867 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling and cart
lodge and change of use of land from agricultural to garden; Willows Cottage,
The Street for Mrs I Spurrell
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/14/0962 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land adjoining
Park Farm Barn, Knapton Road for Mr & Mrs Bennett
(Full Planning Permission)
TUNSTEAD - PU/14/0997 - Prior notification of intention to convert agricultural
buildings to two residential dwellings and associated garden and parking; New
Barn Farm, Church Lane, Tunstead for Norfolk County Council
(Change of Use Prior Notification)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
BARSHAM - PF/13/1494 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 01/0855 to permit full residential occupation; Barsham Barns, Green
Way, North Barsham for Mr A Hudson
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
12.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
HICKLING - PO/14/0250 - Erection of detached farm manager's dwelling; Land at
Poplar Farm, Sutton Road for Norman Farming Partnership
INFORMAL HEARING 09 October 2014
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one
two-storey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills for PP3
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0159 - Erection of four semi-detached two-storey
dwellings; 12 Astley Terrace for Melbobby Limited
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/14/0158 - Erection of two detached two-storey
dwellings; 14 Melton Street for Melbobby Limited
SUTTON - PF/14/0216 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling and attached
garage; Fairfield, Church Road for Mr R Banester
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
No items
15.
COURT CASES - PROGRESS AND RESULTS
No items
Development Committee
58
30 October 2014