OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 1 AUGUST 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Corporate Director 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.
BACTON - PF/13/0093 - Retention of enlarged gated vehicular access and timber
shed; The Pightle, The Street, Edingthorpe for Mr N Breaks
Minor Development
- Target Date: 05 April 2013
Case Officer: Miss S Tudhope
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Undeveloped Coast
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the retention of an enlarged gated vehicular access to the northern boundary of
a small parcel of land (former orchard) of approximately 0.05ha, and the retention of a
timber shed situated on the eastern boundary of the site. The shed has a dual pitched
roof approximately 2.5m high with a flue for a woodburner extending some 0.4m
above the ridge. The shed has a footprint of approximately 10.8sqm.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllr. Northam having regard to the following planning matters:
Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside
Impact on the Undeveloped Coast
PARISH COUNCIL
Original comments: The Parish Council objects to this application and comments as
follows: It may be noted that the new access is situated more or less opposite another
newly formed vehicular access, associated with the bungalow to the north. That new
access has not been the subject of any application for planning permission.
The main grounds for objections are visual.
A 'pightle' is a small field enclosed by a hedge.
This piece of land has historically been bounded by a hedge with only a narrow
gap and small pedestrian gate.
The development for which planning permission is now being sought has resulted
in a large section of the hedge being removed and wooden fencing and metal
vehicular gates being erected instead. This has had a significant visual impact.
Development Committee
1
1 August 2013
If the desired vehicular access to the land is to be approved, the plans should be
amended to provide for new hedging to be planted, instead of the new wooden
fencing, of species to match that of the hedging which was removed. Any approval
should also be conditional upon the proper maintenance of all of the hedging.
The visual effect of the development, which has been carried out has been
exacerbated by the recent erection of a building on the pightle which has not been the
subject of any planning application. Any approval of the vehicular access should also
be conditional upon the withdrawal of any permitted development rights on the pightle.
The purpose of these conditions would be to protect the visual amenities of the area.
Following an amendment to the description of the proposal the Parish Council
provided the following further consultation response:
Bacton and Edingthorpe Parish Council object strongly to the above planning
application.
It is a matter of some concern that the application title refers to "enlarged" vehicular
access, implying that there was pre-existing vehicular access. However, prior to the
occupancy of the land by the present applicant, there was no vehicular access onto
the Pightle, only a small pedestrian gate set adjacent to the hedge.
Prior to the recent change in occupancy, the land was, true to its name a small,
undeveloped enclosure containing orchard trees and having attractive well maintained
hedges to its boundaries.
The land is located in an area which is of a visually high amenity value It is adjacent
to The White House, and it is also in close proximity to a pair of listed thatched
cottages and is just across the road from and in prominent view of a pond mentioned
in the writings of Siegfried Sassoon.
The development for which retrospective permission is now being sought, has
resulted in the removal of some of the physical boundary, and its replacement by
wooden fencing and metal gates. This has resulted in a significant and detrimental
change to the overall appearance of the land.
Retrospective permission is also now being sought for a building described as a
timber shed.
This timber shed is of considerable size and it is not immediately apparent why a
"shed" this size could have any function that is reasonably incidental to the use of this
small plot of land. Furthermore, the building has a large metal chimney (not clear in
either of the photographs submitted with the plans), which adds to the visual impact
on the building and gives it an "inhabited" appearance. Again it is not immediately
apparent why a building with a chimney of this nature could have any function.
In this regard it seems pertinent to note that the land is situated in the area within
which Policy EN3 of the relevant LDF is in force : "The Undeveloped Coast". This
policy provides that "only development that can be demonstrated to require a coastal
location and that will not be significantly detrimental to the open coastal character will
be permitted".
The shed is not associated with any local dwelling (the applicant is stated to reside
outside the parish in North Walsham) and is not a community facility, commercial,
business or residential which could be considered as important to the well-being of the
coastal community.
Development Committee
2
1 August 2013
This application is objected to by Bacton & Edingthorpe Parish Council.
Amelioration if the NNDC Planning Department permit the application then:
The appropriate amelioration would be necessary, if the visual amenities of its
surroundings were to be preserved. Amelioration should be secured by amendment
of the plans and/or the imposition of condition(s) as may be appropriate.
Amelioration would need to consist of the maintenance of and addition to what
boundary hedging exists: Hedging of appropriate density and species, should be
planted to all boundaries where there is currently none. All hedging should be
maintained to at least, the height of any building which may be permitted on the land.
If the newly formed vehicular access is to be permitted, then in the case of that
particular section of the land so affected, the applicant's new wooden fencing should
be replaced by hedging, in lieu of hedging along the boundary.
REPRESENTATIONS
1 x support and 2 x objection on the following grounds:
Support (from family member)
orchard purchased as a 'sanctuary' for the applicant to enjoy occasionally with his
wife who has vascular dementia
existing access and parking area only made more secure
Objection
development has already been carried out
turned attractive pightle into an eyesore
hedging removed and replaced by wooden fencing and unsightly metal gates
a building has been erected
rural, undeveloped coast location has been suburbanised
new access situated across the road from another new vehicular access
shed has been insensitively positioned changing the outlook from our property and
introducing overlooking
relocation of the shed to behind the existing wall would be more acceptable
application lacks sufficient detail
it is a new access not the enlargement of an existing one (Photographs supplied
from Google street view dated June 2009)
previous access was via a pedestrian gate
building is too large for the site and has a chimney which is inappropriate for the
location
building is prominent in the landscape (bright colour timber and felt roof)
red brick and flint with clay pantiled roof would be more acceptable
should approval be granted it should be conditional upon the planting and ongoing
maintenance of tall hedging around the building in order to conceal it from view
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways: No objection. I have looked at the access and subject to
the land only being used for agricultural purposes (stated as 'orchard' in section 14 of
application) it would be difficult to object to the landowner having legitimate vehicular
access to the site. Although the access is far from ideally located the surrounding
highway network is lightly trafficked and it is difficult to see that a better position exists
on the available site roadside frontage. Requests imposition of recommended
condition relating to the gates opening inwards.
Landscape Officer: No objection
Development Committee
3
1 August 2013
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 EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 3: Undeveloped Coast (prevents unnecessary development and specifies
circumstances where development replacing that threatened by coastal erosion can
be permitted).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Impact on the countryside
2. Impact on undeveloped coast
APPRAISAL
The site lies within the designated countryside and undeveloped coast. Development
proposals are limited to that which requires a rural location which includes
development in connection with agriculture. Proposals should not be detrimental to
the open coastal character and should protect and conserve the character of the area.
The site in question is a small (approx 0.05ha) field at the edge of wider agricultural
land which sits between residential properties and a crossroads at the edge of the
village. Its stated use is an orchard. The application is retrospective for the retention of
an enlarged gated vehicular access and the retention of a timber shed.
The Highway Authority have no objection to the proposal subject to a condition
relating to the gates. The Council's Landscape Officer does not object and does not
require any conditions.
The Parish Council has raised objection mainly on visual impact grounds (see above)
and two objections have been received raising concern regarding visual impacts, it
being a retrospective application and overlooking of neighbouring property. One
supporting representation has been received from a family member stating that the
orchard was purchased as a 'sanctuary' for the applicant to enjoy occasionally with his
wife who has vascular dementia and that the existing access and parking area have
only been made more secure.
It is considered that whilst the proposal would alter the appearance of this area of land
it is not considered significantly detrimental to character of the area. The land being
located as it is effectively between and alongside residential properties. The enlarged
Development Committee
4
1 August 2013
vehicular access allows for a vehicle to pull off the road when visiting the site, which is
considered acceptable in highway safety terms. The current finish to the shed is quite
bright and therefore it is recommended that a condition be imposed in order that the
planning authority can agree a more recessive finish, thus reducing any visual impact
of the shed. Although not requested by the landscape officer it is further
recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the submission of a landscaping
scheme in relation to the boundaries of the site to ensure appropriate screening. This
would address some of the concerns raised in relation to the quality of the existing
boundary treatments. A condition should also be imposed to clarify that the shed may
only be used in connection with the agricultural use of the land and not for overnight
accommodation/domestic purposes.
In addition the shed is located some 6.5m from the southern boundary of the site
which is adjacent to the driveway of the dwelling to the south which itself is positioned
approx. 10m to the south west of the site. Given the distance between the shed and
this dwelling and the likely level of activity at the site it is not considered that the
proposal would introduce any significant detrimental impact on the privacy of this
neighbouring property.
The proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
2.
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/0042 - Construction of replacement roof with increased
height and side facing dormer window to provide first floor habitable
accommodation; 1 Birch Court for Mr & Mrs S Gaskins
- Target Date: 07 March 2013
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20021793 PF - Demolition of bungalow and erection of five bungalows
Refused 09/05/2003
PLA/20030777 PF - Demolition of bungalow and erection of four bungalows
Approved 24/06/2003
PLA/20031337 PF - Demolition of bungalow and erection of two bungalows and
garages
Refused 02/10/2003
PLA/20031756 PF - Demolition of bungalow and erection of 2 bungalows
Approved 18/12/2003
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a replacement roof, of an increased height, with a side facing dormer.
The ridge height would increase from 5.6m to 6.15m and allows for first floor
accommodation.
Two rooflights and two gable windows are also proposed.
Development Committee
5
1 August 2013
Following discussions with the agent an amended plan was received. The two roof
lights on the east elevation remain, but are set higher than 1.7m above the internal
floor level. A window in each gable is introduced in order to comply with Building
Regulations. The dormer window would remain obscured.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
PARISH COUNCIL
Erpingham Parish Council offered no objection to the original plans, and no objection
to the amended plans. However they did comment on their response to the amended
plans that there are concerns that the development may overlook neighbouring
properties.
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection from 4 dwellings received. 3 dwellings sent letters objecting to
both the original and amended plans, whilst the 4th property only sent a letter in
relation to the original plans. Points raised in relation to the original plans;
1. New upstairs window (dormer) would overlook the courtyard at the back of
Middlebank (aka Springbank). Currently not overlooked by anyone
2. Transforms a bungalow into a 4 bedroom house; out of character with the rest of
the bungalows in the close
3. Overlooking and overshadowing into/for 4 Birch Court, Holly Cottage and 25
Jubilee Close from the roof lights (currently no overlooking at all occurs for some
properties)
Additional comments in relation to the amended plans;
1. The interior ceiling level is approx 2.3m. The proposed roof lights are approx
0.65m tall. The roof light are stated to be <1.7m above floor level – how is this
possible?
2. The building work will be disruptive to the neighbours, and may not be able to be
completed given the distance between the eastern wall and the boundary
3. Gable windows would enable overlooking of more properties and increase the
level of overlooking in some cases
4. Three windows would now be overlooking the rear of 4 Birch Court
5. Properties were built as affordable homes; surely this extension would render the
dwelling unaffordable to most?
6. When the bungalows were built chalet bungalows or dwellings were discouraged –
there must have been good reason for this
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Development Committee
6
1 August 2013
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 HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Suitability of design
3. Impact upon neighbouring amenities
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting to enable Members
to visit the site.
Principle of development/Suitability of design
The site lies within designated Countryside, where extensions to existing dwellings are
acceptable in principle under Policy SS 2, subject to compliance with other relevant
Core Strategy policies.
Birch Court, located off Jubilee Close, currently consists of 5 bungalows, 4 of which,
including the applicants, were built under application PF/03/0777. Although the only
style of property currently found in Birch Court are bungalows, the character of the
wider area is varied in nature.
The increase in height to the roof would be 0.55m, from 5.6m to 6.15m. The pitch
would go from approx 40° to 45°. A dormer window would be inserted in the western
elevation, serving a bathroom. Two roof lights would be located on the eastern slope
and a single window inserted into each gable end at the first floor.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the development would have some impact upon the
character of the close, it must also be recognised that a very similar development
could be achieved without the need for planning permission, albeit with no increase in
the height of the roof ridge. The character of this area of Erpingham is very varied. As
such the relatively small increase to the roof height, together with the introduction of
windows, is considered to be compatible with this part of the village. With control over
the materials used and any potential further alterations to the roof controlled via a
condition, the development is considered to be, on balance, acceptable in terms of
appropriateness for the local context.
With the dwelling located within a residential part of the village the property is not
readily viewed from the wider Countryside and the development, given its limited wider
impact, is acceptable under Policy HO 8.
Impact upon neighbouring amenities
The bungalows within Birch Court are relatively close together, as such there is a risk
that any development here could result in overlooking or overshadowing, impacting
upon neighbour's residential amenity.
The roof would increase in height by 0.55m, remaining dual pitched. As such a degree
of additional overshadowing is expected for some neighbours, especially the
bungalow 'Holly Cottage' to the east. However with the rear garden sited 4m from the
applicant's dwelling and the distance between the two dwellings 15m, the impact of
this limited extra height upon the residential amenity is not anticipated to be
significant. Any overshadowing experienced by other properties would be minimal.
Development Committee
7
1 August 2013
Overlooking could cause a significantly detrimental effect upon neighbours residential
amenity for several neighbours. However with the imposition of suitable conditions the
windows can be installed to reduce these impacts significantly. Roof lights on the
eastern elevation are proposed to be sited above 1.7m from the internal floor and the
dormer window and windows in the gable ends would all be conditioned to be obscure
glazed and to be hung to minimise the level of overlooking. With such conditions in
place the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of limiting overlooking and
loss of privacy.
The existing parking arrangements would not be altered. There is currently one
garage and a driveway which can fit two vehicles in. Three parking spaces meets the
Parking Standards within the Core Strategy, complying with Policy CT 6.
The application has been readvertised with the amended description to include
reference to the rooflights and gable windows. At the time of writing this report the site
notice period had not yet expired.
On balance, with the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered
to comply with policies SS 2, CT 6, HO 8 and EN 4 of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to no new grounds of objection
following expiry of the amended site notice and the following conditions:
2. This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
number 0222/03 Rev B) received by the Local Planning Authority on 4 April 2013.
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
3. Except as required by conditions 4, 5 and 6 below, materials to be used on the
permitted extension shall match those of the existing building, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order for the appearance of the approved development to merge satisfactorily
with its surroundings, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
4. The first floor bedroom window hereby permitted within the northern elevation shall
be hung on the eastern side only and installed with obscured glazing with a degree
of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5, unless otherwise first agreed in writing
the Local Planning Authority. The type of windows and glazing shall thereafter be
retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, 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.
5. The first floor bedroom window hereby permitted within the southern elevation
shall be hung on the western side and installed with obscured glazing with a
degree of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5, unless otherwise first approved
Development Committee
8
1 August 2013
in writing the Local Planning Authority. The type of windows and glazing shall
thereafter be retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, 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.
6. The first floor bathroom window hereby permitted within the western elevation shall
be hung on the southern side and installed with obscured glazing with a degree of
obscurity equivalent to Pilkington level 5, unless otherwise first approved in writing
the Local Planning Authority. The type of window and glazing shall thereafter be
retained in accordance with this detail.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, 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.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking, amending or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no additional windows shall be
inserted in the replacement roof hereby permitted unless planning permission has
been first granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory relationship with neighbouring dwellings, in accordance
with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as amplified by
paragraphs 3.3.9 to 3.3.11 of the Design Guide.
8. The hereby permitted roof lights within the eastern elevation shall be sited 1.7m or
higher above the floor of the room in which they are installed, and thereafter be
retained as such.
Reason:
To prevent undue loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, 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.
3.
MUNDESLEY - PF/13/0658 - Erection of storage shed; 5A Paston Road for Mr M
Pocock
Minor DevelopmentPlease note:
- Target Date: 01 August
2013
This application
has been withdrawn by
Case Officer: Mr C Mohtram
the applicant since publication of this
Full Planning Permission
agenda.
CONSTRAINTS
Coastal Erosion Risk 50 years
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0658 PF
Erection of storage shed
Development Committee
9
1 August 2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks the erection of storage shed to house a ride-on mower, its dimensions would
be 3m in length, 2.9m in depth and a height of 2.2m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Cllrs Smith and Northam having regard to the appearance of the
area, relationship with neighbouring property, precedent, availability of other sites.
PARISH COUNCIL
Object. Precedent for other similar proposals from chalet owners in the village.
Please note:
This application has been withdrawn by
REPRESENTATIONS
2 letters of objection
one objector,
key points raised:
the from
applicant
since publication
of this
agenda.
1. The proposal could affect parking for the area (the deeds of their property were
attached to reiterate this).
2. The proposed shed is too close to the objectors property.
3. The plans now indicate the construction of a garage not a shed and will be a timber
construction not brick which is what they were led to believe.
4.The objectors initially agreed with the applicant to the building of a shed 10 feet long
by 8 feet wide, no higher than existing fence so as not to spoil their views, however he
has reneged upon this by extending the width of the proposal to almost 10 feet which
they believe could accommodate a door up and over 7 foot.
5.There are also concerns regarding water from the roof of the proposal will become
channelled into a drain and left to soak into the ground which already becomes water
logged, the down pipe is only 18" from their garden and could cause their property to
flood.
6. Concerns over drainage and ground waterlogging.
7. Effect on right of access.
The agent has indicated that the building is required to house a ride-on lawnmower
and associated equipment used for managing the grassed area on part of Eastcliff
East. Details of the arrangements, the background to the development and responses
to some of the local concerns raised are contained in the agent's Design and Access
Statement (attached as Appendix 1). He also considers that the rights of access
objection raised by the neighbours does not affect the proposal.
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
SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
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).
Development Committee
10
1 August 2013
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Suitability of design
3. Relationship with neighbouring properties.
APPRAISAL
The sites lies within area designated as Countryside. Proposals such as this could be
acceptable under Policy SS2.
The proposed development is for the purpose of housing a ride-on mower and other
sundry gardening equipment
to manage the large grass area of Eastcliff East owned
Please note:
by the applicant.
This application has been withdrawn by
the applicant since publication of this
This is considered to be a reasonable requirement and given the design proposed and
the modest scale ofagenda.
the development it is considered acceptable in terms of its
appearance in this Countryside Policy location. The relationship with the neighbouring
property is also considered acceptable. Issues regarding any rights of way/access are
civil, not planning, matters
The proposal is considered to comply with the policies of the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the following conditions:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by
Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
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.
4.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0191 - Erection of single-storey extension,
installation of cladding and conversion and extension of cart-shed to annexe
and garages; Orchard Barn, Aylsham Road for Mr Schonhut
- Target Date: 15 April 2013
Case Officer: Mrs K Brumpton
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Listed Building Consultation Area (Grade II)
Contaminated Land
Countryside
Development Committee
11
1 August 2013
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/92/0387 - Renovation & conversion of redundant barn to residence
Approved 30/06/1992
PLA/19940783 PF - Erection of porch
Withdrawn 05/10/1994
PF/12/0871 PF - Formation of attenuation pond
Approved 14/09/2012
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to erect a single storey side extension, install cladding and convert and extend
the cart-shed to an annexe and garage.
Amended plans received following discussions with the agent and some of the
neighbours. The amendments include taking out a proposed hipped zinc roof and the
introduction of a gable ended extension. The Air Source heat pump has also been
removed from the application. Amendments readvertised and re-consultations
undertaken.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee for a site visit.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects to both plans.
Original plans; lack of clarity on the plans, materials are not in keeping with the
surrounding properties and there are flooding problems connected with the dyke which
has been filled in. Request that a site visit is held and the application is called to
Committee
Amended plans; flooding problems connected with the dyke and the installation of
solar panels (Town Council do not know the size). Request that a site visit is held and
the application is called to Committee
REPRESENTATIONS
4 letters of objection received from 3 properties and 2 letters of comment from 1
dwelling (letters came from all of the adjacent barns and the farmhouse). The letters
were all received during the consultation of the original plans only. Summary of
objections;
New zinc roof on the side extension is out of character. Unclear if zinc would be
extended to the main part of the dwelling too.
Cladding the main house would not blend in with the surrounding properties.
Cladding on the southern gable end would encroach upon a neighbour's property
Proposed solar panels would be out of character.
Resulting scheme would be a mixture of zinc, timber, solar panels and Norfolk
pantiles.
Does not preserve the character of the immediate area, which includes three
Listed Buildings.
Proposed Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) could create a noise problem, located
close to two neighbouring dwellings.
Zinc roof and solar panels would be clearly visible from The Old Stables.
Cart shed conversion could create a problem for The Old Stables from light
reflection from the windows and potential noise problems and loss of privacy. The
garage section appears to be on the boundary, this may create maintenance
problems.
Site has a high flood risk problem and has flooded on several occasions.
Additional footprint could exacerbate the problem.
Bats could be roosting at the site, they are frequently seen in the immediate area.
Development Committee
12
1 August 2013
Summary of comments only;
The proposed materials are inappropriate, but if they are changed to traditional
materials of Norfolk red brick and Norfolk pantiles then no objection offered.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority – no objection, but asks for a condition restricting the use of the
annexe due to the restricted visibility onto the B1145.
Landscape – no objection, but has asked for a note to be added in relation to the
possibility of bats being found. The building has low roosting potential with greater
roosting opportunities available in the immediate vicinity at other buildings.
The garage and excavation for the driveway may result in some harm to the nearest
beech tree. However it is in the ownership of the applicant, has limited public amenity
value and is not worthy of a TPO. Therefore there is considered no justification to
condition the protection of this tree.
Environmental Health - no objection. Two conditions have been requested in light of
the historical drainage issue in this immediate area (this issue should be resolved by
the implementation of a separate planning application, reference PF/12/0871). One
condition would request information on flood proofing measures before the
development begins. Another condition would ensure that there is capacity within the
soak away to accommodate any extra water created from the larger footprint.
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager - Advised verbally that the proposal did
not affect the setting of any nearby listed buildings.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy EN 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 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Development Committee
13
1 August 2013
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).
Policy HO 8: House extensions and replacement dwellings in the Countryside
(specifies the limits for increases in size and impact on surrounding countryside).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2. Suitability of design
3. Impact upon neighbouring properties
4. Impact upon the setting of the Listed Buildings
5. Drainage
APPRAISAL
The application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting to enable Members
to visit the site.
The principle of extensions to dwellings and the creation of annexes within the
Countryside is acceptable under both Policy SS 2 and Policy HO 8.
In addition the application needs to be considered under policies EN 4, EN 8, EN 9,
EN 10, EN 13, CT 5 and CT 6. Permitted development rights were removed from the
site under planning reference 92/0387.
In terms of the design of the development the amended plans have addressed several
previous concerns of Officers. The amended plans now show the single storey side
extension to the main dwelling as a separate gable ended section, retaining the
existing form of the existing side extension. (The previously proposed zinc, hipped roof
which was also of concern to neighbours is no longer proposed). This part of the
dwelling where the extension is proposed has poor brick work and has clearly been
altered and extended over time. The existing and proposed side extension would be
clad in natural finished larch, retaining a brick plinth. This section has been
deliberately designed to be different from the main building, utilising larger glazing
areas (grey powder coated aluminium) and cladding, together with traditional materials
(matching Norfolk pantiles, matching red bricks and conservation roof lights). Three
additional roof lights would be added to the main dwelling, all of a conservation style.
By keeping the form of the existing extension and utilising some traditional Norfolk
materials this part of the development is considered to be acceptable, to have due
regard to the local context and to conserve the character of both the area and host
dwelling.
The impact of the extended side extension upon any neighbour's residential amenity is
considered to be minor. It would not be viewed from anywhere except within the
applicant's own site.
The existing cart lodge is located to the north of the dwelling and is not realistically
useable as a cart shed or garage due to the lack of turning area between the entrance
and side extension. The cart lodge proposal reflects the design of the side extension;
brick plinth, Norfolk pantiles, natural larch cladding, grey powder coated aluminium
windows and oak timber posts. The cart lodge is in a similar condition to the
extension. Whilst it is clearly of some age there is evidence of several
alterations/repairs. A such there is no objection to the addition of cladding on the
majority of elevations and its use on the extension. Three matt black solar panels are
proposed on the southern elevation, located at the western end away from the
Development Committee
14
1 August 2013
neighbouring dwelling to the east. This part of the development is also considered to
be acceptable, to have regard to the local context and to conserve the character of
both the area and host dwelling.
The development to the cart shed would involve the creation of an annexe in the
existing section, and a double garage in the extended section. The annexe would
have no windows along the eastern elevation, which is on the boundary with
neighbouring 'The Old Stables'. The proposed annexe would lie a minimum of 13m
away from the neighbouring dwelling. There is no concern that this would have a
significant impact upon their residential amenity.
Policy EN 4 is therefore considered to be complied with in this instance as there is no
anticipated significant impact upon any neighbour's residential amenity and the
designs are considered acceptable and to have regard to the local context.
Whilst the dwelling is located adjacent to a grade II listed farm house, and in close
proximity of two grade II listed barns, the proposals are not considered to impact on
the setting of the listed buildings and the setting of the listed buildings would therefore
be preserved. As such policy EN 8 is considered to be complied with.
With the appropriate conditions relating to SUDs (sustainable urban drainage system)
and suitable flood proofing measures the proposal is considered to minimise potential
pollution and flooding and comply with policies EN 10 and EN 13.
The potential of causing a direct or indirect adverse effect to protected species,
notably bats, is considered to be low. As such a note is suggested to be added
advising the applicant and agent that work must stop immediately if bats or evidence
of bats is found, and an ecological consultant or the Council's ecologist contacted for
further advice before works can proceed. Policy EN 9 is therefore considered to be
complied with.
The proposal includes two parking spaces in the new garage and an extended
driveway area. As a 3/4 bedroom house the parking standards require 2 or 3 parking
spaces. Although not formally marked, it is clear that sufficient parking would be
retained on site, complying with Policy CT 6.
The vehicular access onto the B1145 (Aylsham Road) does have restricted visibility.
As such it is considered prudent to restrict the use of the annexe to be incidental to the
main dwelling. With this condition Policy CT 5 is considered to be complied with.
In the light of the above the development is considered to comply with adopted
Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve, with the following conditions;
2. This permission is granted in accordance with the amended plans (drawing
numbers 1258/05/A, 1258/06/A, 1258/07/A) received by the Local Planning
Authority on 1 May 2013 and with the amended details specified in the
agent's Design and Access Statement and Barilla Solar Collector F22 AR
Technical Information sheet received by the Local Planning Authority on 1
May 2013..
Reason:
To ensure the satisfactory layout and appearance of the development in
accordance with Policy EN 4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
Development Committee
15
1 August 2013
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 the commencement of development, a scheme of flood proofing
measures for the annexe/garage and side extension hereby permitted, shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The annexe/garage and side extension hereby permitted shall not be
occupied until the flood proofing measures, as approved, have been
implemented in full.
Reason:
To protect the property and its inhabitants from the potential risk of
flooding, and in accordance with the requirements of Policies EN 10 and EN
13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5. Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application no development
shall be carried out until details of sewage disposal from the annexe/garage
and extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that satisfactory drainage is provided for the development in
accordance with Policy EN 13 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
6. The annexe accommodation hereby approved shall be incidental to the use
of the main dwelling and shall not be occupied as a separate and unassociated unit of accommodation
Reason:
In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy EN 4 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy.
5.
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0662 - Erection of rear conservatory; 16 South Street for
Mr B Farrow
- Target Date: 29 July 2013
Case Officer: Mr C Mohtram
Householder application
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PF/13/0662 HOU
Erection of rear conservatory
Development Committee
16
1 August 2013
THE APPLICATION
The erection of a rear conservatory whose dimensions are 2.4m in width, 4m in depth
and height to the ridge of 3.2m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The applicant is an employee of North Norfolk District Council who has regular contact
with Members.
TOWN COUNCIL
No 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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Appearance
2. Relationship with neighbouring properties
APPRAISAL
Plans indicate the erection of a modest conservatory at the rear of this terraced
property located within the Sheringham Conservation Area. The design and
relationship with neighbouring properties are both considered acceptable. The design
preserves the character of the Conservation Area.
The proposal therefore accords with Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, subject to the following conditions:
1
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which this permission is
granted.
Development Committee
17
1 August 2013
Reason:
The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section
51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2
The development to which this permission relates shall be undertaken in strict
accordance with the submitted and approved plans, drawings and
specifications.
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.
6.
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0408 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 03/0322 to permit permanent residential occupation; Damson-Lea,
Honing Road, Lyngate for Mrs C Tunstall-Turner
Minor Development
- Target Date: 07 June 2013
Case Officer: Miss C Ketteringham
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20021154 PF - Extension of garage to form annexe
Approved 30/08/2002
PLA/20030322 PF - Extension to garage to form holiday unit
Approved 29/04/2003
PLA/20051635 PF - Removal of condition 2 of 20030322 to allow holiday unit to be
occupied as a separate residential dwelling
Refused 07/12/2005 Appeal dismissed 25/05/2006
PLA/20061220 PF - Alterations to vehicular access and formation of new vehicular
access
Approved 21/09/2006
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to remove the holiday occupancy condition attached to planning permission ref.
03/0322 to permit permanent residential occupation in an already converted building.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Williams having regard to the following planning issue(s):
This application should be considered by the Committee to clarify the issue of single
units within the commercial category.
PARISH COUNCIL
Refuse as it will set a precedent for all holiday accommodation in the Parish.
REPRESENTATIONS
1 representation from the applicant giving further background to the application and
responding to Officer concerns, attached as Appendix 2.
Development Committee
18
1 August 2013
CONSULTATIONS
Highways - The access has restricted visibility so request improvements to the
access.
Planning Policy Manager I refer to our discussion following consideration of this application at the Development
Committee on 4 July 2013 when I understand it was resolved to refuse the application
because it did not comply with Policy H09 (as amended following the publication of the
NPPF). I further understand that part of the discussion related to the quality of the
existing building and whether it does, or does not, meet the „worthy of retention‟ tests
included within the revised H09 policy.
Policy H09 was reconsidered by the Planning Policy Working Party, Cabinet and
ultimately Council following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The substantive reason for this reconsideration was that the NPPF includes a much
more permissive approach towards the conversion and re-use of vacant and under
used buildings than reflected in H09 which limits the possibility of residential use to
defined zones shown on the adopted Proposals Map (the defined locations were
intended to represent the more sustainable locations in the district).
The NPPF states „Local Planning Authorities should avoid isolated homes in the
countryside unless … the development re-uses redundant or disused buildings and
leads to an enhancement to the immediate setting’
In looking again at Policy H09 the main debate therefore focussed on the location of
buildings and the NPPFs apparently unrestricted presumption in favour of re-use
including for residential purposes irrespective of location. The NPPF appears to
include only two qualifying criteria, namely redundancy and enhancement to setting.
In considering this issue Members were mindful of the very large numbers of buildings
in North Norfolk of varying quality, the pressure to convert poor quality buildings to
other uses, and the large number of buildings which are not redundant but are already
in some beneficial use. The review resulted in an acceptance that good quality
buildings such as the large number of historical barns in the district were „worthy of
retention‟ and a more permissive approach to residential use would be justified
notwithstanding that many of these buildings are in less sustainable locations.
Members were not supportive of an approach which would result in poor quality
buildings which did not comply with the „worthy of retention‟ test being converted to
housing.
In relation to this proposal revised Policy H09 therefore requires consideration of a
number of issues including:
Location – the revised approach does not preclude residential uses on the
basis of location.
Loss of existing use – the revised approach seeks to „protect‟ existing
beneficial uses and therefore those buildings already in use for commercial
purposes are not suitable for residential use. The Council is nevertheless
mindful of the large supply of holiday accommodation in most parts of the
District and the approach therefore allows for the change of use of single and
small scale „non-commercial‟ holiday lets. This site would fall into this latter
category.
The worthy of retention test – For many years the Council has pursued a
policy of not supporting the residential conversion of poor quality buildings. This
Development Committee
19
1 August 2013
approach primarily arose as a result of pressure to allow conversion of buildings
built in poor quality materials which were essentially not worth keeping.
Whether a building is worthy of retention is a matter of judgement for the
decision maker based on the criteria included within the policy.
In summary the acceptability or otherwise of this proposal turns on the view taken on
the „worthy of retention test‟.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy HO9: Rural Residential Conversion Area (The site lies within an area where the
re-use of an existing good quality building as a dwelling may be permitted).
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).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the building meets the quality of the building test set out in point 2 of Policy
HO 9.
APPRAISAL
This application was previously considered at the last Committee, when it was
resolved to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with the worthy of
retention quality test under Policy HO 9. However, prior to issuing the decision, further
discussions were entered into with the Planning Policy Manager, (given that there was
a debate at the meeting relating to the interpretation of the policy), and it was agreed
with the Chair of the Committee and the local member that it would be fair to all parties
to report the application back to Committee with the detailed comments of the
Planning Policy Manager for further consideration.
(Members attention is also drawn to the further supporting information from the
applicants attached as Appendix 2).
The application site is currently a holiday cottage which is within the Countryside
policy area approximately 0.5 km from the main settlement of Worstead.
When Policy HO 9 was first adopted it identified areas around selected settlements
where, subject to tests of the quality of the original building, soundness and scale, the
conversion of buildings to residential would be acceptable. The application site is not
within an identified HO 9 zone. However, following Government guidance published in
the National Planning Policy Framework the Council considered that Policy HO 9 was
no longer fully aligned with the NPPF and adopted a more permissive approach to the
Development Committee
20
1 August 2013
residential use of buildings outside the HO 9 zones. The implication of this change of
approach is that lifting the holiday restriction of good quality buildings, i.e. those
worthy of retention due to their appearance, historic or architectural or landscape
value, and in a non-commercial use is now permissible.
The application building is a single holiday unit and is not considered in commercial
holiday use for the purposes of the policy and so it passes the first test of the modified
Policy HO 9.
Members attention is drawn to the comments of the Planning Policy Manager which
further explains the policy context.
The main issue for this application is whether the building meets the quality test. The
holiday property is formed from the conversion of the roof space above the existing
double garage and an extension behind the garage. Accessed from the rear garden it
provides limited accommodation on the ground floor with an open plan kitchen and
living area with three bedrooms (one en-suite) and bathroom on the upper floor. The
larger proportion of the ground floor remains as a double garage although there is no
restriction on the original permission preventing the conversion of the double garage
to living accommodation.
There is adequate parking and turning in front of the building to serve a dwelling.
The public view of the building retains the appearance of a modern suburban double
garage with a very steep roof with an equally steep roofed extension projecting
rearwards. In the opinion of officers its proportions and form has none of the
appearance of a conventional rural building and whilst not in itself unattractive, the
building is not considered to pass the quality test as a building worthy of retention
under Policy HO9.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse as the proposal does not comply with Policy HO 9 in that the building
does not meet the quality test set out in that policy as being worthy of retention.
7.
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
applications. The applications will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
EAST BECKHAM – PF/13/0772 – Installation of a 10.15MW solar farm
development for TGC Renewables Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Development Management Manager to expedite the processing
of the application.
SEA PALLING – PF/13/0838 – Continued use of land as gypsy/traveller site for a
maximum of four caravans; The Works, Church Road for Mr R Leveridge
Development Committee
21
1 August 2013
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Development Management Manager to expedite the processing
of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visits.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
8.
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
April to June 2013, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal
outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
Table 1A (Appendix 3) sets out performance for processing planning applications for
the first quarter of 2013/14.
Eight major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 124 minor
applications and 227 other applications, a total of 359 applications, an increase of 91
compared with the previous quarter.
Members will recall from the discussion at the January Development Committee
meeting the strenuous efforts being made to determine planning applications more
quickly in the light of the possibility of „special measures‟ sanctions being introduced
by the Government under its open „Planning Performance and Planning Guarantee‟
proposals, which were the subject of consultation at the end of 2012.
The most recent quarter saw 4 of the 8 major applications determined within the 13
week statutory deadline, ie 50%. This remains comfortably above the 30% figures
mooted for special measures in the consultation paper. As yet, however, the
Government has not published its final decision as to how the Planning Guarantee is
to be taken forward.
Of the 4 applications that were out of time, 2 were long-standing applications, the
subject of Section 106 Agreements, 1 was for a more recent residential development
at 2 Furlong Hill/ Market Lane, Wells, which has also been the subject of a Section
106 Agreement, and the 4th was the application for the two wind turbines at Scottow.
In terms of “minor” applications, performance decreased by some 4.64% to 34.68%
over the previous quarter, as against the Council‟s target of 72%.
As far as “other” applications are concerned performance increased by 0.04% to
52.86%, again below the Council‟s target of 80%.
Although performance remained below the Council‟s targets over the quarter,
Members will appreciate that 91 more applications were determined during this
quarter.
Table 1B indicates the workload for the Service during the quarter and shows that
393 applications were submitted, 32 more than the previous quarter, and some 34
Development Committee
22
1 August 2013
more than the number determined. At the present time the Service is still struggling
to keep pace with incoming work for Planning Applications.
Pre-application enquiries also increased during the quarter. However „Do I Need
Planning Permission?‟, Discharge of Condition applications and Duty Officer
enquiries all remained at similar levels to the previous quarter.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the quarterly figure rose to 93.88%, and remains
above the Council‟s target.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter only 1
decision was made which related to the Bodham wind turbine, and which Members
will appreciate was allowed.
In terms of Land Charges searches, some 550 were submitted and handled during
the quarter, a decrease of some 27 when compared with the previous quarter.
Conclusions
In summary, the first quarter of the new year has seen 50% of major applications
determined within the statutory time scale. The other levels of performance remain
broadly the same, although a significantly higher number of applications was
determined during the quarter than the previous quarter.
In order to address the workload/performance issues in the short term, Members
previously agreed 2 temporary Planning Assistant posts. One of those posts has
already been filled. Following re-advertisement of the vacant post, it was agreed by
Steve Blatch, Corporate Director, that 2 temporary appointments could be made.
(This was in the light of the service carrying a vacant permanent Planning Assistant
post, which is likely to continue for some time pending the work to be undertaken in
association with the Peer Review Action Plan).
The new appointees will be taking up their posts in mid- August and the first week in
September.
(Source: Andy Mitchell, Development Manager ext 6149)
9.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BACTON - PF/13/0470 - Use of land for siting timber holiday lodge; Red House
Chalet & Caravan Park, Paston Road for Beach Farm Park T/a Red House Chalet
& Caravan Park
(Full Planning Permission)
BACTON - PF/13/0299 - Erection of single-storey extension; Butterflies, Church
Road for Mr I Dearden
(Householder application)
BACTON - LA/13/0300 - Internal alterations to first floor and erection of lean-to
extension; Butterflies, Church Road for Mr I Dearden
(Listed Building Alterations)
BARSHAM - PF/13/0621 - Formation of agricultural vehicular access; Land at
B1105, West Barsham for Keith Farm Partnership
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
23
1 August 2013
BARTON TURF - PF/12/1285 - Conversion of garage space to beauty treatment
centre; Ikens Farm Complex, Smallburgh Road for Mr P Lamb
(Full Planning Permission)
BARTON TURF - LA/12/1319 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to
beauty treatment centre; Ikens Farm Complex, Smallburgh Road for Mr P Lamb
(Listed Building Alterations)
BARTON TURF - PF/13/0447 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Hersanmine, Smallburgh Road for Mr & Mrs J Moore
(Full Planning Permission)
BINHAM - PF/13/0620 - Retention of revised design rooflights in east roof slope
and wood burner flue; Old Barn Farm Bungalow, Binham Road, Wighton, for
Mrs D Cooke
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0554 - Construction of pitched roof to flat roofed extension;
27 High Street for Mrs M Webb
(Householder application)
BLAKENEY - NMA1/12/1162 - Non material amendment request to permit
insertion of flue, use of render and flint panels to car-port building, insertion of
chimney and erection of porch to annexe; Bliss Blakeney, Morston Road for Mr
D Broch
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0643 - Installation of air source heat pump; Rear of
Pinewood, Saxlingham Road for Stuart Farrow Builders
(Householder application)
BRISTON - PF/13/0609 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 06/0948 to permit erection of one and half storey rear extension and
change in window and rooflight arrangement to south and east elevations and
internal alterations; Plot next to 27 Mill Lane for Mr D Alford
(Full Planning Permission)
CATFIELD - NP/13/0639 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to
agricultural building; Land at Long Lane for Catfield Spuds
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/0647 - Revised internal layout and external doors
and windows (retrospective); Meadow Barn, 2 Newgate Farm Barns, Holt Road
for Mr J Robinson
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/13/0610 - Installation of hand rail; Starr House, High
Street for Made in Cley
(Listed Building Alterations)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0619 - Erection of rear conservatory; North Light,
Hilltop for Mr R Gillmor
(Householder application)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1352 - Dredging and clearing of harbour; Old
Harbour for Cley Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Committee
24
1 August 2013
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0576 - Erection of replacement
agricultural building.; Locks Farm, Briston Road, Saxthorpe for G W Harrold &
Partners
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0524 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to A2 (financial
professional services); 15A Church Street for Huntersbeare Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - PF/13/0393 - Change of use from C3 (residential dwelling) to C2
(residential care home); 55 Station Road for Mr J Dupuis
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - AN/13/0549 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; Beer Seller,
Stonehill Way, Holt Road for Jonas Seafoods Ltd
(Advertisement Non-Illuminated)
CROMER - PF/13/0625 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 01/1800 to permit the use of Unit B for the retail of bulky goods;
Argos Ltd, Unit B, North Norfolk Retail Park, Holt Road for Mr D Scott
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/0371 - Change of use of annexe to self-contained unit of
holiday accommodation; Fieldview, Eagle Road for Mr W Couzins
(Full Planning Permission)
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/0383 - Erection of garage block with studio above
(extension of period for commencement of planning permission
reference:10/0136); The Limes, The Street for Mr G S Cox
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0582 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference PF/10/0109 to amend fencing to 1.8 metre close boarded timber
fencing; Land adjacent Anglian Water Tower, Holt Road for Victory Housing
Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0583 - Erection of single-storey rear extension and front
porch; 71 Gwyn Crescent for Mr S Gibson
(Householder application)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0649 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission
reference 12/1299 to permit erection of garden shed; Lime Tree Lodge, 1a
Orchard Close for Mr J Hammond
(Full Planning Permission)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0511 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions
with roof storage and first floor side extension; 37 Gwyn Crescent for Mr & Mrs
Williamson
(Householder application)
GIMINGHAM - NP/13/0629 - Prior notification of intention to erect extension to
agricultural storage building; Grove Farm, Grove Road for Cargill Farms
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
Development Committee
25
1 August 2013
GIMINGHAM - NMA1/12/1363 - Non-material amendment request to remove
rooflight to west elevation and remove window to north elevation, installation of
two windows in west elevation and relocation of window in east elevation and
increase its width from 1200mm wide to 1800mm wide; Hall Farm Barn, Hall
Road for Mr and Mrs N Rose
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
GUNTHORPE - PF/13/0515 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 00/1230 to permit permanent residential occupation; Swallow Barn,
Sharrington Road, Bale for Rustic Properties Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0246 - Erection of front and side extensions.; Seadrift,
Doggetts Lane for Mr A Smith
(Householder application)
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0220 - Removal of Condition 1 of planning permission
reference: SM5967 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
occupancy restriction; Paddock View, Grub Street for Mrs A Green
(Full Planning Permission)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/13/0490 - Conversion of existing outbuildings to annexe;
Corner House, 3 The Street for Mrs Boynes
(Householder application)
HEMPTON - PF/13/0614 - Erection of detached garage; 21 Dereham Road for Mr
J Suckling
(Householder application)
HICKLING - PF/13/0478 - Continued siting of mobile classroom for play group;
Hickling Hunnies Playgroup, Hickling Infants School, The Street for Hickling
Hunnies Playgroup
(Full Planning Permission)
HOLT - PF/13/0355 - Erection of replacement cricket pavilion; Greshams School,
Cromer Road for Greshams School
(Full Planning Permission)
HONING - LA/13/0466 - Removal of French doors and installation of replacement
window/door; Stable Cottage, Crostwight Hall, Heath Road, Crostwight for Mr A
Messent
(Listed Building Alterations)
HONING - PF/13/0565 - Change of use of land from amenity to garden land and
erection of cart shed; Holly Cottage, Crostwight Road for Mrs M Bennett
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/13/0457 - Continued use of two vehicle bodies for timber
storage; Charles Barr Furniture, Stalham Road Industrial Estate, Littlewood
Lane for Charles Barr Furniture Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - PF/13/0589 - Erection of single-storey replacement side extension,
two-storey rear extension and detached garage; White House, Tunstead Road
for Mr & Mrs R Baines
(Householder application)
Development Committee
26
1 August 2013
LANGHAM - PF/13/0547 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference 12/0181 to permit reduction in number of units from 5 to 4 (barns 5-8),
removal of Condition 3 (holiday occupancy restriction) and variation of
Condition 16 (change to Code Level 3 requirement); The Langham, North Street
for Avada Langham Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0573 - Erection of single-storey rear extension (part
retrospective); 53 Hall Lane for Mrs K Alaimo
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0559 - Installation of external door and two roof
windows; 12A St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for L.Bullimore and Sons Ltd
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0562 - Erection of detached garage; 17 Aylsham
Road for Mr J Cranmer
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0441 - Erection of two-storey side extension with
single-storey rear extension and construction of front dormer windows and
replacement garage.; 121 Mundesley Road for Mr J Long
(Householder application)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0910 - Installation of first floor rear balcony
extension.; Richmond, Holgate Road, for Mr R Pamment
(Householder application)
NORTHREPPS - PF/13/0381 - Erection of one and a half storey rear extension;
Kerensa, School Lane, Northrepps, Cromer, NR27 0LB for Mr Stops
(Householder application)
RAYNHAM - NP/13/0683 - Prior notification of intention to erect agricultural
storage building; Trees Field Farm, Heath Road, West Raynham for Mr S Agnew
(Prior Notification (Agricultural))
ROUGHTON - PF/13/0342 - Erection of one and a half storey replacement
dwelling; Juno Beech, Norwich Road for Mr R Rowlands
(Full Planning Permission)
ROUGHTON - PF/13/0496 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling with
attached reception office; Six Acres Caravan Site, Norwich Road for Mr N Julian
(Full Planning Permission)
SEA PALLING - PF/13/0572 - Erection of single-storey front/side and first floor
side extensions; Fernside, Church Road for Ms K Presland
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0611 - Erection of single-storey replacement annexe;
Rose Bank, New Road for Mr P Swann
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0563 - Erection of single-storey front and rear extensions;
12 Meadow Way for Mr & Mrs Hewitt
(Householder application)
Development Committee
27
1 August 2013
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0595 - Erection of front extension to garage and erection
of garden room above; Greentiles, 3 Hillside for Mr & Mrs Busby
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0596 - Installation of roof lights and replacement ground
floor front windows; 18 Beech Avenue for Mr D Homan
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0475 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Greystoke, 42 St Josephs Road for Mr & Mrs P Leonidas
(Householder application)
SHERINGHAM - PO/11/0440 - Residential development (extension of time limit
for implementation of permission ref: 03/0995); Former Hilbre School, Holway
Road for Tesco Stores Limited
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PO/13/0296 - Demolition of buildings and erection of 2 detached
dwellings with double garage and car park spaces; 15 Hooks Hill Road for Break
Charity
(Outline Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - NMA1/13/0209 - Non material amendment request to replace
window in front elevation to French doors and side windows; 18B St Nicholas
Place for Mr T Claydon
(Non-Material Amendment Request-Household)
SKEYTON - PF/13/0429 - Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission
reference: 04/1975 to permit permanent residential occupation; Fieldview Barn,
Church Road for Mr B Yaxley
(Full Planning Permission)
SLOLEY - PF/13/0471 - Erection of one and a half storey side extension with
single-storey rear extension and detached cart shed garage; Maids Head, Low
Street for Mr A Ross
(Householder application)
SOUTHREPPS - NMA2/11/0738 - Non material amendment request to insert 3
half height butress piers to east elevation; Pond Farm Barn, Thorpe Road for Mr
A Chatten
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
STALHAM - PF/13/0594 - Installation of flue; Dale Cottage, 7 Horse Barns,
Wayford Road for Mr R Meynell
(Householder application)
STIFFKEY - NMA2/10/0045 - Non-material amendment request for revised eaves
and verge details, revised setting out levels, increased roof thickness and
changes to height and addition of mullion to window and change in size; Mill
Pightle House, Hollow Lane for Ms R Husain
(Non-Material Amendment Request)
SUTTON - PF/13/0516 - Erection of first floor side extension; Red Haven, The
Street for Mr T Day
(Householder application)
Development Committee
28
1 August 2013
THURSFORD - PF/13/0700 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference 08/1632 to permit repositioning of holiday dwelling; Plot 13 and 14
North Lane for Mrs M Cushing
(Full Planning Permission)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/0581 - Erection of rear link extension to outbuilding; 3 St.
Peters Road for Mr Baldwin
(Householder application)
WALSINGHAM - PF/13/0097 - Refurbishment of lower ground floor to provide
ancillary Church facilities with access ramp and external stair lift, installation of
air source heat pumps, lighting and railings and raising of ground level and retiling of roof; St Seraphims, Station Road for Mrs S Batchelor
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0539 - Subdivision of dwelling into two
dwellings and erection of two-storey extensions; 11 Mindhams Yard for Mr A
Styman
(Full Planning Permission)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0179 - Erection of front porch, insertion of
second floor window, first floor side window and reduction in height of front
boundary wall; Watchmans Cottage, Standard Road for Mr Wix
(Householder application)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0612 - Installation of ground-mounted solar
photo voltaic array; Bus at The Midden Caravan Site, Wells Road for Mr A Beale
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - PF/13/0377 - Installation of roof lights to barn and photo
voltaic array to outbuilding; The Grange, Church Road for Mr & Mrs Kennedy
(Householder application)
WOOD NORTON - LA/13/0378 - Installation of roof lights to barn and photo
voltaic array to outbuildings; The Grange, Church Road for Mr & Mrs H Kennedy
(Listed Building Alterations)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0463 - Construction of rear terrace (revised design); The
White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
(Full Planning Permission)
WORSTEAD - LA/13/0464 - Construction of rear terrace (revised design); The
White Lady, Front Street for Mr D Gilligan
(Listed Building Alterations)
10.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
BRINTON - PF/13/0495 - Use of land for storage and milling of timber and
erection of storage/workshop building (part retrospective); Primrose Grove,
Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr J K Carman
(Full Planning Permission)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0513 - Erection of single-storey front/side/rear extension;
39 St Austins Grove for Mr A Cotogno
(Householder application)
Development Committee
29
1 August 2013
THORNAGE - PF/13/0591 - Erection of orangery; The Sycamores, Holt Road for
Mr & Mrs Parker
(Householder application)
APPEALS SECTION
11.
NEW APPEALS
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0062 - Change of use of ground floor from A4
(public house) to residential unit; Red Lion, The Street for Trustees of John
Ashton's Children's Settlement
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
12.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
None
13.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
BEESTON REGIS - PF/12/0387 - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission
reference: 06/1783 to permit use of chapel of rest/office building for a mixed use
of chapel of rest/office/overnight sleeping accommodation; Abbey Pets
Remembrance Gardens And Crematoria Ltd, Britons Lane for Mr R Edwards
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Change of use of building to B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage); Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
SEA PALLING - PF/11/1398 - Continued use of land for siting mobile holiday
home and retention of septic tank; Mealuca, The Marrams for Mr R Contessa
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0568 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings with
garages; Land adjacent 25 Cremers Drift for Mr S Pigott
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/12/1179 - Installation of five replacement front
windows; 5-7 High Street for Mr & Mrs Leftley
SEA PALLING - ENF/11/0084 - Installation of Septic Tank on Unoccupied Land
and installation of mobile home; Land at The Marrams, Sea Palling
14.
APPEAL DECISIONS
LANGHAM - PF/13/0076 - Erection of one and half storey rear extension; 2
Marryats Loke, Langham, Holt, NR25 7AE for Mr Banks
APPEAL DECISION:- DISMISSED
Development Committee
30
1 August 2013