OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 31 MAY 2012
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
1.
BRISTON - PF/12/0173 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission ref:
1994/1558 PM to allow use of land designated as open space as allotments and
further parcel to garden; Land to rear 62a -72 Jewel Close and 33 Wellington
Road for Lomax Land Holdings Ltd
- Target Date: 05 April 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19941558 PM - Erection of 8 bungalows and 122 houses
Approved 04/05/1995
THE APPLICATION
Seeks a variation of Condition 1 of planning approval 19941558 PM to allow the use
of an area of land designated as public open space of approximately 0.5 hectares in
area as allotments and a further parcel of land having an area of 27 square metres
as part of the garden area of Plot 33 Hillside.
An amended plan has been received showing a footpath link.
The description of the application has been amended.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Wright having regard to the following planning issue:
Potential loss of a footpath link and open space.
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection, including in respect of revised proposals.
REPRESENTATIONS
27 letters of objection, 21 of which are from residents of Melton Constable which
raise the following concerns (summarised):1. The land at the western end of the development is designated as open space and
clearly shows a footpath.
2. The area would no longer be available to residents on the south side of Melton
Constable who have no access to a play area for children in this location.
3. The proposal would result in what was originally intended to be a safe pathway
to Astley Primary School.
Development Committee
1
31 May 2012
4. It is essential that children are allowed to make their way safely to school which is
not the case when walking anywhere near the B1354.
5. The placing of a fence would create a divide between Briston and Melton
Constable in an area which I believe was intended to be a public open space for
both villages.
6. The plan has no provision for residents of Melton Constable to apply for an
allotment.
7. Historically this area has been used for recreation and dog walking.
8. When and if the 38 dwellings in Grove Road are built the for and access to public
open space will be even more important.
9. There are very few safe places for children to play.
10. Residents of Melton Constable will no doubt be affected by perpetual bonfires
from the allotments.
11. Allotments would result in more traffic through the estate including tractors
delivering manure.
12. Just another example of moving the goalposts by not only the developer but also
the local authority.
A letter has also been received from the acting Head of Astley Primary School in
which concerns are raised concerning the change of use of land to allotments. In
particular a safe journey to school for pupils is of paramount importance and they are
being put at risk with the removal of the footpath. Further, removal of the footpath
could result in further congestion outside the school with parents choosing to drive
children to school rather than walk.
CONSULTATIONS
Melton Constable Parish Council – Objects on the grounds that it deviates from the
original permission which stipulates that this is to be a play area and footpath.
Objection maintained in response to change of description of development.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator – Strongly supports the proposal which would deliver
additional allotment land in Briston village where there is currently a demand and
increase the overall number of allotments within the District.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) - No objection
Countryside and Parks Manager - No objection
Planning Policy Manager – This site comprises part of a larger area provided as
Public Open Space in association with the adjacent residential estate development.
Adopted Core Strategy policies seek to provide, and once provided, protect, public
open space and require that it should not be developed for other purposes. What
comprises Open Space for the purposes of these policies is defined in Appendix A of
the Core Strategy which defines five types of Open Space - Public Parks, Children‟s
Play Areas, Playing Pitches, Natural Green Spaces, and Allotments. In land use
terms allotments can, and often do comprise, part of the Public Open Space
provision.
Where Open Space is provided the adopted standards seek to ensure that provision
is made in each of the five types in accordance with specified standards. Hence, if
there were to be an excess of provision in one of the types of Open Space to the
detriment of another the impact of such a change should be considered. In this
instance the proposal would result in no reduction in the quantity of Open Space,
would add to the mix of open space uses, and respond to local demand for further
Development Committee
2
31 May 2012
allotments. Whilst, there would be some reduction in the amount of „Natural Green
Space‟, such space remains available within the overall Open Space Area, and for
these reasons I would not wish to raise a policy objection.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The National Planning Policy Framework came into effect on 27 March 2012.
Amongst other issues it indicates that access to high quality open spaces and
opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the
health and wellbeing of communities.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Footpath link
2. Loss of open space.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Development Boundary for Briston/Melton Constable as
defined by the adopted Core Strategy in an area primarily in residential use, where
Core Strategy Policies EN4 and CT1 are applicable.
Policy EN4 requires that in addition to a high quality of design all development
proposals make efficient use of land while respecting the density, character,
landscape and biodiversity of the surrounding area. In addition they should make a
clear distinction between public and private spaces and enhance the public realm,
create safe environments addressing crime prevention and community safety and
ensure that places and buildings are accessible to all, including elderly and disabled
people. Furthermore they should incorporate footpaths, green links and networks to
the surrounding area, whilst proposals should not have a significantly detrimental
effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.
Policy CT1 requires that within areas designated as open space development will not
be permitted except where it enhances the open character or recreational use of the
land. Furthermore development proposals which result in the whole or partial loss of
open space will not be permitted unless, the space does not contribute to the
character of the settlement; and is surplus to requirement (taking account of all the
functions it can perform), or where provision of equal or greater benefit is provided in
the locality.
Development Committee
3
31 May 2012
As far as the smaller of the two areas is concerned this has not raised any issues
locally and it would make sense to incorporate this rather small and under-utilised
area of land into part of the garden area of Plot 33 without affecting the integrity of
the open space.
In terms of the footpath link, when planning permission was granted in 1995 for the
development of Hillside a footpath was shown from Grove Road running along the
southern edge of the site, behind properties in Jewel Close before linking into Garden
Close. Although provision of the footpath link was not a requirement of the planning
permission it appears on maps dating back to the beginning of last century and had
for many years had been used by the residents of Melton Constable. However for
safety reasons it has been closed for several years during the development of the
site.
In order to allay the concerns of residents of Melton Constable the developer, in
liaison with Briston Parish Council who are to adopt this area of land, have agreed to
re-establish a footpath link, albeit in a slightly different position. It is intended that it
would run from the land on the southern side of Grove Road to a point close to the
rear of Plots 68 and 69 Jewel Close. The footpath would be 2.5 metres in width and
fenced on either side with a chain link fence so as to prevent access to the proposed
allotments. Unlike the previous route the footpath would link directly into the Hillside
development, from where pedestrians would be able to walk along pavements
through the site. Although these roads are used by traffic, due to the layout of the site
vehicle speeds are fairly low and the route is lit by street lights and as such this is
considered a far safer route than along the B1354, or the unlit and somewhat
secluded path along the southern edge of the site. However, since the area of land
between Grove Road and the site boundary is in private ownership, there is no public
right of way over it. As such until this area is developed for housing it would not be
possible to complete the link.
Turning to the issue of the loss of open space, as approved under planning
permission 94/1558 the area of land under consideration was designated as a LEAP
(Local Equipped Area of Play) of 0.9 hectares. Elsewhere within the site a further
five LAP‟s (Local Area of Play) totalling 0.15 hectares were allocated, which are
either available or in the process of being completed.
Whilst it is accepted that the larger area of open space is fairly sizeable, given its
location it is not considered to provide an attractive space for young children to play
in a safe environment since it is not overlooked by adjacent properties. Furthermore
given the nature and layout of the Hillside development the majority of dwellings have
their own private gardens within which children can play. Moreover, dog walkers still
have the benefit of the open space along the southern boundary of the site. The
Council's Planning Policy Manager has indicated that the proposal would result in no
reduction in the quantity of open space, would add to the mix of open space uses,
and would respond to local demand for further allotments. Whilst there would be
some reduction in the amount of „Natural Green Space‟, such space remains
available within the overall designated Open Space area.
As far as the residents of Melton Constable are concerned, whilst it is accepted that
there is a general lack of open space with the village, at the time planning permission
was granted for this development it was intended that the LEAP would be for the
benefit of residents of Hillside.
As far as the use of land for allotments is concerned, at the present time within the
parish of Briston the nearest existing allotment land is adjacent to the B1354 within
the main village approximately 800 metres away. As such, whilst a change of use
Development Committee
4
31 May 2012
from open space to allotment would reduce the number of people who would benefit
directly from using this land, given that there is a requirement for allotments in this
part of Briston it is considered that on balance the scheme as proposed is
acceptable.
It is therefore considered that the scheme would accord with Development Plan
policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to no new grounds of objection following the reconsultation and re-advertisement of the application and to a condition
requiring the construction of the footpath link prior to the first use of the
allotments.
2.
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0314 - Retention of roof cupola; The Quay House,
1 Beau Rivage for Mr A Livsey
- Target Date: 04 May 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Flood Zone
Norfolk Coast Area Outstanding Natural Beauty
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20090288 PF - Installation of first and second floor windows and balconies
Approved 12/08/2009
PF/10/0467 HOU - Erection of single-storey rear extension
Approved 13/07/2010
PF/11/0223 HOU - Erection of single-storey rear extension and installation of two
roof lights and first and second floor windows and balconies
Approved 10/05/2011
NMA1/11/0223 NMH - Non-material amendment request for revised window sizes,
reduction in size of balcony and changes to gallows bracket, revised gable detail,
changes to flat roof, revised position of roof light and changes to entrance hallway.
Approved 18/08/2011
NMA2/11/0223 NMH - Non-material amendment request for retention of brick finish
to wall and change of front window colour
Approved 10/02/2012
PF/12/0018 HOU - Erection of garage
Refused 08/03/2012
THE APPLICATION
This is a retrospective application seeking the retention of a roof cupola on a recently
approved and constructed single storey rear extension. The height of the roof on
which the cupola is located measures approximately 3.5m. The roof cupola itself
measures approximately 0.45m square and 0.9m in height, and is painted white.
Development Committee
5
31 May 2012
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Young having regard to the following planning issue:
Impact on the Conservation Area and its setting.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that the development is out of keeping.
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of objection have been received from the owners of adjoining properties
raising the following points:
1. Unnecessary and overly obtrusive
2. Not in keeping with surrounding rooflines
3. No functional use
4. Roof of extension higher than previous garage blocking views
5. Installation of two rooflights
6. Overdevelopment not appropriate to a conservation area with this history
7. Further structures on the site have blocked views
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - The site lies within the designated
Cley Conservation Area. The Quay House forms the end property of the Beau
Rivage terrace which by virtue of its age, form and construction makes a significance
contribution to the character and appearance of the area. In terms of visual
prominence, the site is particularly sensitive being visible across the marshland and
lying in close proximity to the Grade II* Listed Cley Mill. The site also lies within the
AONB.
The Quay House site has within the last year been subject to numerous alterations
and additions. When gauging the scheme as a whole, the building has moved away
from what was a relatively modest end terrace dwelling to what is now a property
which stands out alone with its own character and style. This has to a certain extent
resulted in a loss of connection between the building and its original architectural
context.
With regard to the proposal, the addition of the cupola does have some merits. It
helps break-up the long roofline of the extension adding some visual interest.
However, in terms of architectural context, the cupola is fanciful and a design
expression which bears little relation to the prevailing character or historic precedent
of which it is part.
On balance, whilst Conservation & Design do not advocate the installation of the
cupola it does not harm the overall setting of the Conservation Area as a whole.
By virtue that the proposal does not harm the significance of the heritage asset, no
objection is raised.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
Development Committee
6
31 May 2012
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 reuse 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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN 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 EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Acceptability of the development within the Conservation Area and Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Countryside policy area where alterations to residential
properties are acceptable in principle. The roof cupola was added after the recently
approved extension was constructed and it was considered that the development
materially altered the appearance of the dwelling and that a formal application was
required to regularise the situation.
The roof cupola is located to the rear of the property, which is an end terrace, and is
not visible from the road. The property and the roof cupola is, however, visible from
the public footpaths across the marshes to the north.
The site is located within the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. The Committee will note that whilst this is not an addition which would have
received encouragement from Officers, on balance the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager does not consider the cupola harms the overall setting of the
Conservation Area.
Furthermore, given its location within the developed area of Cley it is not considered
that the cupola has a significant detrimental impact upon the special qualities or
setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Whilst the site itself is located within a flood zone the nature of the development does
not have any impact upon flood risk to this property.
Objectors have made reference to their concerns in relation to the single storey
extension and other alterations that have taken place at the property. However, at the
time of considering the application for the extension no objections were received, and
the application was approved. Other alterations, including the installation of additional
roof lights, have been approved as non-material amendments.
Development Committee
7
31 May 2012
Given the nature of the development and its location it is not considered the cupola
has any detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the
neighbouring dwellings. Since it is not considered the cupola has a significantly
detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area the
development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Development
Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
3.
HORNING - PF/11/1274 - Conversion, extension and alteration of shop and
dwelling to two residential flats; The Galley, 43 Lower Street for Mr J Timewell
Minor Development
- Target Date: 16 January 2012
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20060380 PF - Alterations to front and rear elevations
Approved 20/04/2006
PLA/19830979 HR - Proposed house to rear of existing building
Approved 29/07/1983
PLA/19821810 HR - Proposed erection of dwelling
Approved 14/01/1983
PLA/19941238 PF - Replace thatched roof with pantiles
Refused 11/11/1994
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the conversion, extension and alteration of what is currently a ground floor
shop with residential above to two residential flats.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor McGoun having regard to the following planning issue:
Loss of a shop and the impact on the vitality of the Service Village
PARISH COUNCIL
No objection
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
concern over the loss of another shop which "draws many visitors to the village"
and would make Horning "another dead village"
overlooking of the property behind
car parking problems with shared access
One letter requesting that the party wall is well insulated from sound.
Development Committee
8
31 May 2012
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design): No
objection.
Sustainability Co-ordinator: No objection subject to requested condition.
County Council (Highways): Given the existing uses of this site has no objection
subject to a condition relating to the parking area.
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 CT 3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria
for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional
circumstances).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
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 SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the vitality of the Service Village.
2. Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area.
3. Impact on neighbours' amenities.
APPRAISAL
The site lies within a designated residential area of the Service Village of Horning
and the Horning Conservation Area. Proposals of this type are acceptable in principle
in this location subject to compliance with the detailed criteria of relevant Core
Strategy policies.
The proposal seeks to convert, extend and make alteration to the building which is
currently in retail use at ground floor with residential above to two x 3-bedroom
residential flats. It is considered that the proposal does not conflict with Policy CT3
since the retail unit that would be lost (mix of delicatessen, coffee shop and gallery)
does not easily fit within the definition of 'important local facilities and services' and
moveover it is not the last of its kind within this service village.
Development Committee
9
31 May 2012
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advises that the building holds a
prominent position within the street scene. By virtue of its age, materials and detailing
the building makes a significant contribution to the prevailing character of the area. It
is considered that in terms of the proposed physical alterations the existing modern
flat roof rear extension is of little design merit and therefore its reconstruction raises
no heritage cause for concern. The proposed alterations all relate to the rear of the
building and would not be visible from the public domain. Importantly the proposals
would ensure that the front (highway) elevation would remain unaltered, retaining the
building's traditional character and appearance. All fenestration would be timber and
reflect more traditional proportions and detailing. It is considered that the proposal
would not impact on the significance of the designated heritage asset.
With regard to the relationship with the attached property, currently there is a window
at ground floor (currently retail area) on the east elevation which forms the boundary;
this is proposed for a bedroom. It is considered that obscured glazing should be
utilised for the privacy of both properties. At first floor level two windows along this
boundary are proposed to be blocked up leaving one window on the rear elevation
which looks out and opens over the attached neighbour's rear garden. The neighbour
has a holiday let building directly below this window. The removal of two of the three
windows at first floor level is considered to be an improvement on the existing
situation.
With respect to the Design Guide basic amenity criteria, one first floor living room
window on the northern elevation would be some 10m from what appears to be a
bedroom window of the neighbouring property. The Design Guide recommends 18m,
between primary and secondary room windows. However, it is considered that since
the first floor is already in residential use and there is an existing (smaller) hallway
window in this position no significant detrimental impact on the privacy of the
neighbouring property or the proposal would be introduced by this element.
Concern has been raised with regard to sound insulation for the adjoining property.
As Part E of the Building Regulations covers resistance to passage of sound, which
includes wall treatments where flats are formed by material change of use, it is
considered that this concern would be dealt with under the Building Regulations.
Two parking spaces in total would be provided and a cycle storage area. The
Highway Authority has no objection given the existing use of the site subject to a
condition that the parking area is laid out and surfaced in accordance with the plans.
In addition the proposed parking and turning area would not encroach on the existing
shared access arrangements.
In conclusion, it is considered that the design, layout and appearance of the
development are acceptable and would not have an adverse impact on the amenities
of the neighbouring properties. Accordingly the development is considered to be in
compliance with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of the following conditions.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and specifications
and the amended design and access statement received by the Local Planning
Authority on 23 November 2011.
Development Committee
10
31 May 2012
Reason:
To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the expressed
intentions of the applicant and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site,
in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3
The external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted shall be
in full accordance with the details submitted in the planning application, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
To accord with the expressed intentions of the applicant, in the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and because the Local Planning Authority wishes to
retain control over the type of possible alternative materials to be used in the
approved development, to ensure the acceptable appearance of the building in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and
Chapter 10 of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
4
Prior to occupation of the ground floor flat hereby permitted the proposed on-site
car parking area shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in
accordance with the approved plan. It shall be retained thereafter for that specific
use.
Reason:
To ensure the permanent availability of the parking manoeuvring area, in the
interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy CT 6 of the adopted North
Norfolk Core Strategy.
5
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the ground
floor flat subject to this permission shall not be occupied until the following
measures identified in the Design and Access Statement received on 23
November 2011 have been implemented:
1. More than 80% of light fittings to be fitted with low energy (45 lumens/Watt or
greater) bulbs
2. Timber used in joinery and roofing to be sourced from a certified sustainable
(i.e. Forest Stewardship Council, or equivalent) source
3. Roof and wall insulation to be in excess of current Part L building regulation
requirements (i.e. U-values below those specified in the relevant Part L approved
document).
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.
6
Prior to occupation of the ground floor flat, the existing ground floor window on
the east elevation of the development hereby permitted shall be obscure glazed
with a degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5. The glazing shall
thereafter be retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property and to provide
privacy to the occupiers of the development, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of
the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as amplified by paragraphs 3.3.9-3.3.11
of the North Norfolk Design Guide.
Development Committee
11
31 May 2012
4.
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0384 - Raising of roof to provide first floor
accommodation and erection of one and a half-storey front extension; 1 Beach
Close for Rev & Mrs Chandler
- Target Date: 23 May 2012
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Area
Coastal Erosion Risk Area
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to raise the roof of the dwelling to provide accommodation in the roof space,
and erect a one and a half-storey front extension.
The existing property is a dual pitched bungalow, with a flat roof side conservatory
and a flat roof front section. The proposal is to enlarge the property by raising the
dual pitched roof to create a one and a half-storey dwelling, in addition to a 1.3m
deep one and a half-storey front extension. The roof ridge height would increase from
approximately 4.7m to approximately 6.4m. The eaves height would increase from
2.2m to 3.1m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Fitch-Tillett having regard to the following planning
issues:
Overdevelopment and design.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object to the application on the grounds that it is excessive development. Also raised
the question of where surface water would be directed. Mains drainage would be
preferable due to the particularly sensitive area close to the cliff.
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection received raising the following points (summarised);
1. Clutter the view from their house.
2. Character of the property would be totally altered, resembling a house instead of
a bungalow.
3. Property would be overbearing for immediate neighbours.
4. Potentially overlook neighbours to the south.
5. Property would be an eyesore from the coastal path, which may deter visitors
from visiting Overstrand and may affect local businesses.
6. Property prices and property saleability could be adversely affected.
7. Size of property would be too big and out of keeping with the area, which
comprises of bungalows and chalet bungalows.
8. Height of the property should not be increased; accommodation could be
provided within the roof using dormer windows, similar to its immediate neighbour
2 Beach Close.
9. No extensions should be allowed within Coastal Erosion Risk Areas.
10. Sat approximately 70m from the cliff edge, the increased height could affect the
stability of the cliffs.
11. Application is a veiled attempt to build a new house by keeping some original
walls. Other applications have been refused for new dwellings in the Coastal
Erosion Areas of Overstrand and consistency should be applied.
12. Development would significantly increase the volume of the property, but not the
footprint.
Development Committee
12
31 May 2012
13. Proposal not consistent with PPG20 as it would impinge upon the views along the
coast and not be consistent with the precautionary approach recommended
where coastal erosion is evident.
14. Increase in bedrooms is likely to lead to more cars, which could result in parking
along the road, possibly hindering access for larger vehicles.
15. Understood the property to be used a holiday home, with future plans as a
retirement home by the current owners for themselves. The increase in size
appears excessive for these uses.
16. Conceivable that the proposed extensions could lead to a dwelling with 6
bedrooms, by using the proposed dining room and first floor study as bedrooms
17. Property could be used as a B&B, further increasing the amount of traffic
generated.
18. Approval would conflict with refusals for development along the same road.
CONSULTATIONS
Coastal Engineer - The alterations will not impact on the longevity of the property nor
impact on the rate of erosion. There may be implications for the number of people at
risk in the future.
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 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 11: Coastal erosion (prevents development that would increase risk to life
or significantly increase risk to property and prevents proposals that are likely to
increase coastal erosion).
North Norfolk Development Control Guidance: Development and Coastal Erosion
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Design of development
2. Impact on neighbour's amenity
3. Increase in risk to life and property as a result of development within the Coastal
Erosion Risk Area
APPRAISAL
The site is located within a designated Residential Area and Coastal Erosion
Constraint Area as defined by the adopted Core Strategy, where Policies EN 4 and
EN 11 are particularly relevant. Policy EN 4 is permissive of appropriate extensions
to existing dwellings. Policy EN 11 seeks to ensure that development within areas
potentially affected by coastal erosion does not increase the risk to life or significantly
increase the risk to property.
Development Committee
13
31 May 2012
The properties in the immediate area are either bungalows or one and a half-storey,
with the immediate neighbour on Beach Close being a one and a half-storey
dwelling. Whilst this dwelling has a similar footprint, its roof pitch is much steeper,
allowing for first floor accommodation to be served by gable windows and a northern
dormer window. To the rear (south) lies a variety of both bungalows and one and a
half-storey dwellings. Owing to the layout of the properties the applicant's dwelling
shares boundaries with five properties to the south. These dwellings are located
approximately 20m from the boundary and face onto Pauls Lane. Several have
conservatories or garden rooms on their northern elevations.
The development would enlarge the footprint by only 3 square metres. However due
to the introduction of first floor accommodation the floor space would increase by
some 80% (150 square metres to 270 square metres). However it is worth noting that
as with the majority of one and a half-storey dwellings, some of the areas closer to
the external walls would not be useable (except for storage) due to the low roofline.
To accommodate rooms upstairs the roof height would be raised by 1.7m. The
proposed development would arguably alter the architectural character of the
property, primarily by raising the roof. However due to the variety of the dwellings in
the local area, with several one and half-storey dwellings of a comparable size to the
proposal, the development is, on balance, considered to be of an appropriate design
for this location.
In respect of the impact on neighbouring amenity, the rear elevation would have 2
roof lights, both set approximately 1.65m from the internal floor level, with the
western gable containing two first floor windows (both serving bathrooms). A
condition requiring obscure glazed would remove any undue overlooking for the
immediate neighbours, whose own gable window would lie approximately 7m away.
The roof lights would be positioned high enough so as not to raise significant
concerns regarding overlooking. The three main windows on the northern elevation
cause no concern. One window is proposed in the eastern elevation, serving a
bedroom. Very limited overlooking would result in relation to neighbours to the south.
Furthermore due to the number of existing first floor windows in the northern
elevations of the properties along Pauls Lane, the extent of additional overlooking
would not be significant. Since neighbouring dwellings to the south are approximately
26m from the applicants‟ property, there is no issue regarding potential
overshadowing. In conclusion it is not considered that the proposal would result in
any significant detrimental loss of privacy to the occupiers of adjacent dwellings.
The development would increase the three bedroom bungalow to a four bedroom
one and a half-storey dwelling. Arguably an alternative use of the rooms could result
in a five or six bedroom dwelling. However extensions under permitted development
could reasonably create another three bedrooms, on top of the existing three
bedroom bungalow. Policy EN 11, together with the Council‟s adopted Development
and Coastal Erosion guidance document, permit householder extensions, such as
this proposal, where the level of increase is minimal. In this case, considering the
development which could occur under permitted development, the proposal is
considered to result in a relatively minimal increase in the threat to life. The proposal
would not impact on the longevity of the property, nor impact on the rate of erosion.
Although the scale of the proposals is considered to be relatively significant in terms
of its appropriateness within Coastal Erosion Constraint Areas, on balance the
development is considered to comply with policy EN 11.
All materials would match the existing except for the introduction of cladding. A
condition would be added to agree the colour prior to development.
Development Committee
14
31 May 2012
Although the addition of more surface water run off is a consideration at this site,
since the footprint would be increasing by only 3 square metres, this is not
considered to be a significant concern.
Subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered to be of an
appropriate design and to comply with adopted Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to conditions removing permitted development rights to
insert any further window on the southern and western elevations, requiring
the first floor western elevation windows to be obscure glazed, and requiring
details of the cladding to be agreed.
5.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0212 - Erection of dwelling and conversion of
outbuilding to annexe; The Crown Hotel, The Buttlands for Mr P Parker
Minor Development
- Target Date: 12 April 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Linder
Full Planning Permission
Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade II
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761030 PF - Conversion of old coach house into living accommodation
Approved 27/08/1976
PLA/19880761 PF - Conversion of outbuildings to form additional living
accommodation
Approved 02/06/1988
PLA/20070740 PF - Conversion of outbuilding to two one-bedroom units, erection of
five one-bedroom units and replacement orangery
Approved 11/10/2007
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of a two storey, four bedroom, contemporary style dwelling having
a ground floor area of 115 square metres and first floor of 89 square metres, together
with the conversion of an associated outbuilding to annexe accommodation, which
would have a total floor area of some 60 square metres and three bedrooms.
The dwelling which would be located within the walled garden of The Crown Hotel
would be constructed of a mix of render and vertical cedar cladding to the walls whilst
the shallow curved roof would be of sedum. The alterations to form the annexe,
which would involve the roof being raised by approximately 0.8m, would be in
reclaimed materials.
Access to the development would be from both The Buttlands to the north and Burnt
Street to the south via an unmade roadway known as Crown Road. Parking for the
development would be to either side of Crown Road with 2 spaces immediately
adjoining the annexe and a further three spaces to the eastern side of the access
drive.
Development Committee
15
31 May 2012
Amended plans have been received which have resulted in a slight re-orientation of
the main house and elevational changes. In addition a drawing showing a section
through the site, including Crown Lodge has been submitted. A revised plan showing
the parking and manoeuvring area has also been received.
A further amended plan has been received which corrects an inaccuracy in the
proposed position of the dwelling on the site plan. (The application has subsequently
been re-advertised and statutory consultees re-consulted.)
A related application for listed building consent for alterations to form the annexe
(LA/12/0213) will be determined under delegated powers.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
No comments.
REPRESENTATIONS
Letters of objection in respect to both the original and amended scheme have been
received from the owners of the three properties immediately to the north and west of
the site and the owners of Crown Lodge to the south which raise the following
concerns:- (summarised).
1. The proposed development would result in a significant loss of light to Crown
House to the north, as the garden to this property is enclosed on three sides and
only open to the south.
2. In view of the loss of light the proposed house should be lowered by at least 600
millimetres and moved at least a further 2 metres further away from the
boundary.
3. The proposed dwelling would result in significant overlooking of Crown Lodge.
4. The development looms too large to Crown House, Crown Villa, West Lea and
the important historic listed wall.
5. It would obstruct views and cause reductions in sun and daylight.
6. English Heritage has raised concerns that the new dwelling will affect the
significance of Crown House and will result in a degree of harm.
7. English Heritage consider that the impact of the current proposal on the setting of
Crown House and the wider Conservation Area has not been has not be
adequately considered.
8. In design terms the proposed dwelling is considered to be aesthetically alien and
unacceptable within the Conservation Area.
9. As a result of increased development, now nine dwellings and the popularity of
the hotel since 2007, traffic using Crown Road, including delivery vehicles has
increased leading to frequent congestion. As it is only single track, vehicles
sometimes have no alternative other than to reserve out onto Burnt Street.
10. The intensification of the use of Crown Road which is a pedestrian right of way,
used by school children and local residents, would affect individual's safety.
11. There is insufficient manoeuvring room for vehicles using the parking spaces with
the wall to Crown Cottage having been hit on more than one occasion.
12. The parking arrangement shown on paper may appear to work, but current usage
of the driveway would suggest that the large increase proposed would result in
chaos.
13. The disabled ramp from the orangery, for which there is no permission impinges
into the access drive and is a blind spot.
Development Committee
16
31 May 2012
14. The parking for four vehicles shown to the north of the manager's house is
considered to be too much and unworkable due to the space available, ground
levels and increased car used which would be generated by the development
together with deliveries to the hotel.
15. What is to happen to the bins and bottle bank currently stored in the area shown
for parking?
16. The hotel supplies frozen foods to its other hotels and there is a constant use of
the cold store van. Also where is the refrigerator going to be repositioned?
17. There are re-occurring problems with the sewage blockages in Crown Road and
surface water flooding.
18. Concerns that the garden wall between the application site and Crown Lodge
could be affected by the development.
19. The Conditions imposed in respect of car parking as required by planning
permission 07/0740 have not been adhered to.
20. The proposed development would devalue surrounding properties and serves no
other purposes other than a commercial venture.
Agents response:An e-mail response has been received from both the applicant's and their agent
which outline the operation of the beer garden in relation to the hotel and the
perceived impact of the development on the hotel and wider Conservation Area.
CONSULTATIONS
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) – Makes
the following comments in respect of the amended plans: 1. Reducing the gable width and splitting the roof into three main elements would
significantly reduce the visual impact of the proposed dwelling. With the other minor
changes to materials, the new build would have an appearance not dissimilar to that
previously approved.
2. Leading on from 1 above, the revisions made would also reduce the impact of the
development on the setting of the Grade II Listed Crown House. With the dwelling
having been moved away from the boundary, and now presenting only a 5.7m wide,
angled gable, the impact upon the adjoining heritage asset would again not be
dissimilar to the previous scheme. With the land falling away to the south, it is not
considered that this impact would amount to a sustainable ground for objection.
3. The agent's comments in respect of the proceeds of the development supporting
the business are noted. However, in contrast to the approved holiday units, this
support would clearly be on a one-off basis only. It is therefore difficult for the
applicants to argue that the benefits of development would be anything other than
short term in nature. This said, with there apparently being no requirement for holiday
lets, and with the walled garden seemingly not essential to the running of the hotel,
this issue hardly seems a sound basis for a recommendation of refusal.
For these reasons, and because; a) the conversion of the outbuilding is still
considered acceptable, and b) the scheme would not materially harm the character
and appearance of the Wells Conservation Area, Conservation & Design do not wish
to object to this application as amended.
English Heritage – Although the revised design goes some way towards reducing the
impact on the setting of Crown House they continue to have concerns that a new
house in such close proximity will have an impact on the significance of the Listed
Building and result in a degree of harm. They point to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and the fact that the harm needs to be weighted against the
public benefits.
Development Committee
17
31 May 2012
In terms of the impact on the longer term viability of the Crown Hotel following an email from the applicant's they understand that the hotel will continue to be viable
without the garden land.
English Heritage point to the fact that the wall to the garden is a curtilage listed
structure and as such raise concerns that given the only access is via an arched
pedestrian opening that no method statement has been provided as to how the
dwelling would be constructed without affecting this opening.
As far as the design of the dwelling is concerned English Heritage considers that it
has some merit and interest however due to its plan form and massing it is at
variance with the prevalent forms found in the Conservation Area. As such they
consider that there should be a justification within the Design and Access Statement
which explains that the loss of this open area within the Conservation Area will not
result in harm in its character and appearance.
In conclusion whilst recognising that the development of the site was approved in
2007 this would have been to compliment the hotel. In the light of the latest
Government guidance they remain of the opinion that inadequate consideration has
been given to the current proposal in terms of the setting of Crown House and the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
County Council (Highway) - Cromer - No objection subject to conditions
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to
be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
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).
Development Committee
18
31 May 2012
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).
OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATION
On 27 March 2012 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect
which sets out the Government's intended direction of travel in respect of achieving
sustainable development.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Site history.
2. Principle of development.
3. Impact on neighbouring properties.
4. Impact on the vitality and viability of the hotel.
5. Design.
6. Impact on the character and setting of the Listed Building.
7. Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
8. Car parking and highway safety.
APPRAISAL
This application was deferred at the meeting of the Development Committee on 5
April 2012 in order to allow Members to visit the site.
Site History
In 2007 planning permission was granted for the conversion of the outbuilding to two
two-bedroom units, the erection of five one-bedroom units within the walled garden
and the replacement of the orangery. Since then the orangery has been constructed
and although no works have been undertaken in respect of the bedroom units these
could be implemented at any time without the need for further planning permission.
Therefore given that the principle of development of the site has been established,
whilst the current scheme needs to be considered on its individual merits account
also needs to be taken of what could be built without further permission.
Principle of development
The site is located within the Development Boundary for Wells-next-the-Sea as
defined by the adopted Core Strategy and in an area primarily in residential use
where in principle residential development would be acceptable subject to
compliance with Policies EN4, EN8 and CT 5 and CT6.
Policy EN4 requires all development to be designed to a high quality, reinforcing local
distinctiveness. Innovative and energy efficient design will be particularly
encouraged. Development proposals will be expected to have regard to the North
Norfolk Design Guide in terms of their design, scale and massing and relate
sympathetically to the surrounding area, incorporate sustainable construction
principles and make efficient use of land. 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 requires
development proposals to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
designated assets, in this case the nearby Grade II listed buildings and wider
Conservation Area and their settings through high quality, sensitive design.
Development that would have an adverse impact on their special historic or
architectural interest will not be permitted.
Development Committee
19
31 May 2012
Impact on neighbouring properties
The permission granted in 2007 permits a five one bedroom unit with a ground floor
plan of 110 square metres, replicated on the first floor, with balconies to three of the
rooms. The gable width to this building would be 6 metres whilst the distance from
the northern boundary with Crown House would measure 1.2 metres at its closest
point. In terms of the building's height each of the five inter linking sections would
have an overall height of 5.6 metres sweeping down at the lowest point to 3.8
metres.
As proposed the dwelling would comprise three elements consisting of a central
section with lower elements to the north and south. As a result of concerns of the
neighbours the dwelling would be re-orientated on the site so that it would no longer
be square to the northern and western boundaries. As a result the northern section
closest to Crown House would be 3.1 metres from the boundary and the revised
plans show a gable width and height commensurate with the approved scheme. The
middle section of the building, which would be some 7 metres from the boundary,
would have an overall height at its northern end some 0.7 metres higher than the
lower northern section. However compared to the original scheme it would be 2.5
metres wider and due to the sweep the roof the west facing trailing edge of the
curved roof, it would be some 1.5 metres higher than the previous scheme.
It is therefore considered, in terms of the impact on the dwellings to the north, given
that it would be a further 1.6 metres from the boundary and the scale and massing of
the northern gable end would be similar, that it would not result in any further loss of
light or overbearing impact. However it is accepted that, given the increase in the
scale and massing of the central section, this would make the proposed dwelling
appear more bulky when viewed from the north.
In respect of the relationship with the property to the west the proposed dwelling
would be 2.5 metres further away from the boundary whilst the gable width would be
0.6 metres more and the overall height increased by 0.8 metres. Given the increased
separation distance this relationship is considered to be acceptable and the scale
and massing of the gable would be visually reduced through a mix of a rendered
finish and vertical boarding. The two small first floor windows to this gable would be
high level, with one serving an en-suite bathroom.
As far as the relationship with Crown Lodge to the south is concerned, as originally
proposed the bedroom units would have been less than 2m from the boundary wall
compared to 4.2m under the current scheme. However concerns have been raised
by the owners of this property in respect of the relationship of the first floor windows
to bedrooms 3 and 4 of the proposed dwelling in terms of potential overlooking. As a
result of the re-orientation of the proposed dwelling one of the windows concerned
would look directly over the roof of the proposed annexe whilst the other would look
over the roof of Crown Lodge. Given the variation in levels between the site and
Crown Lodge, which is set much lower, it is not considered that this would result in
significant amenity issues and any views over the private amenity area of Crown
Lodge would be oblique. However in order to overcome any concerns this window
could be required to be obscure glazed.
It is therefore considered that taking into account the previously approved scheme,
whilst the proposed dwelling would be more bulky in terms of its scale and massing,
given the revised orientations and distances for adjoining boundaries, it would not
significantly affect the amenities of neighbouring properties.
As far as the annexe accommodation is concerned its external dimensions would be
the same as the previously approved scheme and as such it is not considered that
there are any amenities issues in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact.
Development Committee
20
31 May 2012
Impact on the vitality and viability of the hotel
Although it is suggested by English Heritage that at the time of the previous
permission this was seen as a form of enabling development to help secure the
future of the hotel no reference was made to this in the report which was considered
by the former Committee on 16 August 2007. In respect of the current application,
following concerns raised by English Heritage the applicants have indicated that
historically the garden land did not form part of the hotel and until 2004 belonged to
Crown House which is now split into three units. The garden was purchased by the
hotel in 2004 and although used as a garden in connection with the hotel it has not
proved particularly popular, with most guests preferring to sit on benches overlooking
The Buttlands. As such this area does not benefit the hotel which functioned well until
2004 without a garden. Furthermore the hotel is part of a group of five successful
pub/hotels in Norfolk and the hotel is a viable business based on its current 12
bedroom form and is not reliant on the proposed bedroom units to ensure to its
viability and long term future.
Design
Given that planning permission exists for a contemporary-style building which paid
little regard to the local distinctiveness of the area, but which was innovative in its
design, the principal concern has to be whether the scale and massing of the current
proposal is acceptable. Unlike the previous scheme, which was composed of five
distinct elements which followed the contours of the site, the proposed dwelling,
although having a slightly smaller footprint, would only be split into three elements.
Whilst the northern section would be very similar in scale and massing, the central
section would be slightly wider and taller whilst the roof would not slope down so
much to the western elevation. However this would be compensated for by the
southern element which would step down following the contours of the site. As such,
although slightly bulkier than the previous scheme, its overall appearance would
follow the form of the extant approval. Elevationally the mix of render and vertical
boarding would help to lighten its appearance and the overhanging eaves would
present some interesting shadow lines which would contribute to its overall
appearance. Similarly the use of a sedum roof would help to make the building
appear more recessive.
It is therefore considered that, given the scale of surrounding building, in particular
Crown House and the adjoining buildings to the north, which are some 3 metres
taller, whilst not compatible in terms its form and elevational treatment, its scale and
massing would be appropriate. Furthermore, although not a cutting edge piece of
architecture the dwelling would offer a fresh approach through its modern form and
use of lightweight materials. As such it is considered that on balance the revised
design is acceptable. This view has been confirmed by the Conservation Design and
Landscape Manager who considers that as a result of the amendments the building
would have an appearance not dissimilar to that previously approved.
In terms of the outbuilding this element of the scheme has changed little from the
earlier approval.
Impact on the character and setting of the Listed Building
In their response English Heritage make reference to the (NPPF) paragraph 134
which states “where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to
the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use”. In
response the applicant's agent has pointed to the fact that the proposed dwelling
would be sited further away from the northern boundary than the approved scheme
and as such the impact on the setting would be less. Furthermore, the proposed
Development Committee
21
31 May 2012
dwelling would have no direct or physical impact on the listed hotel and given its
scale and materials is not likely to have any significant visual impact on the listed
property. In addition the proposal includes the conversion of an outbuilding which is
listed through its association with the main hotel which would otherwise be left in
disrepair. As such the agent asserts that the proposal would lead to “less than
substantial” harm when compared with the earlier approval due to its revised siting
and size. Furthermore although whilst there would be no direct public benefit the
proposal would allow their clients more capital funds to finance their business.
English Heritage also raise concerns as to how the dwelling would be constructed
without affecting the wall to the garden which is a curtilage listed structure. In
response, whilst no method statement has been submitted, the applicant's agent
states that as with the approved scheme materials/plant would either be taken
though the existing gateway at the northern end, over the wall or via the outbuilding
which is to be converted as an annexe. The existing wall would not be demolished.
In response to the amended plans the Council‟s Conservation Design and
Landscape Manager has confirmed that by proposing to move the dwelling away
from the boundary, and now presenting only a 5.7m wide, angled gable, the impact
upon the adjoining Crown House would not be dissimilar to the previous scheme.
Furthermore, with the land falling away to the south, it is not considered that this
impact would amount to a sustainable ground for objection.
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
English Heritage make reference to the (NPPF) paragraph 128 which in summary
requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected,
including any contribution made by their setting. In response the applicant's agent
refers to the design and Access Statement which describes the heritage asset and
associated outbuildings and concludes that it is not likely to have any negative impact
on its setting. Furthermore they suggest that the deep plan form described by English
Heritage which is at variance to other buildings in the Conservation Area is in fact no
worse than properties immediately to the north or those at The Buttlands.
Given the relatively enclosed nature of the site, whilst there would be some impact on
the character and appearance of the Conservation Area this it is considered would be
very localised and would not significantly affect the heritage asset.
Car parking and highway safety
In respect of Policies CT 5 and CT6 the proposal should be capable of being served
by safe access to the highway network without detriment to the amenity or character
of the locality and there should be adequate vehicle parking facilities to serve the
needs of the development in accordance with the Council's parking standards.
In terms of car parking, as far as the parking standards contained in the Core
Strategy are concern a dwelling with 4 bedrooms of more requires a minimum of
three spaces. In this case the intention is to provide five spaces which would serve
both the main dwelling and annexe. Two of these would be immediately in front of the
annexe, and would be available following the removal of a boundary fence, whilst the
other three would be within the existing outbuilding to the east of the drive, which is
currently used for storage in association with the hotel. As such whilst there would be
a displacement of storage space from the hotel, which includes a large freezer, there
would be no net loss of parking for the hotel. In terms of the available manoeuvring
area whilst the size of the parking spaces would comply with the parking standards
the width of the driveway between the spaces is only 5 metres rather than the
minimum requirement of 6 metres. As a result a space has been left between spaces
Development Committee
22
31 May 2012
1 and 2 which adjoining the annexe in order that vehicles can exit from the other
spaces.
In terms of Crown Road which provides access between The Buttlands and Burnt
Street this is only single track and has no obvious passing bays. Whilst this access
is clearly substandard again this has to be considered against the previous scheme
which overall required a total of 12 spaces but which given the site constraints could
only accommodate seven spaces. Furthermore at that time the Highway Authority
raised no objection to the lack of car parking or the resultant additional load on the
surrounding area or the access onto Burnt Street, which has limited visibility.
Therefore given that this scheme has more than sufficient parking and that the actual
number of traffic movements is likely to be less that under the approved scheme,
there is considered to be no justification to refuse the application on parking or
highway safety grounds. This view has been confirmed by the Highway Authority.
Conclusion
In conclusion in the light of the history of the site and the previously approved
scheme, whilst the latest design for the dwelling is slightly more bulky, given the fact
that it would be set further away from the site boundaries and would be additive in its
form, on balance it is considered to be acceptable. As far as the potential impact on
the amenities of neighbouring properties, again it is not considered that this would be
any worse than the approved scheme. In terms of the effects of the new dwelling on
the heritage assets there would be less than significant harm. As such on balance it
is considered that the scheme would accord with Development Plan policy and the
requirements of the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated approval, subject to no new grounds of objection following the reconsultation and re-advertising of the application and the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
6.
WICKMERE - PF/12/0277 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 00/1632 and condition 5 of planning permission reference 09/0052 to
permit permanent residential occupation; No 4, Park Farm Barns, Wolterton
Park, Wolterton for Michael McNamara Associates
Minor Development
- Target Date: 26 April 2012
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20000812 PF - Conversion of agricultural buildings into two dwellings with cart
shed garages
Refused 05/09/2000
PLA/20001632 PF - Conversion of agricultural buildings into two holiday units with
cart shed garages
Approved 06/12/2001
Development Committee
23
31 May 2012
PLA/20021926 PF - Conversion of barns to two dwellings
Refused 05/03/2003
PLA/20031416 PF - Conversion of barns to two residential dwellings
Refused 07/07/2004 - Appeal dismissed 15/12/2005
PLA/20081386
PF - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation and
erection of detached garage
Refused 24/11/2008
PF/09/0052 HOU - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation and erection
of timber garage
Approved 20/03/2009
THE APPLICATION
Is seeking permission to remove Condition 4 of planning permission reference
00/1632 and Condition 5 of planning permission reference 09/0052 to permit
permanent residential occupancy.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor N Smith having regard to the following planning issues:
Policy issues relating to the residential occupation of buildings.
PARISH COUNCIL
No response
REPRESENTATIONS
Twenty letters of support have been received, four of which are from residents of
North Norfolk.
A supporting statement has been submitted by the applicants setting out their
reasons as to why they consider the holiday occupancy conditions should be
removed, a copy of which is contained in Appendix 1.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highway Authority - Given the existing residential use of this barn,
albeit with a 'holiday' restriction, I feel it would be very difficult to argue that the
removal of these conditions would result in conditions detrimental to highway safety
and therefore on this point I have no objection to the application. It is of course the
case that this is an unsustainable location in transport terms being totally reliant on
the use of the car; however, in this particular case the Highway Authority is willing to
be guided upon the acceptability of the application in regard to sustainability by the
Local Planning Authority.
Environmental Health - No objection
Planning Policy Manager - Unit 4 is one of a number of barns within a small complex
of buildings converted into both residential (permanent) and holiday accommodation.
The specific buildings in question are subject to permissions which include conditions
limiting use to holiday accommodation only.
The buildings lie within the Countryside policy area as defined in the adopted Core
Strategy and are in a location where permanent residential use would be a departure
from policy. Unless there are material considerations which would indicate otherwise
planning permission should be refused.
Development Committee
24
31 May 2012
The applicant makes a number of submissions in which he appears to acknowledge
that the buildings are occupied on a permanent basis in breach of the condition but
argues that the condition should be removed as it is „unclear‟. This lack of clarity is
said to be evidenced by:
No clarity in the term „holiday use‟ as used in the condition.
Because of this lack of clarity the condition would be difficult to enforce.
Full residential rates have been paid.
Historically there is evidence that the building was used for residential purposes.
All buildings in the complex were once in a single ownership.
There is insufficient demand for holiday accommodation, particularly in inland
areas to support retention of the condition.
Lack of local support for holiday accommodation instead of permanent residential
use.
The building would be difficult to let on a commercially viable basis.
On the basis of the submitted information I do not consider that any of these
submissions are of sufficient weight to justify a departure from policy. The term
„holiday use‟ does not require any further clarification - it has a common and well
understood meaning. Indeed, the applicant has no difficulty in determining that the
current occupants are not on holiday and consequently do not comply with the
condition. The payment of full Council tax is further evidence of this. I am not in a
position to comment on the potential former residential use of the building other than
it seems entirely likely that such historical use, if it did take place, was abandoned
some time ago, not least due to the successive use of the building for agricultural
purposes. Neither is the fact that the group was once in single ownership material to
the determination of this specific proposal.
Current policy does however allow for the possible permanent residential use of high
quality buildings where it is shown that alternative uses are not likely to be viable and
consequently will not protect the future of the building in the long term. However,
although the applicant states this to be the case there is little, if any, supporting
evidence (marketing, rental income, relationship between costs and income, etc) to
justify such a case.
You will be aware that the government has recently published the National Planning
Policy Framework. The Council has started to consider how this Framework might
impact on the application of adopted policies and our approach to the re-use of rural
buildings is an area which is likely to be considered further. However, pending this
further consideration, which is likely to take several months, Cabinet will be asked to
resolve that the Council applies „full weight‟ to adopted policies.
In my view it would be entirely wrong to seek to pre determine the outcome of any
review process through the processing of individual planning applications and
therefore in the absence of any further justification the application should be
recommended for refusal.
Refusal of the application should naturally result in consideration of the expediency of
taking enforcement action. It is for others to determine if such action is justified but in
my view the potential for further consideration of the Council's approach to this policy
area might reasonably result in a conclusion that such action should be deferred until
any review has been undertaken.
Development Committee
25
31 May 2012
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 SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The National Planning Policy Framework came into effect on 27 March 2012.
Amongst other matters it states that Local Planning Authorities should avoid isolated
new homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as, inter
alia, where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to
an enhancement to the immediate setting.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Acceptability of removal of holiday occupancy conditions
APPRAISAL
The barn which is subject to this application is located within the Countryside policy
area. Planning permission was originally granted for its conversion to holiday
accommodation under application reference 00/1632, under the former North Norfolk
Local Plan. In addition, an application was approved for the conversion of a garage to
habitable accommodation, in connection with this barn, under application reference
09/0052. Both applications were subject to an occupancy condition that the holiday
unit and additional living accommodation should be used for holiday purposes only.
In the applicants' supporting statement they consider the conditions to be
'ambiguous' and that such a condition is 'difficult to enforce' as 'it is very imprecise,
very unclear as to what you have to do to comply with it and there is no mechanism
to comply'. However, in response it is considered that the condition is clear as it
states that 'the holiday unit hereby permitted shall be used for holiday purposes only'.
This means it should be used for holiday accommodation only and in order to comply
with the condition it should be used for this purpose and not for permanent residential
use. Such a condition is enforceable as investigations can be carried out to establish
how the accommodation is being used and whether there is evidence that it is not the
primary residence of the occupants.
Development Committee
26
31 May 2012
The applicants also make reference to their payment of full residential rates for the
property, that Barn 4 was a home at some stage, ownership of Park Farm, the
tourism study on the Council's web site and little evidence that there is a distinct
need for holiday units within North Norfolk, lack of popularity of holiday
accommodation inland, lack of support from residents for additional holiday
properties, what they consider to be the accident of the location within the
Countryside policy area, and the market experience of the applicant in restoring
barns in Norfolk.
The Committee will note the comments of the Planning Policy Manager, who advises
that none of these points is considered to justify a departure from policy in this case.
In addition the fact that the applicant's son and his family have lived in the barn for
the last 4 years is not sufficient grounds to outweigh a departure from policy. The
applicant makes reference to the poor market conditions which make selling or letting
barns in this part of Norfolk extremely challenging, but no evidence of any marketing
exercise has been submitted with the application.
Whilst formal adoption has taken place of Policy HO9 which permits permanent
residential use of buildings in the countryside, for such a proposal to be considered
acceptable it first of all needs to be located within the Policy HO9 zone. This barn is
not located in such an area and therefore the principles of the conversion of this
building remain primarily the same as when the permission was granted in 2001.
Conversion to holiday use is permitted in principle, but permanent residential use is
not. The barn is not listed unlike three other barns on the site (Barns 1, 2 and 5),
whose holiday occupancy conditions were removed after the applicant presented
financial evidence indicating that it would not be viable to convert the barns for
holiday letting on the basis that the income would be nowhere near the cost of the
conversions. Whilst that would not normally be a reason to grant permission contrary
to policy, the fact that the buildings were listed and were in need of a future use, was
considered to be a sufficient material consideration to weigh in favour of granting
planning permission.
In 2003 an application was submitted for the conversion of barns 3 and 4 to
residential dwellings (reference 03/1416). That application was determined in
accordance with the policies contained in the former North Norfolk Local Plan and
refused. The reason for refusal was that whilst the same argument was made
regarding the lack of viability of conversion to rented holiday units, given that barns 3
and 4 are not listed this was not considered to be a sufficient material consideration
to grant planning permission. Consequently an appeal was submitted and dismissed
in 2005. A public enquiry was held, and in the decision to dismiss the appeal the
Inspector was not persuaded by the viability argument that was put forward. He was
of the opinion that the holiday accommodation use had been insufficiently well
examined to enable a conclusion to be drawn that conversion to permanent
residential accommodation is the only future use of the building. He did not consider
the market had been sufficiently tested. He also concurred that residential use was
not acceptable on policy grounds because the building was not listed and that it
would represent a less sustainable form of development than holiday
accommodation. He was not convinced that residential was the only way to
safeguard the barns.
Therefore the issue of the removal of the holiday occupancy condition for this barn
has already been tested at appeal, and dismissed. Whilst this was under the policies
contained in the former North Norfolk Local Plan the principles remain the same
under the North Norfolk Core Strategy, and the development does not comply with
Development Plan policy, nor does it comply with the guidance in the NPPF.
Development Committee
27
31 May 2012
Should the Committee follow the recommendation for refusal then enforcement
action should be considered. However, as suggested by the Planning Policy
Manager the potential for further consideration of the Council's approach to this
policy area might reasonably result in a conclusion that such action should be
deferred until any review has been undertaken.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse on the following grounds:
Policy SS2 Development in the Countryside
The site lies within the designated Countryside Policy Area where there is a
general presumption against residential development. In the opinion of the
Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to provide evidence that
satisfactorily demonstrates that there are sufficient material considerations
that would justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this case.
7.
MATTERS 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 matters.
These matters 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.
HAPPISBURGH – PO/12/0423 – Erection of nine replacement dwellings and
reinstatement of former residential land to provide amenity land; sites off North
Walsham Road and Beach Road for T M Trustees Ltd
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Site visit recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control given the
range of planning policy issues involved and the location of the site.
SHERINGHAM - Article 4 Direction - Land to the rear of Nos. 7-29 (odd) Nelson
Road and Nos. 1-3 Hillside
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The Committee is recommended to undertake an inspection of the above site which
is subject to an Article 4 Direction, prior to considering a report at the following
meeting as to whether or not the Direction should be confirmed.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
8.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
ALDBOROUGH - NMA1/11/1302 - Non-material amendment request for addition
of pitched roof to entrance/utility area and revised window layout; The Cottage,
The Street, Thurgarton for Mr M Watts
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
Development Committee
28
31 May 2012
AYLMERTON - PF/12/0296 - Erection of side conservatory; Running Free Farm,
Church Road for Mr C Richardson
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/11/1109 - Erection of extension to external front platform and
installation of glazed panel to side of rear dormer; 2 The Granary, High Street
for Mr J Cary
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - LA/11/1110 - Erection of extension to external front platform and
installation of glazed panel to side of rear dormer with balcony rail; 2 The
Granary, High Street for Mr J Cary
(Listed Building Alterations)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0222 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with
habitable accommodation in roof space and increase in height of front
extension roof; 10 Wilsons Way for Mr & Mrs Green
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0272 - Removal of conservatory and erection of singlestorey rear extension; 23 Kingsway for Mr K Stanford
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0288 - Erection of single-storey extensions to side bay;
Vine Cottage, 60 Morston Road for Mr & Mrs B Thompson
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0294 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 25
Kingsway for Mr Q Pegden
(Householder application)
BODHAM - PF/12/0373 - Formation of access/parking area to serve Box Cottage
and Tudor House; Tudor House, The Street for Mr I Dyble
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/12/0298 - Erection of car port; 1 Vincent Close for Mr I Ruston
(Householder application)
CATFIELD - PF/12/0364 - Erection of rear conservatory; Melville House, Limes
Road for Mr & Mrs Stone
(Householder application)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0315 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Woodland View, The Fairstead for Mr & Mrs Earl
(Householder application)
CROMER - PF/12/0248 - Erection of single-storey front, side and rear
extensions; 26 Vicarage Road for Mrs D Braithwaite and Mrs D Hewett
(Householder application)
CROMER - AN/12/0276 - Display of two flag advertisements; Cromer Country
Club, Overstrand Road for Diamond Resorts (Europe) Limited
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
Development Committee
29
31 May 2012
CROMER - PF/12/0299 - Variation of conditions 2 and 4 of planning permission
reference 10/1455 to permit change of roof covering material; Plot adjacent 10
Cliff Drive for Mr & Mrs Fields
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - NP/11/1381 - Prior notification of intention to excavate irrigation
reservoir; Land at Lodge Farm, Banningham Road, Ingworth for Erpingham
Lodge Farms
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
FAKENHAM - LA/12/0144 - External and internal alterations including the
installation of replacement windows, shop sign, awning, rear light, condenser
unit, concrete walkway and rear rooflights; H & J Moore, 29 Upper Market for
Henry Empire Ltd
(Listed Building Alterations)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0225 - Erection of first floor side extension; 64 Holt Road
for Mr & Mrs P Frost
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0302 - Erection of rear conservatory; 32 North Park for Mr
N Wilson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - NMA1/12/0202 - Non-material amendment request for installation
of two side windows; 11 Queens Road for Mr & Mrs S Whalley
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
FELBRIGG - LA/11/0587 - Revision of design of wrought iron gates; Felbrigg
Hall, Felbrigg Park for The National Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
FELBRIGG - NMA1/10/0534 - Non-material amendment request for revised gate
design; Cromer Lodge, Felbrigg Hall for The National Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0154 - Erection of replacement two-storey dwelling;
Meadow Cottage, Langham Road for Mr & Mrs B Goodale
(Full Planning Permission)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0166 - Erection of replacement two-storey side and
single-storey rear/side extensions; 98 Holt Road for Mrs Reeves
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0292 - Conversion of attached barn to habitable
accommodation and erection of garden room extension; The Old Barn, Field
Dalling Road, Saxlingham for Mr & Mrs R Raywood
(Householder application)
FIELD DALLING - PF/12/0385 - Erection of first floor side extension and singlestorey rear, front and side extensions; 2 Highfield for Mr J Everitt
(Householder application)
FULMODESTON - PF/12/0274 - Continued use of barn for B8 (storage); Barn at
Clipstone Farm, Clipstone for Ralph Harrison and Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
30
31 May 2012
GRESHAM - PF/12/0215 - Change of use of studio to holiday dwelling and
formation of vehicular access; Mill Farmhouse, Mill Road, Upper Gresham for
Mr T Keen
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/12/0319 - Erection of two-storey rear extension and
conservatory; Rivendell, Whimpwell Street for Mr S Will
(Householder application)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/12/0351 - Change of Use from Animal Therapy Unit to
ancillary garage/store; The Bungalow, Massingham Road, West Raynham for
Mrs Garrity
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/11/1376 - Erection of poultry house; Willow Farm, Stubb Road
for G A Tallowin & Co
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/11/1467 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Poplar Farm Bungalow, Sutton Road for Norman Farming
Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - LA/12/0035 - Alterations to outbuilding to facilitate conversion to
holiday accommodation; Poplar Farm, Sutton Road for Norman Farming
Partnership
(Listed Building Alterations)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0366 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Fir
Cottage, Heathfield Close for Mr T Lish
(Householder application)
HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0265 - Conversion of barns to farm manager's
dwelling; Park Farm, Fulmodeston Road for Dick Seaman Farms Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/11/1169 - Erection of single-storey front and side extensions and
insertion of dormer window; Spout Hills Bungalow, Letheringsett Hill for Mrs C
Reynolds
(Householder application)
HOLT - PF/12/0286 - Installation of replacement front windows; Byfords, 1-3
Shirehall Plain for Byfords
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/12/0303 - Erection of one and a half storey replacement dwelling; 38
Cley Road for Mr R Rogers
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/12/0343 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; El Coqui, 3
Beresford Road for Ms Hemmings
(Householder application)
Development Committee
31
31 May 2012
HOVETON - PF/12/0119 - Erection of front and rear extensions and attached
garage and raising of roof to provide first floor habitable accommodation; Tarn
Hows, Tunstead Road for Mr J Osburne
(Householder application)
HOVETON - NMA1/11/1507 - Non-material amendment request for retention of
existing roof; Treedona, Tunstead Road for Mr L Barrell
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
HOVETON - PF/12/0334 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning application
reference: 11/1335 to permit erection of increase in length of rear extension
and revised door and window arrangement; Sunpatch, 22 Church Road for Mr
L Buck
(Full Planning Permission)
KETTLESTONE - PF/12/0339 - Erection of agricultural storage building; Land at
White House Farm, Fakenham Road for M & K Hattrell Farms
(Full Planning Permission)
KNAPTON - PF/12/0261 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Chapel
Cottage, Pond Road for Mr & Mrs Osborn
(Householder application)
LANGHAM - PF/12/0295 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; Astley
Cottage, Binham Road for Mr & Mrs R Jones
(Householder application)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0341 - Retention of summer house; 11 The Pastures
for Mr Bishop
(Householder application)
MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0311 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension; 52
Sea View Road for Mr & Mrs Taylor
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0217 - Change of use from car sales showroom to
retail of multi electrical goods and alterations to front and rear elevations; 1321 Bacton Road for Hughes Electrical
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0249 - Erection of side and first floor extensions;
Amarillo, 1 Gigli Close for Mr G Oakley
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0263 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 58
Mundesley Road for Mrs E Barber
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0306 - Erection of first floor side extension; 14
Sampson Road for Mr & Mrs Brand
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0325 - Erection of replacement storage building;
Norstead Hall Kennels, Cromer Road for Miss N Jones
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
32
31 May 2012
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0330 - Erection of one and a half storey side and
rear extensions, front porch and replacement garage; 26 Bacton Road for Mr &
Mrs S Tyrrell
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0345 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and
front dormer window; 72 Bradfield Road for Mr & Mrs Cushion
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0352 - Erection of single-storey front extension; 92
Mundesley Road for Mr Turner
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - NMA1/07/0751 - Non-material amendment request for
revised window types, lintels, bin store positions, minor adjustments to
building and car parking positions and boundary fences/walls; Kings Close,
Hall Lane for Victory Housing Trust
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/0266 - Erection of two-storey side extension and
porch; Rose Farm Cottage, Chapel Lane for Mr R Lines
(Householder application)
RUNTON - PF/12/0273 - Erection of covered storage building; Bywater
Shellfish, Mill Lane, East Runton for Bywater Shellfish
(Full Planning Permission)
RUNTON - PF/12/0353 - Erection of detached double garage; 1 The Paddock,
Top Common, East Runton for Mr & Mrs Clarke
(Householder application)
RYBURGH - PF/12/0361 - Alterations to agricultural storage building; Wensum
House, 13 Station Road for Mr Hawes
(Full Planning Permission)
SCULTHORPE - PF/12/0331 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; Oak
Court, The Green Grove Farm, Creake Road for Mr & Mrs Lewis
(Householder application)
SEA PALLING - PF/12/0131 - Erection of single-storey side extension; The Old
Chapel, Chapel Road for Mr P Downes
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PM/12/0039 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; The Studio, 23
Holt Road for Mrs H Graham-Cameron
(Reserved Matters)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0254 - Erection of storage building and formation of
cemetery car park; Land at Cemetery Drive, Weybourne Road for Sheringham
Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - AN/12/0313 - Display of non-illuminated advertisements; The
Mo Sheringham Museum, Lifeboat Plain for Scira Offshore Energy Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
Development Committee
33
31 May 2012
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0318 - Erection of extension to detached annexe; Thistle
Dome, 2 Orchard Close for Mr J Cook
(Householder application)
STALHAM - AI/12/0280 - Display of illuminated advertisements; Stalham
Engineering Co Ltd, Yarmouth Road, The Green for Peugeot Motor Company
Plc
(Advertisement Illuminated)
SUFFIELD - PF/12/0114 - Conversion of outbuildings to habitable
accommodation; Hall Farm House, Rectory Road for Hall Farm Suffield Ltd
(Householder application)
SWAFIELD - PF/12/0340 - Erection of single-storey side extension with twostorey annexe; Beck Cottage, Bradfield Road for Mr & Mrs D Roberts
(Householder application)
SWANTON ABBOTT - PF/12/0281 - Removal of garage and erection of twostorey side extension; Eastside, Cross Road for Mr R Gwilliam & Ms A Pardon
(Householder application)
TATTERSETT - PF/10/1206 - Continued use of land for storage of tyres;
Sculthorpe Airfield, Syderstone Road for TP1 Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - PF/12/0300 - Erection of extensions to storage buildings to
provide out-door barbeque area and toilets; The Gunton Arms, Cromer Road
for Braka
(Full Planning Permission)
TRUNCH - PF/11/1527 - Widening of access, construction of driveway,
alterations to wall and installation of replacement gates; Ivy Farmhouse,
Mundesley Road for Mr & Mrs R Binny
(Householder application)
TRUNCH - LA/11/1528 - Alterations to garden room and entrance wall and
installation of replacement gates; Ivy Farmhouse, Mundesley Road for Mr &
Mrs R Binny
(Listed Building Alterations)
WALSINGHAM - LA/12/0358 - Construction of remedial over-roof and
installation of firewall; Oxford Stores, 25 High Street for John Gurney
Charitable Trust
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0512 - Retention of smoking shelter; Edinburgh
Hotel, Station Road for Mr M J Bucher
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0057 - Construction of skate park; Land at
playing fields, Beach Road for Wells Town Council
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
34
31 May 2012
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/0168 - Installation of replacement windows; 5-7
High Street for Mr & Mrs Leftley
(Listed Building Alterations)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0229 - Installation of three dormer windows to
facilitate conversion of attic to habitable accommodation; Wyndswept, Warham
Road for Mr T Keville
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0267 - Alterations to roof to provide rear gable
and insertion of window in new gable; 12 Jolly Sailor Yard for Mr C Rose and
Ms S Wise
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/0402 - Alterations to first floor layout and
installation of flue; Hollybank House, Standard Road for Mrs L Gower
(Listed Building Alterations)
WITTON - PF/12/0297 - Erection of extension to agricultural building; Heath
End, The Street, Ridlington for Mr R Allcoat
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - NMA1/11/0859 - Non-material amendment request for re-location
of toilets and position of shed door; Hadfield Market Gardens, Yarmouth Road
for Hadfields of North Walsham
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
9.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0094 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land off The
Quay, Mariners Hill for Mr & Mrs B Pope
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - PF/12/0162 - Erection of single-storey rear extension, one and a
half-storey side extension to provide annexe and extension of roof to provide
first floor habitable accommodation; Quaverhurst, Heath Road for Mr G
Macaree
(Householder application)
LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/12/0208 - Erection of 15m high wind turbine; Land
at Ferndale Farm, The Street for H & M E Betts
(Full Planning Permission)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/12/0270 - Erection of four-bay garage; Culpits Farm,
Hindolveston Road for Mr Barnes
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/12/0360 - Erection of conservatory; 38 Bulls Row for Mr &
Mrs Kirk
(Householder application)
ROUGHTON - PO/12/0118 - Erection of dwelling with loose boxes and tack
room; Sandyacre, Norwich Road for Mrs D Pritchard
(Outline Planning Permission)
Development Committee
35
31 May 2012
RYBURGH - PF/12/0255 - Erection of two-storey side extension; The Coach
House, Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Mr B Kerrison
(Householder application)
WIVETON - PF/12/0204 - Erection of ancillary residential outbuilding; The Old
Exchange, Hall Lane for Mrs N Harrison
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/12/0337 - Conversion of stables/store to residential
dwelling; Four Acre Farm, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs Palmer
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
10.
NEW APPEALS
CROMER - PF/11/0460 - Erection of three-storey dwelling; Land at Cadogan
Road, Cromer for Mr Roberts
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street, Cromer, NR27 9HH for Iceland Foods Ltd
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
11.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Site at route between Weybourne Hope
(TG104,436) and Little Dunham (TF868,118) for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
PUBLIC INQUIRY 24 May 2012
SUSTEAD - ENF/11/0235 - Building of an unauthorised dwellinghouse; Manor
House Farm, New Road, Bessingham
INFORMAL HEARING 23 May 2012
12.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BACTON - PF/11/1000 - Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use
of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road, Bacton,
Norwich, NR12 0JB for Castaways Holiday Park
BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road, Bacton, Norwich, NR12 0HB for Mr B Monk
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1070 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common, Beeston Regis for Mr Barnes
SITE VISIT:- 17 May 2012
BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
Development Committee
36
31 May 2012
CROMER - PF/11/0613 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; Land rear
of 10 Park Road, Cromer for Mr T Merchant
SITE VISIT:- 17 May 2012
LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include
construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to
fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow
Lane for Isis Builders Ltd
SITE VISIT:- 17 May 2012
LITTLE SNORING - PO/11/0826 - Erection of 2 detached two-storey dwellings;
Land at The Old Dairy, The Pastures for Mrs R Fittall
SEA PALLING - BA/PF/11/0200 - Installation of a 11kw wind turbine on 18 metre
galvanised tower; Fir Tree Farm, Coast Road, Waxham for ES Renewables Ltd
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/1238 - Construction of new roof to provide habitable
accommodation in roofspace; 15 St Austins Grove for Mr Welch
STIFFKEY - PF/11/0947 - Erection of two-storey extension and alterations to
existing single-storey wing; Warborough Place, Wells Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
SITE VISIT:- 15 May 2012
STIFFKEY - LA/11/0948 - Internal alterations, alterations to existing singlestorey wing and erection of two-storey extension; Warborough Place, Wells
Road for Mr & Mrs Baker
SITE VISIT:- 15 May 2012
WITTON - PO/11/0863 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Workshop at Ash
Tree Farm, Well Street for Mrs C Leggett
13.
APPEAL DECISIONS
CROMER - PF/11/1099 - Erection of conservatory; Flat 1, Kingswear, 30 Cliff
Avenue for Mrs Gibbons
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
37
31 May 2012